Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-17-1998 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 17,1998-6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parkway—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Barbara Peterson AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the MARCH 9,1998, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2312 2.#2320 3.#2325 4.#2326 Claus Weiler & Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive. Conditional use permit with variances. Tabled from 1/20/98. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Mitchell and Asta Gershovitz, 3650 Casco Avenue. Variances. Tabled at the request of applicant on 1/20/98. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Lake Country Builders on behalf of John & Cindy Olson, 950 North Arm Drive. Variances. Tabled at the request ofthe applicant on 1/20/98. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road. Conunerical site plan review and variances. Tabled on 1/20/98. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISONS 7:00 p.m. 5. #2339 James D. Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road, Preliminary Subdivision. (Staff:Mike Gaffron). 7:15 p.m. 6. #2340 Robert Waade, 3280 and 32y0 North Shore Driv«‘. Picliminary Subdivision with Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). 7:30 p.m. 7. #2341 Daniel J. Anderson. 905 Old Crystal Bay Road, Preliminary Subdivision. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS Grant Wenkstem, owner of Lakeview Golf Course, 405 North Arm Drive. Conditional use permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). Khasrow Daivari, 1082 Loma Linda Avenue. After-the-fact variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Lecy Construction for Jeff Jacobsen, 127 Chevy Chase Drive. Variance. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee, 3285 Carmen Road. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Bruce Newton, 3580 Frederick Street. After-the-fact variance. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Scott Young, 3359 Crystal Bay Road. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Mark Casey, 255 Landmark Drive, Conditional use permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on January 26,1998 and February 9,1998 15. Other issues for discussion. 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes for January 20,1998. 17. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on Feb. 23, and March 9,1998. ADJOURNMENT 8.#2338 9.#2317 10.#2334 11.#2335 12.#2336 13.#2337 14.#2342 Public A ttendance Meeting Date C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. .■ ; ■: . • ■ NAME (please print)ADDRESS 1. nilTcU^i./. /viv I'iO n- PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER iiie 3(:S'oCA%(ro A 3 4 . cjzii' ^ ffVJl A 6oCO L^Q/JlCL^CT'iO ^ul!4tr^/ 5., 6 7 L/ajDA- a y cr^Y S/Th ^ /3/A o 7 .muiiu<^ / 5? 3<-/V ■ A^'iiu^nr________ 3f> 12.. 13.. 14. 15._ 09U9S.4 8?SJ I TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE:February 11,1998 SUBJECT:#2312 Claus Weiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:46,755 (total) 36,455 (contiguous) 10,300 (non-contiguous) square feet (1.07 acres) square feet (.84 acre) square feet (.24 acre) Application: The applicants are proposing the construction of an additional garage and replacement of a previously existing first and second level decks on the rear of the residence. The garage requires a variance for an accessory structure located in front of the principal structure. A conditional use permit is also required for locating an accessory structure on a through lot. The proposed decks require street and bluff setback variances. The application was tabled at the January 20,1998 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was directed to reduce the size of the garage to meet the required side setback and to provide information regarding the size of the previous decks. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 9(D): Location of Accessory Structures Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C2): Lot Coverage Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 2: Bluffs Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C 2 and 3): Bluff Setback, Impact Zone »2312 Claus H’eiUr/Renet Meerkins i 135 \orth Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/1-93 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB require ments subject property Lot Area 1 acre 1.07 acres (total) .84 acre (contiguous) .24 acre (non contiguous) Lot Width 140’ 115’ at street setback 53'at OHWL and 75’ setback Front Yard 35 ’ 183' existing 159’ proposed Side Yard 10’(15’for accessory structures >750 s.f.) -2.1’ 33.8' proposed for new accessory structure Rear Yard 35’ (abutting street) 41.22' existing 28' proposed Bluff Setback 30' 28' existing 19' proposed The combined lots currently meets lot area, rear and front setbacks. The lot does not meet width, side yard and bluff setbacks. An existing shed is located on the property line which does not meet the side yard setback. The applicant has indicated the shed will be removed when the additional garage is constructed. As proposed, setbacks for bluff and rear yard abutting a street will not be met. Structural Coverag e Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 36,455 s.f contiguous 10,300 s.f non-contiguous 3,458 s.f (proposed)9.5% (based on contiguous area) Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Wi/2 Claus Weiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page! Hardcoyer Distance from Shoreline 0'-75' 75 ’-250' 250'-500' 500'-1000 ‘ Total Area in Setback 4,075 s.f. 9,873 s.f. 8,245 s.f. 3,934 s.f. Existing Hardcover none none 6,543 s.f. (22.67%) 387 s.f. (9.84%) Allowed Hardcover none 2,468.3 s.f. (25%) 8,661.9 s.f. (30%) 1,376.9 s.f. (35%) Proposed Hardcover none none 8,236.5 s.f. (28.5%) 387 s.f. (9.84%) Variance Requested none none none none Hardcover is not an issue with this application. It should be noted that the proposed portion of the driveway leading to the new garage does not appear feeisible as there is only 15' allowed for back-out space, where approximately 30' is necessary. Staff does not foresee any hardcover problems with an expanded driveway of sufficient size. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The owners' statement of hardship is included on the application, Attachment .A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship I.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could continue to be used in its current state without the construction of an additional garage and decks, however, the variance and conditional use permit required for the garage are due to a peculiar lot configuration. The decks are replacing previously existing decks that were approximately 374 s.f. larger and encroached 23' further into the street and bluff setbacks. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. U2312 Claus Wtllfr/Rtnet Metrklns 1155 North Arm Drive yariances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/93 Page 5 The platted Elmwood Avenue separating Lot 6 from the building site makes the lot technically a through lot and therefore requires a conditional use permit.. This situation further requires variances for locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure. The subject property is not considered a lakeshore lot, therefore a variance is needed for the rear yard to meet the 35' street setback. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure, rear setback abutting a street, bluff setback and a conditional use permit for locating an accessory structure on a through lot will not change the character of the area. 4. 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Accessory structures are allowed in this zoning district provided they do not exceed 1,000 s.f. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Several residences in the area are located below the bluff on lots directly abutting the lake. These lots are not considered through lots. 6.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. The lot is unique because it functions as a lakeshore lot. However, due to the location of the platted Elmwood Avenue which separates the lakefront lot from the building site it is considered a through lot. Additional variances and a conditional use permit are necessary because of its through lot classification. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance and conditional use permit for the garage are required due because platted Elmwood Avenue bisects the lot. The previously existing first and second level decks cannot be replaced without the granting of the rear and bluff setback variances. U23I1 Claus Weiler/Renee Sfeerkins J 135 Sank Arm Drive yiarlancis and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page 4 8.The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Constructing an accessory structure that does not require variances and a conditional use permit is not possible due to the lot being considered a through lot and significant topography on the property. The residence has been constructed to accommodate the previous and proposed decks on the rear of the residence. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Property consists of two portions: the building site fronting on North Arm Drive and Lot 6, the separate lakeshore lot. The platted, but unbuilt Elmwood Avenue separates the two lots. Lot 6 is a separate ta.x parcel. The topography slopes away dramatically adjacent to the rear of the house. Staff has determined the top of the bluff to be the 978' elevation. Any additions to the rear of the house would be located within the required bluff setback. A portion of the area where the decks would be located would be visible from the lake. A variance was granted to allow' the combination of the lots for the building site and to subdivide the lot to the north in 1972 because the two resulting lots did not meet lot area requirements. In 1986, a lot line rearrangement between the two properties occurred. At that time the non-conforming shed was not shown on the survey. No permit was obtained for the construction of the shed according to city records. A three car garage currently exists on the property. First and second level decks previously existed on the rear of the residence that were removed several years ago. The applicant has provided a sketch (Attachment L) showing the approximate location of these decks as they existed and as proposed. The rear of the residence currently has sliding doors on the main and upper levels which would open to the proposed decks. »2312 Claus H’eiUr/Renee Mttrklns 1155 Sorth Arm Drive Variances and Condiiional Use Permit 2/17/98 Pages \ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances for the construction of an additional garage in front of the principal structure on a through lot and replacement of decks on the rear of the residence subject to a condition. Staff recommends approval of a variance allowing the an accessory structure to be located 159’ from the front lot line where the principal structure is located 216* from the front lot line. The existing accessory structure is located 183 ’ from the front lot line where no accessor’ structure is allowed to be located in front of the principal structure. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure on a through lot. Staff recommends approval of a bluff setback variance of 19 ’ to allow the nearest portion of the proposed deck to be located 11' from the top of the bluff where 30' is required. While it is not possible to construct decks on the rear of the residence without the granting of variances, a similar deck could be constructed on the south side of the residence that would not require variances. Staff recommends approval of a rear yard adjacent to a street setback variance of 7' to allow the nearest portion of the deck to the street to be located 2 8 ’-to the edge of the street where 35’ is required. The platted street does not exist and will not be constructed in the future. Staff recommends as a condition of the approval of the variances, the 8.8 ’ by 10’ shed encroaching onto the neighboring property to the north either be moved to a location on the property conforming to zoning requirements or removed from the property altogether. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this condition if a garage is tillowed to be constructed. H2312 Claus IVeiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page 6 :i! Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Property Owners List Survey Hardcover Worksheets Elevation Drawings for Garage Elevation Drawings for Decks Bluff Calculations Applicants Diagram of Existing and Proposed Decks H2312 Claus Weiler/Renee Meerklns 1135 North Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 2/17/98 Page! Application § Date Received - <9*7 Amount Paid ,-y. qq CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 y***^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) /jl^ ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) B u Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) .4 .3T>^ •*r -.••y.’;8 o fd >, Cl cn cu o PROPERTY INFORi\LATION SiteAddress _.//.:?5 //. hrlut^ {T\0U uKIL^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /0 9- //7-o?3 /V ; Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired__________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: __residential ____pother (specify). Zoning District: Lii ^ \(i " ^ r.t it Am , . Phone (hQm€)(ylzUlZ'S>l^4 U^e\LfnL.i Phone (work) r7fnJS!<7- APPLICANT Name________ Address: y/.^S A/. AftY]^I\r.City: fYlouuJtS !AK/ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) t^j A Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.. Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost .00 Describe request in detail: \\cuA^o\K12^. ^ ir> n'\n-friLL . M m J ^ A ^ ^ _(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore^ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing (attach additional sheets if necessary) A \ — lc6 PT OF\LOT 7 .\ ---- -4- , f 'i-' S^hi 343.76 ( Mi I mrs i ?10.53 166.01 8 155 ( 15) o V -29-15 ^ \I-PPOT STRIP REocRVsC*^ ■e~' \(l) • \2) ; V3) ! ■ \ \ f \ « i (23) 2 271.2 N 238. \ WEST POINT AVE (UND) QU tf.w'QHi 155 ■« 155 ' 26 \\ 27<t^ 29 v' S 23 < g ^'.( 26)' 20 5 (63) gal l«s_, ^'' ai > 31 , gl (7) 'i'(27): 19 7 -----------Vi.......■'* v^-.'\S^' o-.' ^',(69) \«9) ^"sT'l ! !,: l^z OtK >2(59) 151 •■;&I(3l)J u 1 1 '• l^l''i 39 1L . '5.5 'If^j ,5^ (54) a\33'33 ^LWOOO (3<V-^ AVE ~ y ^----------g M!s_„ 1 “ 186.5 ,L (13) s' (62) 309.NS9*C4* I5"E I (67) / 294.31 S89‘04'15*W ot TW^ rIL6.5 *°( r VAC OOC NO 5A35422 VAC COC fiO'6074255 I I cr cn\l2(l2)o 154.3 ^ 10 (lO).o 147.3 ^ 50 37.4 184.5 :cn(8) ./''V s'? ■ « 7 /' yi. V Z/35'.AhT.'U^ Permit No /o/7 3.yj>.3 a .. PERMIT RECORD Date / //// /->r 7 s. ■//- /o~7s //- s - -?(^ a-/7-!?6 i' u Type of Permit j/y J/O y~/ JL^') . ^Ol ^jdloLi £. I l ! RUN DATE 10/24/97 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 14 0008 01001 LOMA LINDA AVE GILMAN 6 SORENSON GILMAN G SORENSON 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GARY E BEITO ETAL TODD VAN DEN EINDE 1169 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0033 01180 ELMI'fOOD AVE JENNIFER ANNE WELSH JENNIFER ANNE WELCH 1180 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0057 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM R HIBBS WILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMWOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0062 01160 NORTH ARM DR K A A L M KELSEY KENNETH A A LOURITA M KELSEY 1160 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0065 01125 NORTH ARM DR VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN 1125 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0023 01101 ELMWOdO AVE WILLIAM R HIBBS WILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMWOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364 > 38 07-117-23 14 0029 01161 ELMWOOD AVE B E A R K GARLOCK BRUCE E GARLOCK 1179 ELMWOOD AV MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0034 00038 ADDRESS l^ASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 07-117-23 14 0060 01169 NORTH ARM DR TODD M VAN DEN EINDE ET AL TODD M VAN DEN EINDE 1169 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0063 01121 ELMWOOD AVE JAMES DESPLINTER JAMES DESPLINTER 1121 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0067 01180 NORTH ARM OR M W ERICKSON A N J ERICKSON MARK A NANCY ERICKSON 1180 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 07-117-23 14 0026 01137 ELMWOOD AVE C G WEILER A R.S MEERKINS RENEE S MEERKINS 1135 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0030 01179 ELMWOOD AVE B E GARLOCK ARK GARLOCK BRUCE GARLOCK 1179 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0052 01151 NORTH ARM DR RAY E KUT2 RAY E KUTZ 14113 GLENRIDGE RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 38 07-117-23 14 0061 01140 r40RTH ARM DR TIMOTHY L BRO TIMOTHY L BRO 1140 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0064 01135 NORTH ARM DR C G WEILER A R S MEERKINS RENEE S MEERKINS 1135 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0069 01153 ELMJ^OOD AVE RICHARD JAMES HEIT RICHARD JAMES HEIT 1153 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 JO ut 5 —v -'-c WiSy boa B no. * . S i --------------------------------- “s" ^.,n--/I ma S9 • -^ - «• " . r.» »ft 00 •tV______- \ ■■ ■= A ' r- ?" ' I. 5a ' •» / / / Q 1-14-1998 3:24PM CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZONE! FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 A710510 01/08/98 P. 2 S6 [ff 7^ HOUM LtBftfl WM& % X B. OtfMe C. Driveway X X D. SWcwilk X X E. PiUo/Deck X X F. LtndMtpe Uodtrlain By F\utic Or Fri)rtc X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total raOPWTT AKEA IN ZONE ^ 4^75 X 100 A. Houm Uft|(h Widdt X X X B. Otnt« C. Drtvewxy X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X 16:05 :0A/07 NO:528 500-1000 F. Uadfcap* Uoderlxla By PlMtic Or Fabric X X X C. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A ___Q--------— ® ■ X 100 - S.F. S.p. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B I 1 -Id-1998 3:25PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 88d 53dd P-3 01/08/98 16:05 S :05/07 NO:528CITY OF ORONO ______jf^124730510^,^^ ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S’ (' 75-250^. 250-500* 500-1000* tr. wa BDCQVER in zone A. House -------------------- V. V;d* B. Oenie C. Drlvewey D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deek F. taadaeape UoderUifl By nittlc Or Pibrie X X X X X X X X X X X X O. Oiber TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - ^ _____O______ + B 9g73>X100 - HAPPCOVtBM ZQME A. Heuse ------------------- * — Ixa|A WidA B. Girt|e C. Drivcwiy Da lldcwilk E. Pftiio/Dedc F. Landscape Undtrlain By Plastic Ot Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A p * ® .xlOO - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. 5.F ________S.F. ________S.F. O __% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B L HARDCOVER CALCULATION VVORigl^lET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ (^WO^OO^ EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House _____________ X _____________ “ _ Length B. Garage C. Driveway ycowc aaca D. Sidewalk ^ Cor\C A«CA E. Patio/Deck F. Landsc^ Uoderlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X Z/5-/95 500-1000’ a*L~? Width 2847 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A feS43 - B Z8S7^ S.F. __________S.F. __________S.F. S 2- S.F. X 100 Z-88 7 3 z> z> * & ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B f? PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Hous^ _____________ Length SHFO TO <SC B. Garage X X X --- WHC<1'C C. Driveway ____________ x K/0LrJ X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X G. Other Width ~ 82- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE VTO-U B 7 8R~?3 xlOO f\W Af<-A5 c«d 968 31 6 S68 S39 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X’lO'U S.F. __S.F. % A B 1_14-1998 3:26PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 88A 5344 CITY OF ORONO ® 6124730510 01/08/98 SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) P.-5 0-75'7S250 ‘3S0-S00’ 16:05 g :07/07 NO:528 L >00-1000’ • * £ A. Hcntfo l0ng± X X X B. Oiriie C. Driveway C>fiAoei^ D. Sidewalk E. Perio/Deck F. Liodacipe UnderltiA By Plaslic Or Fi^rie X X X X X X X X X 3B~7 O. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3g7 + B . 3g7 3934 xlOO q^BpcnVER IN ZONE NONC A. Home __________ * Ua|di WMih X X X B. Cartfe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk £. Pacto/Deck F. Landteape Uoderlaia By PlatUc Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^.*100 • S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ,S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. *S.F. 343 <S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ». S.P. % A B <50(2 yeC’ /fAJ(7 P/e^fn-^c^ /z. 4 "4 iimrni .. ,.| H I.*'. f((♦ 3 A'6'J / \ \ C:xC \J iop: .rz4x'- ' U\’ I- I *, \a(j fi^v^ •1-9 J- MN “ mi •Off -<H4 r9ii th-, |:i - *>SM f I a. 'V'.^ a H).o* ■>» V.*% N I 1------1-------^ ^ *r—I — 1 r*I • -I I —|- —I. |. , - ^ , I •• *1 I *1- * I • I-------1- I- f I I f I I ‘ I.......I --|- zco z*!t tJo t73 ccc rs0 ih w zt? ibv KO ifo iu> IP wo i:o iro vo im w to to ^ ^ ^ ^ |:ZC‘ I t» HU) -•WM "•tuu •nn -fH -f m --•w ^W.M 10 y TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant 1/28/1998 SUBJECT:#2320 Mitchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:38,060 square feet (.87 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing to construct a bay window over a portion of an existing deck and a dormer over the existing attached garage. An average lakeshore setback variance is required. This application was previously tabled from the January 20, _________ 1998 meeting to allow the applicant to revise their application to include the dormer. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback U2320 Mitchell and Asta Cersovit: having an interest in 3630 Casco Circle yariance 2/17/98 Page I ■‘V ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC subject property Lot Area .5 acre .87 acre Lot Width 100 ’ 131 ’atOHWL 158’ at 75’ setback Lakeside Yard 75’ 119 ’ Side Yard 10' ir Rear Yard 30 ’ The subject property meets all zoning requirements, Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Staff estimates the amount of structural coverage at approximately 10%. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application. Since the bay window will be constructed over an existing deck and the dormer will be constructed over the existing garage, the amount of hardcover will not increase. Hardcover in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback includes steps, a retaining wall, 9 s.f. deck and 18 s.f. lock box. There is a disproportionate amount of hardcover in the 250’ to 500’ lakeshore setback, the "panhandle" portion of the yard that contains the driveway. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants’ should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The location of the adjacent residence on what is technically a lakeshore lot makes any construction on the lot subject to an average lakeshore setback variance. *^2520 Mitchell and Asta Gersoxitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle I ar lance 2/17/98 Page 2 '1 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The neighboring lot to the south has a 20' wide strip extending to the lake, making it a lakeshorc lot. Due to this unusual configuration and the placement of the neighboring residence farther back from the lakeshore on this property, an a\ erage lakeshore setback variance is required for any addition. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality The variance for average lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Bay windows and domiers are permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The presence of a long, 20' wide strip of land abutting the lake on the neighboring property to the south makes that property a lakeshore lot, despite the residence being located farther back from the lake than the neighboring residences. Because it is adjacent to the subject properly, it skews the average lakeshore setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The properties on either side of 3630 Casco Avenue are subject to a more restrictive average lakeshore setback because of the unusual platting of the area. The granting of the application is necessary' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. All structures on the lot are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Any additions require an average lakeshore setback variance. *^2320 SUtchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Idriance 2/17/98 Page 3 i 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar>’ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the platting of 3630 Casco Avenue as a lakeshore lot, the subject property is subject to an interpretation of the average lakeshore setback requirement that prohibits further improvements unless variances are granted. Issues 1. The property meets all zoning requirements except average lakeshore setback. 2. 3. 4. The location of the residence on 3630 Casco Avenue, which is considered a lakeshore lot prohibits improvements without variances. The bay window and dormer over the garage will not further encroach upon the average lakeshore setback or diminish existing views. An average lakeshore setback variance was granted in 1992 to allow the construction of the new residence. At the time, hardcover was proposed at less than 25% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. 5. 6. A disproportionate amount of hardcover exists in the 250' to 500 ’ lakeshore setback due to this being the "panhandle" portion of the lot containing the driveway. A small amount of hardcover exists in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The 18 s.f. lock box and 9 s.f. deck located near the lakeshore appear to meets code requirements for water oriented accessory structures per Section 10.56, Subdivision 14(E). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. • Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a bay window over the existing deck on the lake side of the residence and a dormer over the existing attached garage 61.6' and 38' ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The existing residence encroaches 83' in front of the average lakeshore setback line and where no encroachment is allowed. ft2320 SUtcheli andAsta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 2/17/98 Page 4 Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings 1 U2320 iKfUchell and Asia Cersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Fariance 2/17/98 Page 5 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220. After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U A3 3~6 Date Received ^ y *7 Amount Paid ^ ^ A 6 '7 b ^ PROPERTY INFORiVUTION SileAddress 3/^SO CrtSfO f\./on„ie^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) '^n - .St ^ I n mi ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on reQufred survey.apputaiion ii noi mciuaeo on reqmrea /q 0.,r fJt ti P j / ^ j i^'> le adjacent parcels of land. Date Property Acquired___/o H.? d.ru ^ /9-^^_________(month/year) I (do) (dpfi^) also own the adjacent pan Present use of property: Y residential ___ Zoning District: nAavm L,j^- 1 p other (specify) APPLICANT Name \W \rcv^a 11 •*. /)-(xP fSL 1 7 Address:'L/vfU’f' Citv: Phone (home) 7 A/ SJL 7 F Phone (work) ^ r^j Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^hri^-fopiV/'T. ^ IlUfd 6o\Ah Address: M-'SO C gscq . Orrtio Phone (home) ^ ^ St3^ _____ Phone (work)_____________ City: Or on r> _______Zip:_____ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Alo.oooEstimated Construction Cost $________ ! "> I I "7* Cf I /V L. L Jt ^ (Oo^ g /.t . A- Aav C6v\A/c4o/tif77^ry) . ~rL^ (attach additional sheets if necissaiy) c c /vttTKkC VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ ------Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS .Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________ -----I or.»^4^<0 /^UoorO ^^prjn^K^i (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 i I ‘ ■9 <■<7 /;- zo-in-23 ’-ZH bs S /i- B ' (22) ^/ (23) ^/ ■^^iSS 7 _____. R=3l^^ -/ :&--' V /\ H '' \(j> (28) (31)'■s> (32) / 109 Y)/( '57)^'A / '07 ^98 / ^''>A 1 X 106 42 / -(^5 (■ 73) ■Slvi > -VI . V ✓(>' /0\ 0 O »o .«p,^ l" / /L /, ®<2) ■=J RUN DATE 12/10/97 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HEJ^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST 38 20-117-23 2^ OO^^l 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES a SUSAN PERCIVAL CHARLES a SUSAN PERCIVAL 2732 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0005 03709 CASCO AVE R PRESLER/E J PRESLER TRSTES ROBERT PRESLER 3709 CASCO AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0031 0Z9l^ CASCO POINT RO B I GLASSMAN ANA CLASSMAN BARRY I a NANCY A GLASSMAN 2914 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN ' 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0041 03630 CASCO AVE P GRAFFUNOER a K GRAFFUNDER PETER a KERRY GRAFFUNDER 3630 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0062 02740 CAROLINE AVE 8 L a J M ROSSTEDT SCOTT a JANET ROSSTEDT 2740 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROY SCHRADER ET AL H/L EST ROY SCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0039 03704 CASCO AVE ROY SCHRADER ET AL H/L EST ROY SCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0042 03600 CASCO AVE RICHARD J HAEFELE a WIFE RICHARD HAEFELE 3600 CASCO AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0073 02918 CASCO POINT RD JEFFREY L FAWBUSH ET AL JEFFREY L a RENAE T FAhSUSH 2918 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORl NO. P1435401 PAGE 1 38 20-117-23 31 0004 03703 CASCO AVE CARLOTTA F GABLES CARLOTTA F GABLES 3703 CASCO AVE WAYZA7A MN 55391. 38 20-117-23 31 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENT4EPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0040 03700 CASCO AVE J W OONGOSKE/P A DONGOSKE JAMES W a PATRICIA DONGOSKE 3700 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0043 03650 CASCO AVE CHRISTOPHER J SMITH ET AL CHRISTOPHER J SMITH 3650 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00014 f i “ PERMIT RECORD Fi Permit No.Date Type of Permit-m '5-3?.-b ‘b 14-72 ‘O' lb-fo7 h^Tyt^ (juo ;3050 4--II --7I _ .A-a5-7o ________S- B-/)9 6) S*_J^/yy\ rsJ- liJ6z^ <J)o\7^ __n>~ <55''6(^T^JrL ^ _ .Fdm/?io(l IhmO llfS'g 7 •nU. sfw^ shim. ~7 -.7,5! - — ------------------jr—T—^ rh . /rnSt SfA n S7 a^^ 01^. - ?S rtu ILA lyni^ ^5<pisQ7 Vof? Jls&Y[jpji) rciA Jhai - ..'93L. _.__ o2-4J,-<9J 'h^h V'y^Audfaix. .i d-/?-C. ^ • VV/f b- V-/i)(5 Xio %; ^ S^so v:?V^> - 5^ V s— L^oa^i 6-//, -^4 WkiA^ ^llAbr^I , nM)y 0/i ‘^L> /O' 9^ PERMIT RECORD S’ioQ * = “ => > **1 o"5>Q-> 2 » (/)Q -I.-<r > ~-«*j 5-'project courcATc Of suKvrr ro« MITCH & ASIA GERSOVITZ nw3 Kcflr>/>73 COFFM A GROffi^ ML JUm •IA-I73-4I41 _____ 6 \*h \ *. •*, S i A .1 m / / \ r-» ri To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator^-^j^^^ Februar>’ 12,1998 #2326 Orono Development LLC, 2380 Shadyvvood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review & Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/2/98 B - Applicant's Letter Responding to City Comments 2/2/98 C - Revised Site Plan D - Revised Elevation Views E - Revised Landscape Plan F - Revised Grading Plan G - Revised Utility Plan H - Letter from Hennepin County Public Works 2/2/98 I - Comments from Wallace Case of DSU Inc. (City's Landscape Plarming Consultant) J - City Engineer Comments 2/13/98 K - Memo &|^xhibits of 1/16/98 Revised Proposal The applicant has responded in writing to the site plan and variance review comments noted in the January staff memo as well as the comments of Wally Case and City Engineer Tom Kellogg. The responses are enumerated in the AMCON letter of February 2 (Exhibit B). Please review that letter and the revised plan. Exhibits C thru G. A brief review of the revisions follows: I. Site Plan fExhibit O: a. b. c. d. The building floor plan and location has not changed. The general traffic flow pattern remains as previously shown. One entrance monument has been eliminated and the remaining monument and pylon sign have been relocated to meet a 13' setback. The location of the trash enclosure has been slightly reoriented to be less visible to the neighborhood. File #2326 February 12,1998 Page 2 3. e. f. g< h. A sidewalk from Olive Avenue to the building sidewalks has been added to provide neighborhood access through the site. The 5' parking setback is still requested; three bumpouts for tree locations at the edge of the parking lot have been added to the plan (note that existing tree locations have also been shown on the site plan). The electrical transformer has been moved to the back of the building to be less visible. The total number of parking spaces has been reduced from 64 to 62, but still meets the 56 space requirement based on the bank/office/retail combination; if the entire 5280 s.f. retail space becomes restaurant-type uses and 50% is public space, then an additional 3 spaces for a total of 59 would be needed under the zoning code formula, which the proposal would still meet. 2. Elevation Views/Building Design (Exhibit D): a. b. c. Applicant has added design features which help break up the large expanse of roof, and has provided elevation views of all four sides of the building The cedar shake over brick wall facade is still proposed, and will require the granting of a variance. Not shown on the plan, but inherent in the design, will be railings along the retail space walkway in front and the two elevated access doors at the rear. Landscape Plan (Exhibit E): (Also see Wally Case's original comments. Exhibit I, which were not available at the January meeting) a. b. c. Additional trees are now' being shown across the front of the site, including one in the County right-of-way near the O'Sullivan access drive. Additional more dense plantings including Black Hills Spruce are shown along the north boundary of the property adjacent to the residential property. Additional plantings are shown around the stormwater pond and along Olive Avenue. d. Screening plantings are proposed along the east side of the retaining wall behind the building. File #2326 February 12, 1998 Pages e.The overall landscape plan appears to be much more in concert with the landscape architect's suggestions. 4. Gradin^^ Plan (Exhibit F): a.The building has been raised approximately 1.5' in order to reduce some of the steepness in the parking lot and at the slope at the north end of the site. b. The steepest slopes in the parking lot appear to be near 4% as recommended by the City Engineer. c.The slope at the north end of the site adjacent to the residential property has been decreased from 1:1.5 to 1:2. d.The retaining wall behind the building will range from 12' to 14' in height, lower at both ends. Prior to its construction, an engineered design will need to be submitted. e.Additional grading is shoNvn in the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated to make that area more maintainable. f.See City Engineer Comments, Exhibit J. A few minor engineering details are needed. 5. Utility Plan (Exhibit G): a. Minor revisions have been made to the site storm sewer system. b.Additional information and minor changes to the NURP pond are shown. This also needs to be reviewed by the MCWD. Issues for Discussion 1.Has applicant provided sufficient hardships and justification for the variance for front yard parking setback of 5' rather than 20' as required by code? Do the additional trees proposed along Shadywood Road resolve the concerns about lack of a green buffer within the front yard of this site? 2.Are the revised building elevations acceptable? Does Planning Commission feel the variance to allow the cedar shake over brick facade is justified? Are there any other design features of the building Planning Commission feels should be revised? m File U2326 February 12, 1998 Page 4 3. Is the slight reorientation of the trash enclosure acceptable? 4.Is the overall landscaping plan sufficient to enhance the neighborhood orientation in this B-5 zone, as well as hide those aspects of the site which are necessary but visually negative (i.e. the high retaining wall, the trash enclosure, etc.) ? 5.Given the Hennepin County approval of two entrances, and Planning Commission's previous comment that two entrances appear necessary, does Planning Commission have any further comments regarding access to the site? 6.Noting that one monument sign is deleted and the other monument sign and pylon sign would meet the 10’ front setback, does Planning Commission have any concerns about signage? 7.Staff has not identified any additional lighting plans in the recent submittals. Does Planning Commission feel additional site lighting depictions are necessary? 8.Applicant notes that due to the extensive grading of the site, no existing trees will be preserved. Does the revised landscape plan provide sufficient replacement trees to meet Planning Commission's goals for this site? 9. Is the applicant's rationale for the hardcover variance acceptable? 10. Is the location of the pedestrian trail adjacent to the parking lot (rather than through it) acceptable? 11. Does Planning Commission have any further general comments regarding the proposal? Staff Recommendation Applicant has done a good job of addressing the concerns reviewed by Planning Commission m January, in staffs opinion. This is a difficult site. Planning Commission should review the applicant's new submittals in comparison with the January 16th staff comments, the January 23rd Wally Case comments, and the January 12th comments by City Engineer Tom Kellogg. Planning Commission should then make recommendations regarding the following general issues: 1 . Site plan and layout 2. Building design and facade materials variance File #2326 February 12, 1998 Pages 3. Landscape plan 4.Hardcover variance 5. Front yard parking setback variance 6. Ancillary site issues (lighting, signage, etc.,j Applicant has requested that Planning Commission's recommendations be forwarded to the City Council for review on February 23. Options for Action 1.Recommend approval of the variances and commercial site plan, noting hardships and any specific conditions. 2. Table for further information (specif/). 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. - - - —- - - CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cry stal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Orono Development, LLC 50r0 Glenwood Avenue #225 Mpls.,MN 55442 ATTN; Tom Dillon ZONING FILE #2326 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 2,1998 COPIES TO:Adam Smith Co. 700 Cedar St. #121 Alexandria, MN 56308 ATTN; Ted Christianson TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance/Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 1/20/98 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to work w ith staff in addressing issues of concern noted in staff memo. It was helpful to meet with you on the 27th to review the list of issues to address. I will be out of town February 4-11, but will be back on the 12th to finalize staff reports for the February' 17 meeting. Please have all revised submittals to me by 8;00 a.m. on the 12th. Any submitta*s for City Engineer review should be forwarded directly to Tom Kellogg at Bonestroo as well as copied to me. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 17, 1998, meeting starts at 6;30 p.m. It is my intent to take this item directly to the February 23 Council meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. X;\APPS\WP\VlN60\WPDOCS\CAROLEU»CACTlON\2326 I 4&AMCON Design • Construction • Construction Management 2 February 1998 City of Orono 2750 Kellev Parkwav # 0 Post Office Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Attn: Michael Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator RE: Proposed Orono Retail Building Dear Michael: 3 We have received your site plan and variance review comments dated 16 January 1998 aivd the comments of Wallace Case (dated 23 January) and Tom Kellogg (dated 12 January); we intend to address them in the following manner: Response to Site Plan Review Comments: 1. No response required. 2. Limited restaurant uses were approved by Planning Commission 20 January 1998. 3. A. No response required. B. No response required. C. The I ;vised site plan will continue to show' the front yard parking setback at 5’ because of the unusual and extreme topography of this site. However the site plan will be revised to show larger tree planting islands in lieu of three parking spaces along Shadywood Road. D. Comment withdrawn by planner. E. No response required. F. Landscape Plan will be revised to show coordinated planting at pond area, more landscape screening along Olive Avenue, two additional boulevard trees at Shadyv"" ’ Road, and planting in the County R.O.W. along Shadywood Road bei ae subject site and Culver’s to compensate for the reduced planting area available due to the proposed 5’ parking setback. G. 1. Building elevations will be revised as requested by the Planning Commission and remaining building elevations will be included. 2. Trash enclosure will be designed and detailed in a manner compatible with the main building. Landscape screening at trash enclosure will be increased. H. Drainage Plan will be revised per comments; storm sewer and ponding calculations will be provided with revisea drawings. I. Giading at parking lots will be revised so that steepest slopes are closer to 4%. Any slopes in the landscape areas that exceed 3:1 will be planted in a manner that minimizes maintenance. Revisions to parki-.g lot grades will likely cause the retaining wall to grow to approximately 12’ high at its highest point, 200 W. Hwy. 13* Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Phone: 612-890-1217 • FAX: 612-890-0064 Offices in Minneapolis • .*'i:/vaukee tapering do>vn to 0 ’ at the ends. A fence will be provided at the top for safety. F idestrian trail will be located adjacent to rather than through the parking lot. J. Building elevations will be redesigned to reduce the visual impact of roof. 4. A. Trash enclosure was rotated to face doors away from residential districts. B. The revised site plan will continue to show two driveways from Shad>'wood Road into the site. It is the opinion of the applicant that one driveway would create site congestion between bank drive-through customers and people using the parking lot for the other businesses on the .site. Also, it is the intent of the applicant and the owner of Culver’s next door to provide a connection between these adjacent parking lots. A second driveway would allow those who wish to visit Culver's to avoid driving through the entire parking lot of this site to get there. The distance from the nearer of the two driveways to the intersection of Countv Road 15 and Shadvwood Road exceeds the minimum distance required by Hennepin County. Furthermore, the county approved these same two driveway locations for this site in a letter dated 18 November 1996. C. One monument sign was deleted; the other monument sign and the pylon sign were relocated 10 ’ from the front property line. Designs for all signage will be included with the sign permit application which will be submitted at a future date. D. Not used. E. Additional notes and site lighting cut sheets will be included with the revised drawings. F. Response to front yard parking issue is included in Items #3C and 3F above. G. Deliveries will occur for the most part at the rear of the building. The 20 ’ wide drive shown will be adequate for one parking lane and one driving lane in the same direction. H. No response required. I. Due to the extensive regrading that must accompany development of this site, no existing trees w ill be preserv ed. Landscape Plan will be revised per Item #3F above. Response to Variance Request Comments: 1 . The applicant ’s rationale for requesting the hardcover variance is threefold: a. All stormwater runoff from this site will be captured by an on-site pond and therefore not affect the w ater quality of the lakes that the hardcover ordinance is meant to protect. b. The unusual topography of this site is such that the most level and developable portions happen to be within the hardcover zones. c. Even with the hardcover variance, this site will contain a lower percentage of hardcover than the most commercial sites in Navarre. 2. It is the opinion of the applicant that this site cannot be reasonably developed without the variance reducing the front yard parking setback from 20 ’ to 5 ’. The current site plan shows a 5 ’ parking setback and minimal widths for the parking lot, sidewalk, building, and service drive, and will require a retaining wall at the pond which is 10 ’- 12 ’ at its highest point. Any additional front yard parking setback will translate directly into a prohibitive amount of fill being imported onto the site and an even higher retaining wall facing Olive Avenue. The applicant has revised the Landscape Plan to provide more trees along Shadywood Road and planting in the County R.O.W. where this site. Culver's, and Shadywood Road come together. 3. Comment withdrawn by planner. Response to Landscape Review Comments; 1. Applicant’s justification for hardcover and parking setback variances appear above. 2. Recommendation for zoning amendment was approved by Planning Commission. 3. Access and circulation issues are addressed in Item MB above. 4. Building elevations have been redesigned; side and rear elevations will be submitted. 5. Trash enclosure will be rotated to direct doors away from Olive Avenue and will be designed similar to the main building. The trash enclosure v\.d be well-screened from Olive Avenue; attaching the trash enclosure to the main building as suggested will not make it significantly less noticeable to neighboring properties and will diminish the attractiveness of the adjacent leasable space within the building. 6. No response required. 7. See Item #41 above. 8. Pedestrian trail will be located adjacent to rather than through the parking lot. 9. Additional planting will be shown to screen the retaining wall from Olive Avenue. A boulder retaining wall would not be appropriate due the vehicular traffic loads near the top. Applicant will study terracing the wall however it appears that terracing would take up more width and therefore more total height and would also lead to a prohibitive cost increase. 10. Grading issues are addressed in Item #31 above. 11. Landscaping issues are addressed in Item #3F above. 12. Lighting issues are addressed in Item #4E above. 13. Signage issues are addressed in Item #4C above. Response to Engineering Review Comments: Engineering issues (including grading and drainage) will be addressed in a separate letter and on revised drawings which w ill be forwarded to you and directly to the engineer who performed the original reviews We hope that all concerns of planning staff are satisfied by the revisions outlined in this letter uiM] on the revised drawings. Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, AMCON CORP. Michael Supina Project Architect cc: Dale Sonnichsen - Amcon Corp. Tom Dillon - Orono Development, L.L.C. Tom Kellogg - Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Assoc. mfl;$ r!ii!i ViOS3NNIl^ 'ONOdO • 1 1111 i 1111 11 1 DNianina niviaa ONoao onn 'iNak'JdonaAaa oNObo ii ag ma» ig 8 St--- < g ¥ \ §1 |if! sl^T ii,. ll|t| ^l|i| Ijilillllil hiSiif i ill ©0 \ 's/' \ ,8:m (\ I r \ \ \H\C|i \i \ J \ \ ■' V - \\ \ V^'v N - \ ''v'\ \ ''0-. \ V N Vx - ^ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ - \ \ \ i I V jy.t (sO 1 ) ,) ,()V''"'< > f a i 8X88 } e I V "V -I z0 1LU_J LJ h-zoccu. QLU WO 0.Otc QL 0 11 11 z 0 1UJ_i UJ LU Q W Q UJ (/)O 0. O QC 0. zg ILU_J UJ UJ9 (/) QLU (/)o0.o QC0. 0 zg I_i UJ QC Si QC O LU WOCL O QC 0. I w i I v\\i|il}i l!.iilHi ,1IIIIliJ |i illl i\ 111 >iliilllllili |, } 111!lii |iH i « E|C m m M Q • 2 f ? - \\ / / iHfI J ■ i* I i |i i n! 3 Jni 2i -V i liiSi ' ! III.11 V10S3NN1W ‘ONObO ONiaiina niviau onouo lNa^W13A3Q CBSOdObd r.l! 9 a.4 6 I I If M 'll iil i « i iJ ViOS3NNIWONOWO ONiaiina niviau ONOdo iNav^iaABai ll||!Si 31; I Hi'ilil li li i} 3 §ga! iii ll 9 CM Io ' • I ini I \n3 i a 11 ^ III § 11 Mills! S!lllllllH O » (D ‘ <i ': i»‘ (1 > i ■ i jIT*i• i / z fia. I- ‘j♦ -cf '•‘r ¥ VP '4^ Hennepin County A. Aa Equal Opporliuiilj Employer H vt<> Febiuaiy2, 1998 - n-0^'^ of ‘ Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kell^ Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Redevelopment at 2380 Shadywood (CSAH 19) Mike: As stated in the July14, 1997, letter and subsequent entrance permit number 4128, Hennepin County approves the shared driveway onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 approximately 130 feet north of Shoreline (CSAH 15). The concept of another driveway appro.ximately 260 feet further north on CSAH 19 is also acceptable. If and when city approvals are granted, please remind the developers to obtain a formal permit from Hennepin County for the construction of the new driveway and the removal of all unused aprons on both CSAHs 15 and 19. Please feel free to call with any further questions or discussion. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:jrh cc; Greg Gappa, City of Orono John O’Sullivan Departinenl of Public Work! 320 Washington Avaue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 S496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 SKjdklP^ 01/23/98 15:08 ©612 337 5601 DSU. INC.0002'006 IMl ILGREN SllARDLOW AND UBAN INCOHrOttATtO CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-3393300 PHONE 612-337-5601 FAX DATE:23 January 1998 TO:Mike Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55523 RHCEiVSD JAN 2 3 1998 CITY Or 0R0.\'0 FROM:Wallace L. Case, ASLA Landscape Architect/Plannor RE:Orono Development, L.LC. File No. 139-2327 As you requested, I have reviewed the site plans for the proposed commercial redevelopment of the Baptist church property located between County Road 18 and Olive Avenue, northwest of the Sullivan/Culver development and County Road 15, In the Navarre District of Orono. The proposal is for the removal of the existing church and the development of a smalLstrip center (11,000 sf). The proposal indicates that this center would Include a coffee shop, bagel shop. Other neighborhood retail, and a bank with drive-up tellers. I offer the followingeobservations and comments. My comments are based on a site planning, environmental and aesthetic perspective. Issues: 1.Variances The developer is requesting two variances to accommr *te the development of the project. 1.)The developer is requesting a variance to allow 47.7 % hardcover in Zone 1 and 77.3 % hardcover in Zone 2. The permitted hardcover is 35 % In both zones. It is up to the developer to demonstrate that meeting the requirement represents an undue hardship, they have not created nor exacerbated that hardship, there is no reasonable recourse other than by variance, and that they are requesting the OiUOBSM 609.6\aCC0MM 2398LLC.MEM i 01>'23'9S 15: OS ®612 337 5601 DSU. INC.©003 006 2J minimum variance necessary. They need to be aware that variances are a solution of last resort. This site with its NURP pond, steep topography, and Justifiably stringent Zone 1 and Zone 2 hardcover standards, is a very challenging site on which to build this type of commercial development. However, there are a number of i.nterrelated site issues to fully address prior to any consideration of a hardcover variance. A drainage analysis needs to be conducted to determine if the environmental and hydrological objectives that pnrve as the basis for the hardcover requi ement can be fully met through the use of the NURP pond and on site drainage system. The development team also needs to look Qt ways of increasing the site plan efficiency, and reducing building area, parking areas, and surfacing to the minimum necessary. They also need to look at increasing green space wherever possible. The second variance request is for the reduction of the parking setback along County Road 19, from 20 feet to 5 feet. This request involves several issues. As most of the affected parking area is located in Zone 1 and Zone 2, the requested reduction of setback green space also increases the percentage of hardcover. A five feet wide setback does not provide sufficient room to plant and grow trees to buffer the parking area. It also may not provide room for adequate unobscured clear zones and driver reaction time at the intersections. This proposed development is located at one of the major intersections serving this part of the Lake Minnetonka area. In addition, the proposal does not provide any cushion to accommodate the kinds of changes that can and do occur over time at major intersections (IE. widening, adding lanes, walks or trails). 2. Zoning Amendment The developer is also requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow the specific proposed uses within the B-5 District. Depending on the sizr end mode of operation, the proposed coffee shop, bagel shop, and pizza Shop may be appropriate and desirable for the area. Whether they are suitable to the site depends on the extent that they function as restaurants. As you are aware restaurant uses with significant seating can generate several times the parking need of retail uses. It would be difficult to meet the parking and traffic needs for more that a single sit down type restaurant use on this site. The other retail uses are not identified and are assumed to be uses that are permitted under the current ordinance. The market will determine what uses can be successful at this location. Over time the City may bo asked to review and amend the ordinance by adding new uses that meet the intent of the comprehensive plan and ordinance. It is important to understand that this pr<*''*.osed center is located at one of a few major intersections in the area and that ' 'ly that there will be requests for various uses in the years to come. 3. Aceesg and Circulation The proposed access to this site Includes a two-way entrance that Is too close to the County Road 15/County Road 19 intersection. Tfie safety and function of this -2- 01/23-9S 15:08 0612 337 5601 DSU. INC.0004 006 entrance location (for either a two-way or right-in-only access) needs to be reviewed by a traffic engineer. If the southern access Is eliminated, the internal circulation to accommodate the bank drive-up tellers and Culver connection would be through the front parking bay. This may result In some parking and access conflicts. 4. Architectural Treatmer)t The developer needs to provide elevations of ell building facades for City review. The architectural treatment of any building on this site needs to reflect the following. The site is located at one of only three north/south crossing points in the Lake Minnetonka area. The County Road 19/County Road 15 Intersection is the mainr cross roads between the lower and upper Lake MinnetonltH arf»as . The architectural treatment of the sits needs reflect the importance of this Intersection and to help set the tone for the area. In addition/ the architectural treatment of the site needs to reflect the transition between the commercial uses and the adjacent residential uses. The architecture, and landscaping must protect and enhance the identity and character of the surrounding setting. The building needs to incorporate and express suitable architectural Style, character, scale, design detailing, materials, colors, and signing. The architectural style and detailing needs to be of a higher quality. The scale and massing of the proposed building needs to be more sympathetic to the surroundings. The proposed building includes a large asphalt shingle roof that is a major visual part of the building. This roof may need to be broken into more planes, reduced somewhat In overall mass and height. The cupola Is a nice idea. The roof should « also be constructed of a visually higher quality.material (IE. cedar shakes). Cedar shingles are not listed as approved materials In the City code. However, the use of high quality cedar shakes for roofs and siding Is in character with the lake area. The Other proposed materials are generally suitable. All facades also need to Incorporate, more and better detailing and fenestration. The porticos and entrances are fairly large and flat (In the same plane as the fascia). The curved atgn panels are overly repetitive and would be difficult to read. *>. 5. Tr^sh Enclosuri» The trash enclosure should be attached to building In an architecturally appropriate manner at the northern end of the building. 6. Outdoor Seating Area Outdoor spaces and seating areas need to incorporate appropriate design features, scale, detailing, locations, landscaping, and lighting. -3- 01/23'98 15:09 0612 337 5601 DSU. INC.(2]005-'006 • ?• Existing Trees The developer needs to indicate the location, si;;e, genus, species and base elevation of all existing trees over 6 caliper inches in size. 8. Itflil Providing a trait connection between the commercial area surrounding the Navarre crossroads and the residential area to the northeast is generally desirable to lessen uncontrolled pedestrian access through the commercial uses. However, the trail location as proposed through the northern parking lot is not acceptable for safety reasons. A trail connection at that location would also promote vehicles cutting through to Olive Avenue. The developer should determine what would be needed to construct a trail connection along the Culver boundary. 9. Retaining Wall This project requires the construction of a retaining wall that Is approximately 10 feet high and that is exposed to vlev./s from the northeastern residential areas. This wall needs to be terraced if possible, constructed of natural stone or boulders and heavily landscaped to buffer the adjoining residential district. This wall will require a suitable fence/guard rail along the top to meet building code. This wall is is adjacent to the only exit from the drive-up tellers and is below a steep slope. Some visually appropriate barrier may be needed to ensure vehicular safety. 10. Grading I • The front parking includes an area with grades in excess of five percent. The site plan and grading need to be revised to lessen the grade to a maximum of 4 percent. Part of the driveway along the northwestern side of the building exceeds 7 percent and is pitched toward the drop off at approximately 4 percent. This area needs to be redesigned to lessen the slope, and to reduce the cross pitch to 2 percent. 11. ' Landscaping The development of this property must provide significant landscaping along both residential frontages in order to adequately buffer those areas. The plan needs to provide additional deciduous, evergreen trees and shrubs to accomplish this objective. The ordinance calls for 50 percent opacity along commercial/residential side or rear common boundaries. This project will also result in the loss of some significant existing trees. The development needs to provide additional deciduous trees along county Road 15 and the Culver boundary to enhance the overall image of the project and area. -4- ► 0-1/23/98 15:09 mi2 337 5601 DSU. INC.0006'006 12. Liahting A lighting plan needs to be submitted for review. Lighting style and intensity should both enhance the architectural character of the development and protect the adjoining uses from glare. 13. Sionaae and Entry Monuments Signage and entrv' treatment plans need to be submitted for review. The site plans Indicate entry monuments at both entrances, a pylon sign at the southern entrance and individual signs at each building entrance. This project will need a well designed, architecturally suitable and unified approach to signage to enhance the area, identify the businesses and best serve the public. If you have questions or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at 339- 3300. DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. /I Wallace L. Case, ASIA Landscape Arehitect/Planner -i- ■ i 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects February 13, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Orono Development, L.L.C File No. 139-2327 Dear Mike, Bonestroo. Bcscnc. Ardr^hk ,^nd AisodMes !n„ is Affirm^ttve Action Opportunity impfoycr Principals Otto G Bonestroo PE • Joseph C AnOeri k. PE • L Sorvdl.^ PE • Richard E Turner. PE. • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schumcht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon, PE Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Pr/nc/p,Its Ho^.^rcJ A Sanford PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle, PE Richard W Foster. PE • D.'vid O Loskota. PE • Robert C RuiseV. Al A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P AneJersen. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PH • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud. MINI • Milwaukee. Wl : J We have reviewed the revised grading and utility plans and the storm sewer and pond calculations for the proposed commercial development located on the east side of Shady wood Road (CSAH 19), north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre. The development includes a full service bank with drive-up auto tellers and a single story retail office complex. The following engineering issues need to be addressed as part of the plan review process. The ponding and drainage calculations submitted appear to be acceptable for the proposed site. The drainage area map provided shows 0.16 acres of the Orono Retail site draining easterly to the Culver ’s Restaurant site. No storm sewer calculations were submitted for these flows however it appears that there is adequate capacity in the Culver system to accommodate this runoff. Retaining wall details and design should be submitted for our review. Pipe grade and length for the 12 inch RCP located downstream from MH-2 should be revised on the plan sheets to reflect those used in the storm sewer calculations (30 feet @ 5.0%). Please contact me at 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612*636-4600 - Fax: 612-636-1311 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator A January 16, 1998 SUBJECT: #2326 Orono Development L.L.C., 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Requesting commercial site plan approval for a multi-tenant, one story 11,000 s.f. retail/serv'ice center building. The variances identified include 500-1,000' zone hardcover, and parking setback from street. The site is 1.86 acres in area including the portions of Navarre Lane which the City has agreed to vacate concurrent with development of this site. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map r - Property Owners List D - Applicant's Letters of Request E - Adjacent Property Owner Acknowledgment Forms F - Existing Conditions Survey - Site Plan Survey ^ H-Detailed Site Plan (Al) ^ I - Proposed Front Elevation (A2) ^ J - Landscape Plan (LI) ^ K - Grading Plan (C1) ^ L - Utility Plan (C2) M - Site Plan Coordinated with Culver's Site N - B-5 District Standards O - Street Vacation Documentation r - Ci+1 Site Plan Review 1. Conformity with purpose of B-S District. The B-5 District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant proposes an 11,000 s.f. retail/service center building including a 3,150 s.f. bank with drive t Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 2 up window; a 5,280 s.f. one stoiy retail space; and a 2,816 s.f. commercial (office) space. The nature and the anticipated type uses appear to be generally in keeping with the neighborhood service orientation of the B-5 District, although the restaurant uses are not specifically an allowed use in B-5 and are the subject of application #2327. The building itself will cover approximately 14% of the site. Although detailed hardcover calculations have not been provided, the northerly 1/3 and the southerly 1/6 of the site are shown by applicant to be in the 500-1,000’ hardcover zone, and the proposed hardcover does not confrom to the 35% standard for that zone. The entire site appears to be approximately 60-70% hard surface, encompassing less hardcover than many other existing businesses in the Navarre area, but clearly demonstrating a hardcover intensity that is a significant change for this site and this area of Navarre, and not necessarily in keeping with the City’s vision for the B-5 zone. The building has potential spaces for as few as 4 to as many as 6 or 8 individual tenants depending upon partitioning. No tloor plans have been provided, but the plan suggests the retail spacemay be somewhat flexible. From the standpoint of scale, the building itself is approximately 60’ in depth and 200’ in width, or slightly less than twice the size of the Culvers' restaurant building. 2. Conformity' with permitted/conditional uses in B-S District. The B-5 District allows offices and banks as a permitted use. A number of retail commodity' type uses are permitted within the B-5 District, with a limited number of specific ser\ ice type uses. Other service type uses are permitted only by conditional use permit (please see the list of allowed uses in B-5). Applicant's predecessors (John O'Sullivan, et al.) were successful in having this site rezoned to B-5 approximately one year ago, finding that the B-5 District provided the general use categories which they were proposing at that time. Note that the current applicant is proposing to amend the B-5 District classification to allow restaurant uses, which our current B-5 District does not allow (see Application File #2327). 3. Conformity' with performance standards of B-5 District. A.Lot area. The minimum lot size for the B-5 District is 20,000 s.f. Including the to- be-vacated portion of Navarre Lane, the property is approximately 81,000 s.f. in area, or 4 times the minimum required lot area. B. Lot wddth. The minimum lot width for the B-5 District is 100’. The site is approximately 320’ in w idth at the rear of the 20’ required front yard, and therefore meets the lot width standard. Zoning File #2326 Januar>’ 16, 1998 Page 3 C. D. E. F. Front yard. The minimum front yard requirement for the B-5 District is 20'. While the proposed building will be set back appro.ximately 78' from the front lot line, the proposed front parking area is only 5' from the front lot line. Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B), which will be applied to this project, disallows parking spaces in a required yard or landscape area. Therefore, a variance for parking encroachment into the front yard is requested by the applicant. The applicant has discussed in his submittals the limitations and hardships which lead to the request for variance to allow parking to encroach 15' into the 20' front yard, and this will be further addressed later in this memo. Rear yard. The B-5 rear yard requirement is 30', with a side yard adjacent to R District of 15'. No structures are proposed in any side or rear yard, except that a backup apron at the northerly end of the parking lot will be approximately 14' from the Olive Avenue right-of-way. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) allows parking in a rear yard to within 3' except when that rear or side line is in common with an R District (which in this case, it is). Because this is a 'through' lot, for zoning purposes it has two front yards, one abutting Shadywood Road and one abutting Olive Avenue. It would ippear to staff that a 20' yard should be maintained along Olive Avenue. The backup apron encroaches to within 14'. Therefore a 6’ variance is required for that small portion of parking lot. Applicant proposes two entrance monuments and a pylon sign within the front yard along Shadywood Road, which will be discussed under the signage heading below. Setbacks. The B-5 District requires buildings be no nearer than 35' to the front lot line, 35' from the rear lot line, 15' from the side lot line and 35' from any lot line abutting a residential district. The proposed building meets all setback requirements, as does the proposed trash enclosure location and the drive through canopy. Fencing. No fencing is proposed for the site. The B-5 District standards require that where the B-5 abuts an R District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than 6' in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. The proposed landscape plan indicates an arborvitae hedge along the north side lot line abutting the LR-IC residential district. The City's consultant landscape architect, Wally Case from DSU, Inc. has reviewed the landscape plan and while his written comments will not be available until after the Planning Commission meeting, he has expressed concern that the landscape plan is inadequate, and the City should consider a landscape plan that provides not only a buffer from the surrounding residential neighborhood, but enhances the neighborhood. Zoning File #2326 j Januar>’ 16, 1998 Page 4 No screening is proposed along the Olive Avenue frontage for this site. Planning Commission should consider whether such screening may or may not be appropriate in the context of the neighborhood, the ponding area, views of the rear of the building, etc. G. Building design and construction. 1. Exterior finishes. The B-5 District standards require that exterior wall finishes on any building be either face brick, natural stone, or specially designed pre-cast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture or factor)' fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted above or glass. The B-5 standards allow other materials as may be approved by Council. The proposed building has essentially a one story' facade that has a brick veneer base with a natural color cedar shake siding above, on the front. The shakes are not listed as an allowed facing material and would require special approval. Applicant must provide elevation views of all sides of the building, since it is critical to confirm a consistent appearance, given a building that will be so visible from all directions. Architectural style. Applicant suggests the shake siding may help to provide a reasonable transition to the residential neighborhood, but in staffs opinion such a transition is more properly accomplished via site planning, landscaping, and architectural sty ’le. In staffs opinion the building lacks character, and the expanse of uninterrupted roof needs to be revisited, as well as the nature of the facade. This site is an important and extremely visible location at the "hub of Lake Minnetonka", and in context of future development and redevelopment of Navarre, should serve to set the tone. Staff would question whether the adjacent overdeveloped Culver's site has already established a tone, perhaps not as positive one as might have been hoped for. Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to whether the exterior wall finish materials are acceptable, but should also discuss the nature of this building and whether it fits the City's vision for this site. 2.Out buildings. The only outbuilding proposed is the trash enclosure, the proposed design of which is not extremely detailed. It appears to be three sided block enclosure screened with arborvitae, and doors opening to the northerly parking lot. The B-5 District requires that such a structure Tie constructed of materials comparable to those used in the building and designed in a manner conforming with original architectural design general Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 5 H. I. appearance of the building. Additional details should be provided before construction so that staff can confirm these requirements are met. Is there a reason why the trash enclosure is so far removed from the building? Can it be incorporated into the building so it doesnt stand out like a sore thumb facing the residential neighborhood? Drainage. The B-5 Zoning District standards require that drainage plans be submitted for review by the City Engineer and that proper facilities for drainage be provided. Applicant has provided a grading plan which indicates an expansion of the retention pond existing on this site as a result of the Culvers development. Culvers has an easement over applicant's property for the existing pond. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan and notes that the proposed storm sewer lines should be revised, that storm sewer and ponding calculations need to be provided for engineer review, that the storm water pond be provided a 10:1 bench at the normal water level to promote the establishment of aquatic vegetation, and that the drainage plans need to be submitted to the MCWD for review and approval. The entire site is proposed to drain to this storm pond via grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. Grading. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading of the site and has made a number of comments including: Design grades at some locations in the site are fairly steep which could create problems. - Access and parking lot grades should be revised to not exceed 4%. - Slope along the north and west sides of the site appears to be as steep as 1.5:1 where maintenance of slopes steeper than 3:1 can be difficult. Erosion control materials will need to be used. - The proposed retaining wall at the rear of the building and the storm water pond is over 10' in height in some locations and will require engineered retaining wall design and details for engineer's review. - A fence will be required above that retaining w'all for safety purposes. The topographic condition at this site suggests there will be significant regrading of the site in order to make it suitable for the proposed construction. Staff is concerned that the sloped parking areas and certain driving lanes could be problematic, especially under winter conditions. This should be given additional scrutiny by the applicant to determine whether grades can be modified to be more user friendly. The 10' high retaining wall at the rear of the building may be very stark as viewed from Olive Avenue. 1 see lots of these in Plymouth, and they are not visually Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 6 pleasant. Perhaps some screening is appropriate... Also, the stormwater pond as it sits is not exactly in a finished state and it needs a detailed landscape plan to make it aesthetically pleasing or at least not visually intrusive. Pedestrian Trail. The slope along the north side of the property will be drastically changed to accomodate parking adjacent to the neighboring residential property. Although this was proposed as the sidewalk connection location between Olive and Shadywood when O’Sullivan had a plan in front of us last year, the current developer has not adequately provided for such a connection. The route defined on his plan brings pedestrians through the parking lot, and this needs significant aditional thought. One of the tradeoffs for vacation of Navarre Lane was provision by the developer of a connecting sidewalk link to allow residents of the extensive neighborhoods to the east to access Navarre easily. Site Grading Generally. Staff acknowledges that this is an extremely difficult site to develop given the topography, shape, and existing storm pond location. These factors suggest the site needs a plan that is extremely sensitive to those factors. J. Building height. The proposed building is one story in nature and approximately 29' in height from upper grade level to the peak, meeting the 30' maximum height requirement. However, the height is visually accentuated by the broad expanse of roof, and this should be modified if possible to provide a more attractive appearance. 4. Conformity with general performance stanf.ards. A. Exterior storage. Section 10.60, Subd. 13 requires that all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties. No outside storage is proposed for this project other than the trash enclosure, which staff suggests might be relocated to be less visually obtrusive. B. Traffic control: site circulation. Zoning code Section 10.60, Subd. 16 requires that traffic generated by any use be channelized and controlled in a manner that will avoid congestion on public streets, safety hazards, or excessive traffic through residential streets. Section 6.04, Subd. 10 (A) requires that only ons business driveway be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32' at the property line. Applicant proposes two access points onto Shadywood Road each being 32' in width. Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 7 Section 6.05, Subd. 10 (D) disallows any portion of a driveway approach from being within 100' of a comer within a business district. The southerly approach for this site is appro.ximately 120' from the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. However, the Citv Encineer has indicated in his comments that the south access is close to the 9 W 15/19 signalized intersection and that he would recommend that only one access at a location further north of the intersection be provided. Mr. Case concurs with this analysis. How ever, if the City wishes to approve the two access concept for this site, then the engineer suggests that the south access be restricted to only right turn in/right turn out movements. Planning Commission may recall that the City conditionally approved an access at the proposed south access location to ser\ e the Culvers site, which access has been temporarily constructed. Limiting the south access to right in/right out would result in the Culvers site being slightly less accessible from Shadywood Road south bound traffic, which would have to either use County Road 19 entrance or use a more northerly entrance on the bank/retail site. Applicant should provide a rationale for the need for two access locations for this development. The City has generally acknowledged that a connection between this site and the Culvers site is not inappropriate given the intensity of use of the Culvers site and the apparent difficulty encountered there by not having a Shadywood Road access. A risk, of course, is that by moving to one entrance between the two that are proposed, more traffic heading the Culvers site will have to travel more of the parking areas adjacent to the bank. The general circulation pattern for this site, absent the Culvers connection, is counterclockwise with an expectation that most traffic using the bank drive through will come in from the south entrance, go around the building and come out the north entrance. Consequently, most drive through bank traffic would avoid driving through the main parking areas in front of the building. Traffic using the northerly parking area will generally have only minimal conflict W'ith drive through traffic. This is not a one-way circulation pattern, however, and it would seem there will be some conflict between traffic using the drive-thru and that exiting Culvers. Staff recommends that the site access situation be reviewed by Hennepin County to determine the impacts on County Road 19. County approval will be required for the proposed access locations. Staff further recommends that consideration be given to the site layout regarding circulation; perhaps applicant should consult a traffic engineer. C. Signage. The zoning code allows site signage in an amount equivalent to 1 s.f. per Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 8 E. F. front foot of frontage. Since the site has approximately 380’ of frontage. 380 s.f. of signage would be allowed. The proposed facade signage would appear to use up approximately half of this allowance. Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the visual appeal of the curved facade sigange? No detail has been provided for the two entrance monuments and the pylon sign. Detail must be provided in order that those signs can be approved. Staff questions whether the entrance signage is overkill, given the very visible facade signage proposed. Section 10.61, Subd. 1 provides general standards for signage. Subd. 3 provides standards for signage in the B Districts, noting that no individual sign shall exceed 50 s.f. in area. All signs are to be located no closer than 10' from any property line. The two entrance monuments and the pylon sign are proposed within 2' of the front lot line, and the City Engineer notes that those locations as proposed may impact visibility for tralTic exiting the site. Staff would recommend that the entrance monuments be relocated to meet the required 1 O' setback, and detail of those signs provided prior to their approval, if they are determined to be appropriate. Lighting . A minimal detail lighting plan for the site is shown on the site plan, sheet A-1. Section 10.60, Subd. 8 requires that lighting be shielded to prevent the sources of light from being detectable at the lot line. Also, lighting shall be directed away from residential districts and public streets. A more detailed lighting plan should be provided by applicant. Parking standards. Section 10.61, Subds. 4-10 establish parking regulations. Applicant's site plan indicate a requirement of 1 space for 200 s.f. of net floor area for the office and bank uses, and 1 space for each 150 s.f. of net floor area of retail area, which meets code standards. However, the code also requires one stall for each 80 s.f. of public space for restaurants, hence the use of the building will dicate parking needs to a great extent. The net floor area reported by applicant is approximately 9,700 s.f. which would be reasonable for an 11,000 s.f. building. This results in a net parking requirement of 56 spaces, and applicant is proposing to provide 62 spaces including 3 handicapped. Therefore, the proposed number of parking stalls appears to meet code requirements if restaurant uses are not accounted for. No joint parking is defined in this plan. However, staff is aware that the owners of the Culvers property had intended to use parking on this site for overflow. Applicant should provide the City with additional detail as to any arrangements made with Culvers regarding use of parking areas. Such Joint parking is regulated in Section 10.61, Subd. 6, and if intended, applicant should show that the proposed joint parking Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 9 spaces are within 30' of the uses they will serve, that there is no substantial conflict on the principal operating hours of the two or more uses sharing the joint parking, and if such joint parking is ultimately allowed, that a property legal instrument defining the City approval and conditions for such joint parking is created. Parking stalls are shown on the site plan at the City's standard 9'x20* standard, and a 25' driving lane is proposed between rows of parking spaces. Again, the issue of a variance for having parking encroach on the front yard area is primarily a function of the topography of the site and the proposed uses. In order to maintain two rows of conforming parking spaces and an adequate driving aisle, approximately a 65' width is required. In staffs opinion, maintaining the 20' parking setback to Shadywood is critical for a number of reasons, including: providing at least a 10' green strip for tree and landscape planting providing for future expansion of Shadywood Road (not planned, but who can predict what the future holds...) maintaining the natural character that Orono envisions in its comprehensive planning, especially in relation to the B-5 district Maintaining the 20' front yard as a green space could be accomplished in a number of wavs, all of which have a major impact on the site plan: 1. 2. 3. 4. Eliminate the row of parking spaces uith the front yard. The site would then be severely short for parking. Reduce the depth of the building by approximately 15' or 25%. This could have significant impacts on the design of the building, for instance making it more linear in nature, i.e. longer in order to provide the same amount of floor area. Revise storm water ponding area to allow the improvements to the site to encroach another 15' to the east. Reduce the width of the rear drive, if such width is not strictly necessary to accomodate more than one lane of vehicles. Applicant and Planning Commission should discuss the viability of any of these or other possible options to increase the parking setback from the front lot line, in order to maintain some landscaped green space within the front yard area. Zoning File #2326 January' 16, 1998 Page 10 G. n. I. Loading berths. No loading berm on the site plan, and presumably are no intended. Staff would note that retail uses, especially restaurant type uses, may involve daily deliveries, and such uses that are franchises might involve fairly large delivery vehicles. Applicant should define how deliveries will occur to the site, and for instance, if they use the rear entrance, applicant should demonstrate that there is sufficient width in that rear alley way to accommodate drive through traffic as well as delivery traffic. "Drive-in standards". Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 19 discusses standards for "drive-in establishments". It is unclear whether the intent of this section is to regulate drive-in restaurants, or general drive through service uses. The requirements include construction of a screening fence along "the lot line", presumably finding that a drive-in use is not something one wants to look at. In the conte.xt of the proposed bank drive through, staff would assume that the canopy and drive through facilities will be commensurate in character with the building, and will not require any unusual fencing or screening. Landscape plan. The City’s landscape consultant, Wally Case of DSU, Inc., has been requested to review the general layout of this site, including landscape plan. His written comments will be available late in tlie week of January 20. It should be noted that the site contains approximately 10-15 mature hardwoods at the north end of the site, all of which will apparently be removed as part of tliis development. Applicant should define whether there are any mature trees on the site that will be preserved. It would appear that the scattered nature of those trees will make preser%ation difficult. Planning Commission should review the landscape plan and ultimately the comments by Mr. Case, and conclude whether any revisions are appropriate. While the landscape plan is fairly detailed. Case has suggested that much more landscaping is needed to not only replace the trees being lost but to help in providing a transition to the residential surroundings. Hardwood boulevard trees are proposed approximately every 50'; more are likely needed, and unless significant changes are made to the boulevard, the trees will be growing up from a sidewalk. The existing sidewalk along Shadywood Road extends from the intersection of 15 and 19 northward to the north boundary of this property. The total proposed depth from Shadywood Road curb to parking lot curb is only 12', and if half that is taken up by sidewalk, applicant must detail how boulevard landscaping will be established in the remainder. Staff recommends that a much more thorough landscape plan be presented. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 11 Review of Variance Requests 1.Hardcover. ‘ The northerly 1/3 of southerly 1/6 of the site are located within the 500-1,000 hardcover zone which allows 35% hardcover. The central portion of the property is not in a defined hardcover zone. In the northerly 1/3, hardcover is proposed at approximately 48%. On the southerly 1/6, hardcover is proposed at approximately 77%. These two areas combined yield approximately 55% hardcover where only 35% is allowed. The central portion of the property not located in hardcover zone would appear to be in the 70% hardcover range. It is interesting to note that neither of the t\vo hardcover zones identified discharge to the water body which defines them, i.e. the northerly zone is defined by Ciy stal Bay and the southerly zone by Carmens Bay, but both zones actually drain to Lafayette Bay. Additionally all that drainage will first discharge to a retention pond, then flow through two distinct wetland basins before it reaches Lafayette Bay. Hardcover Issues for Consideration a. b. Absent further detail or hardship statement, will Planning Commission consider granting the magnitude of hardcover variances requested? Is there any hardship that justifies the variance? Is this the intensity of use envisioned in the B-5 district? Does the fact that all storm water will be treated in the storm water pond and flow through two wetlands prior to reaching the lake, suggest that the excessive hardcox er has a limited impact? 2. Front (streeO parking setback: The B-5 District requires a 20' front yard. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) defines that for B Districts parking is not allowed in a required yard. Although that code section discusses the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts but not the B-5 District, staff would argue that this is an error and that this standard was also intended to apply to the B-5 District. Applicant proposes parking along the front line within the 5' of that lot line where a 20 ’ setback would be required. Applicant's request for this variance is to provide for all of the uses proposed for the site, i.e. accommodating the proposed building size and shape while providing functional parking lot and providing space for the storm water pond which serves both this site and the Culvers site adjacent. Parking Location Variance Issues for Consideration: a. Will Planning Commission recommend approval for a 15' variance to allow' parking Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 12 3. b. c. within 5' of the street lot line as proposed? Are the site limitations compelling, do they provide the necessary hardships to support a variance? Can the site be reasonably developed without this encroachment? How will this encroachment into the front yard limit the establishment of green space or the proposed boulevard trees? Does the proposed setback variance still yield a green space along the street that is acceptable and consistent with the City's vision for the Navarre area? Parking setback to Olive Avenue . A 6' encroachment is proposed. Is there any hardship shown to suggest this should not be revised to maintain the 20' yard requirement? Staff Recommendation The site plan is somewhat complete and in most instances meets City code requirements. However, a significant number of concerns are raisd by staff as to the intensity of development of the site, the visual character of the building, and how it is relating to its residential surroundings. Additional detail is necessary on certain items. Staff recommends that Planning Commission address the following issues in reviewing this commercial site plan: 1. Granting of variances for parking encroaching the front and rear yard. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Granting of variances for hardcover. Providing additional information required by City Engineer. Addressing issues defined by the City's landscape consultant. Location and nature of pedestrian connection between and Olive and Shadywood. Providing additional detail and relocation of entrance signage. Potential relocation of site entrances, or limitation to one entrance. Determine whether identified impacts on adjacent residential neighborhood are suitably mitigated. Other issues note in tliis memo. Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 13 Options for Action 1.Recommend approval with specific conditions and/or submittals to be completed by applicant before Council review. Make specific recommendations on the variance requests. 2.Table for additional information (specify), or direct applicant to bring back revisions/details requested. 3.Recommend denial. 4.Other. X:\APPS\WPW1N60\WPDOCS\CAROLBMIKE\2326-2.MEM ----------*T.-r> oz Q <Otr i: Z D Oy Q <occ Q O O o < X (/} UJ h~ © o < S o i I I jui^r vvjVi^ v^i'vv^wv^Jl__II__L I • r ri:M' zg I LU -J LU HZocr LL Q UJ (/) O Q- O DC Q. 0^ dill IIII ill iHl! W'h.iPls' V10S3^XsJI^ ‘ONObO ONianina niviau ONoao iN3V^O'BA3a CaSOdObd P c ii 2 5 "igi irfS*?l-sSS2iiiai^ ^ yj Ui p r c ti UUl fi CLoz mm oI o IP Q HI H Z cc 0. oz <tr Q / * / . .--Vi Vi T r- 1 O ■f 3} 'r'-J Bonesrroo. Roicne. Andcrtik AaoctMcs. Inc if Affirm^ive Acfon, Bqu.V Opportunity Employer Principals Olio G BoncstfOO. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE . M^rvm L Sorv.iM. PE . Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schumchi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon, PE • PE €?nd bus^n M Eberltn. C PA . Senior Consulldnts Richard E Robert W Rosene Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon, PE • Robert R Pfefferlc. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskoia. PE. • Robert C Russek. Al A . Mark A Hanson. PE Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field PE • Kenneth P Ande»^son. PE • Mark R Rolfs. RE. • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Koismith Offices. St Paul. Rochester. Wiilmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee Wi Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects January 12. 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Orono Development, L.L.C. File No. 139-2327 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the site plan for the proposed commercial development located on the east side of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19). north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre. The development includes a full service bank with drive-up auto tellers and a single story retail office complex. There are several engineering issues that will need to be addressed as part of the plan review process. f • Traffic. The site plan shows two accesses onto Shadywood Road. The south access is very close to the signalized intersection. This access will create problems with traffic on the county roads and we would recommend that the site be served with only one access at a location further north of the intersection. As a minimum we would suggest that the south access be restricted to only right-turn in/right-tum out movements. Left turn movements should only be made at the north access. Hennepin County traffic engineers should review the site plan to determine the traffic impacts on CSAH 19. Their review should include the proposed access locations, work within the existing right-of-way. and whether or not additional right-of-way is needed in this vicinity. The proposed signing along CSAH 19 may create sight restrictions for traffic leaving the site. Details should be provided for pylon signs and entrance monuments. 2. Grading: It appears that the design grades at the northerly access and in several areas within the parking lot meet or exceed 5 percent which may create problems. We would recommend that access and parking lot grades not exceed 4 percent. Slopes along the north and west sides of the site are shown as steep as 1.5.1. Maintenance may be difficult if slopes are steeper than 3:1. Fiber blanket or comparable erosion control material should be used untii vegetation is established. The proposed retaining wall is over 10 leet tall in some locations. Retaining wall design and details should be provided for review. Fencing will likely be required above the wall for safety purposes. 3. Drainage: The NURP pond expansion should provide a 10:1 bench at the NWL around the entire pond to promote the establishment of aquatic vegetation. T.ie 12 inch storm sewer at 13.8 percent grade outletting to the pond create an erosion problem. We recommend less grade on the pipe so that velocides do not exceed 12 feet per second or the installation of a surge basin. Storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided for our review. The plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. 4. Utilities: The existing sanitary sewer and water main to serv'e this property are located within the right- of-way for Navarre Lane. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the service line connections, with as-built plans provided to the City upon completion. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600 • Fax; 612-636-1311 5. Easements: Utility easements will need to be provided for the existing sanitary sewer, gas main and any other existing utilities located in the abandoned portion of Navarre Lane. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along the perimeter lot lines and 10 feet wide along the County road right- of-way. Drainage easements should be provided across existing and expanded ponding areas. 7. Trail: The proposed sidewalk/bike trail is shown across the parking lot. This location may not be appropriate. We would recommend a trail alignment that fol.ows the westerly and southerly perimeter of the site. 8. Financial Guarantee: We have estimated the total cost for site improvements at $169,100. The cost estimate is attached for your review. A financial guarantee for 150 percent of this amount or $253,650 should be provided to the City. Please contact me at 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg' cc; Greg Gappa, City of Orono CITY OF ORONO ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAT FILE NO. 2327 SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE , ^ ir l&i. ITEM UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Mobilization Site grading Pond excavation Stabilization fabric Aggregate base, Cl. 5, 100% crushed Type 31 bit. base course Type 41 bit. wear course B61 8 concrete curb and gutter 12" RCP storm sewer 15" RCP storm sewer 12" F.E.S. Std. storm sewer manhole Std. catch basin manhole Std. 2' X 3' catch basin Rip rap LS LS LS SY TN TN TN LF LF LF EA EA EA EA CY 1 1 1 4050 3100 500 450 1850 240 180 1 2 1 2 6 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 10,000.00 1.00 10.00 32.00 35.00 6.00 25.00 30.00 500.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 50.00 $10,000 $20,000 10,000 4,050 31,000 16,000 15,750 11,100 6,: 00 5,400 500 5.000 2.000 2,000 300 Sill fence LF 500 3.00 1,500 Retaining wall SF 1440 15.00 21,600 Seeding with 4" topsoil AC 0.3 3,000.00 900 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 2000 3.00 6,000 Estimated Construction Cost $169,100 +50% Security Deposit 84,550 Total Security Deposit Required $253,650 Orono Developmenl, L.L.C. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. GafTron, Senior Plarming Coordinator February 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2339 James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - 3 Lot Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Proposal: Subdivide this 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Preliminar>' Plat Drawings E - Sketch Plan Review Memo 1/13/98 F - Planning Commission Minutes 1/20/98 G - City Engineer's Comments H - Staff Conceptual Sketch of Neighborhood Access I - Staff Conceptual Sketch of 42' Road Dedication J - Staff Sketch: Hardcover Impact of Through Road Brief Review of Sketch Plan Discussions At the January 20 meeting. Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's three concept drawings and some additional conceptual sketches by staff. Since all lots are proposed to meet the 1/2 acre/100' lot standards of the LR-IC zone, the primary issues surrounding the subdivision were access and buildability of the lots in relation to hardcover allowance. Planning Commission expressed a concern that a full cul-de-sac might be "overkill" to serve just these three units. Planning Commission suggested that use of a private driveway, with a "T" emergency vehicle turnaround and a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3, is likely more appropriate than a cul-de-sac for this magnitude of development. Given the late hour at which this review’ occurred, staff was certainly not eloquent in communicating a number of issues surrounding access to this site. However, staff continues to believe that the narrow outlot driveway proposed to serve these three units may not be in the long-term best interests of the City for the following reasons: 1.A narrow driveway will provide inadequate emergency access. Due to the lack of City water in the neighborhood, fire fighting requires bringing tank trucks in and setting up tubs, requiring extensive space for fire fighting equipment to operate and maneuver. i Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 2 2. Does not provide for potential future 'through' road to Birch Lane. 3. Does not meet long-established City subdivision standards for serving 3 lots. 4. Does not provide public road frontage for the adjacent vacant lot to the west, which will undoubtedly be built on in the future, and which currently gains access via an easement. 5. Requires the granting of back lot area variances for Lots 1 and 2. Two factors which also support the idea of a through road to Birch Lane include: 1. Can be designed to have relatively minimal hardcover impact. 2. Has potential to eliminate a number of driveway accesses directly to County Road 51 . Discussion of Neighborhood Access Concern Please review Exhibit H, which depicts the access for the surrounding neighborhood. Birch Lane is a tiny City road extending eastward from Baldur Park Road. Birch Lane serves 11 existing homes, although its right-of-way is only 20' in width and the pavement is even narrower. Representatives of the Long Lake Fire Department have indicated to staff that Birch Lane in its current condition is a hazard for fire fighting. They indicated they did damage to a fire truck when responding to a gas leak on that street, due to the lack of maneuvering room. In essence, Birch Lane not only serves as the primary access to 7 homes that front on North Shore Drive, but also as the primary access for 4 additional homes which face North Arm Bay. Four additional homes directly east of the end of Birch Lane, are ser\ ed by a single shared driveway extending northward from North Shore Drive. The northeasterly of these 4 homes has been demolished, leaving a vacant lot directly adjacent to Render's proposed Lot 1. In staffs opinion, the City would be best served in the future by extending Birch Lane eastward to Tonkawa Road. This would not only provide direct road frontage for the lakeshore lots, but would result in the elimination of long shared driveways seiz ing the center most lots, and would greatly enhance emergency vehicle access as well as City maintenance access. If sufficient right-of-way can be gained from the currently proposed subdivision, there still is a 300' gap to get to Birch Lane. Obviously, this right-of-way would have to be obtained at some future date in order to make the complete east-west connection. However, if the City does not take adequate right-of-way during the current plat process, such a connection will be that much more difficult in the future. Zoning File #2339 February 13,1998 Page 3 There are, of course, certain trade-offs for the neighborhood. Extending Birch Lane to Tonkawa Road certainly would change the character of the neighborhood. Further, 7 additional lots abutting North Shore Drive would technically become through lots, requiring CUPs for construction of accessory buildings. But, direct access to North Shore Drive could ultimately be eliminated, which from a City and County perspective would enhance safety. Staff Recommendation Regarding Future Access Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that this subdivider be required to dedicate right-of- way along the southerly border for the entire width of the property. The Comprehensive Plan would consider this road, which ultimately would serve as many as 22 residences, to be considered as a local street with a standard right-of-way width of 50-60'. Therefore, staff recommends that a 50' corridor be dedicated as part of the current proposal. One way to minimize the impact of this dedication is to make use of the 8' access easement on the adjacent property to the south. This roadway easement appears to have been created in the 1950s or earlier, and would need to be confirmed as legitimate by an attorney. Assuming it is usable, only a 42' right-of-way need be platted from applicant's property. E.xhibit 1 reflects a 42' road dedication and relocated lot boundaries still resulting in conforming lots. Road Construction & Temporary Cul-de-sac While the developer has indicated he is willing to plat the 42' right-of-way the entire length of the property, he is less interested in building a full scale road and cul-de-sac. In the normal situation, staff would recommend that this 300' segment of road be constructed as part of this subdivision proposal, and a temporary cul-de-sac be developed within the property currently being subdivided. Paved width of the roadway would be at least 28'; the subdivision standards Section 11.33, Subd. 4 indicate that a public street serving more than 10 residences should be 32' wide. However, during the sketch plan review Planning Commission felt there were substantial reasons to not create a cul-de-sac or the appearance of a public street, all related to the site's proximity to the Maxwell Bay access. Planning Commission suggested that a driveway within a private outlot would be less likely to cause traffic or parking problems for the residents, and that Lots 2 and 3 could reduce hardcover impacts by sharing a driveway. Planning Commission also suggested that a'T' turnaround for emergency vehicles be considered. When our building inspectors discussed this with the Fire Chief in January, his response w'as that a through road is the best solution, a cul-de-sac for now would be a good temporary situation, but a 'P turnaround is not acceptable. Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 4 Lot Standards and Hardcover Impact Lot Standards. Under staffs recommended layout, all 3 proposed lots will technically abut a public road and therefore will not require variances from the back lot ordinance. Each proposed lot currently meets the 100' LR-1C zoning district standard for lot width. However, e.xtracting a 42' road dedication along the south boundary of the property will reduce the total usable acreage from 1.9 acres to just over 1.6 acres. Lot lines would have to be slightly angled in order to ensure each lot maintains the required 1/2 acre area and 100' width at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Hardcover Impacts. Please review Exhibits F of the sketch plan memo. Tliese "reality checks" indicate the hardcover impacts of applicant's proposal as compared to that of staff. Exhibit F-1 does not reflect Planning Commission's suggested sharing of the driveways for Lots 2 and 3, which provides them with additional hardcover allowance. However, Lot 1 still is extremely limited under applicant's proposal due to the length of driveway needed, and by having a 75-250' hardcover allotment slightly smaller than that of Lots 2 and 3 due to the angle of the shoreline. Exhibit F-2 indicates that while the total hardcover attributed to the site increases from 19,600 s.f. to 21,100 s.f. with a short cul-de-sac. Lot 1 gains 75-250' area and can comfortably become conforming to the hardcover requirements. With a road extension to the west, an additional "reality check" drawing has been generated to show the hardcover impacts (see Exhibit J). There is no question that extending the road westward has a negative hardcover impact on Lot 1, but has a lesser impact on Lots 2 and 3 because they are larger due to the angle of the shoreline. A comparison of the applicant's proposal and the "through" option currently proposed by staff, is as follows: Applicant's Proposal 'Through* Option (42* Dedication) Allowed 75-250' hardcover: Lot 1 4775 s.f.3725 s.f. Lot 2 4900 s...4225 s.f. Lot 3 5925 s.f.5330 s.f. Hardcover within outlot:4000 s.f.— Hardcover within road:—8400 s.f. Hardcover within cul-de-sac:2600 s.f. TOTAL HARDCOVER: % of Total Site: 19,600 s.f. 23.7% 24,280 s.f. with cul-de-sac 21,680 s.f. w/road, w/o cul-de-sac 29.4% w ith cul-de-sac 26.2% with road only, no cul-de-sac Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 5 Obviously, creating a road to serve the public interest has a somewhat greater hardcover impact than not providing such a road. In staffs opinion, the public benefits of a road outweigh the negative impact of the excess hardcover. Whether the hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac is excessive is an item for discussion. Engineering Issues Please review the City Engineer ’s comments. Exhibit G. His comments are summarized as follows; 1. The through street extension should be provided, including a 50' right-of-way across the southerly end of the property. 2. 3. 4. Utilities include existing sanitary sewer and private wells. Any other utility construction plans should be submitted for review. A grading and erosion control plan for the site is needed. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. No grading or drainage plan has been submitted as of this writing. 5. Standard drainage and utility easements are required. 6. A financial guarantee will be required. General Subdivision Comments 1. 2. 3. Park dedication . This property does not abut any proposed City or County proposed trail system. The Park Commission has recommended payment of a park dedication fee. Access Location . Hennepin County Department of Public Works has been asked to review this proposal. Preliminary discussions with Hennepin County staff indicate the existing/proposed entrance location on Tonkawa is an acceptable location. Floodplain . Applicant's surveyor has confirmed that the property is almost entirely above floodplain elevation except for a portion of the ditch along Tonkawa Road. No filling of the floodplain in conjunction with this project is anticipated. Issues for Discussion and Recommendation 1. Should provisions be made for a future through road connection to Birch Lane? Zoning File #2339 Februaty 13, 1998 Page 6 2. 3. 4. Should the portion of such a road be constructed by the applicant at this time? With or without a temporar>’ cul-dc-sac? Optionally, should this road be platted as public road and maintained by the City prior to such future connection, or should it be platted as a privat^paioutlot, to be constructed now but maintained as a private road by the current property owners until such time that the City takes it over when the future connection is made? If this is platted as a public road and the City maintains it, what is Planning Commission's recommendation regarding parking restrictions or admitting access to local residents only, given the proximity to the Maxwell Bay access? Staff Recommendation 1.Platting of a dedicated roadway along the entire length of the south boundary should be required. The dedicated roadway can be 42' in width if it is confirmed that the City has roadway rights over the 8' adjacent easement. 2. 3. 4. 5. The construction of a 28' paved roadway with a temporary' 80' diameter cul-de-sac located approximately between Lots 1 and 2 is recommended, based on fire department needs and code standards. Note that if this was being proposed as a 2-lot plat, the need to provide a corridor for future through road would still exist, but code would not require the establishment of a road and cul-de-sac at this time, since the threshold for full road status is 3 or more lots. Staff recommends that this be maintained as public roadway by the City, but that ciue to the unique circumstance of proximity to the Ma.xwell Bay access, limitations on parking and/or general use by car trailer traffic be considered. No variances should be granted for lot area, lot width, setbacks, or hardcover. If a temporary cul-de-sac is required, it could be on an easement. Optionally, the hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac would not count against the hardcover allotment for the respective lots. The applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer ’s recommendation. 6. The standard park dedication fee should be required. 7. The standard drainage and utility easements should be required, Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 7 Options for Action 1 . Recommend approval or conceptual approval per staff recommendation. 2. Recommend approval or conceptual approval other than staff recommendation. 3.Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial (state reasons). 5. Other. Application # 3 3*7 Date Received />^ 6 /yjp Amount Paid -3< I CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLI PROPERTY LOCATION Site address /?CS /tcj/i _ Property Identlfic-ation Number (PID)___ AO o o o Please check one - Property *X abstract or Attach leyal description to application. torrens? APPLICANT Nam e Address 933/ /wkV>*i >1^; 5 Jfi y ----------- Phone (home) 9VV» tpOiZ- Zip^vji Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Nam e Qro*.U ?u^vitt>w Address I3(as r -rStiknuj^iK /Pcs^dL City O/0»f to _________________2:ip Phone (home) Phone (work)________ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size ^,02 Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__l_ Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes ___ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) " Subdivision for New Building Sile.s ____/ Existing Units 2 New Units 3 Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 3 Units pel 2 Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land 0,S ac. V Residential ______Other (specify) __ _____ q MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELI*1B>A1U#»^LI^T^N 1. Pa>'mentoffees (refer to "application fees" listed below. , /, * M C ■> »'i 2. Completed application form.ivT. 'i '•i J+h ^ .3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. g i s' .,J '<^1 J-:/ stoDiaimtliis li^from Hehriepin Couhiy^epartmSHi of Finance A*(4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must ol Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zon'mg Official's Signature _____________________________________ D<*te--------------- - MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicablc). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature _______________________________________Date------------------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 IQIS K Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) ___ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ___ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200 00 i-^Tc Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class HI. Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application SI 50.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _ lin. ft. X .50 ■= $. lin. ft. X .50*»$_ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attotr Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees estabii:. c Applicant's Signature^--^^^*'**^ ----- Owner’s Signatur Date L- i Applicant must have all submittaU into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetlng-t ** ^ . and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anena m > place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. (17) .........""'i' *-\'. \ (t)■’A \ . c i\ (w \ _x;S._j{»— A \ c8'in-23-i3 J5\s_ h2L_’__\ 6 I \ > v ®’)\a UD SW5 y (SO 273 \ I RUN DATE 01/23/98 BATCH 501 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAKE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 36 08-117-23 13 0018 01205 TONKANA RD THOMAS H SMITH & NIFE THOMAS H SMITH 1205 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 42 0003 03366 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 43 0016 03400 NORTH SHORE DR 6 J YARNES JR S R L YARNES KENATH R A DONNA J STEIN 3400 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0019 03440 NORTH SHORE OR C'.VID J LINDBERG DAVID J LINDBERG 3440 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0022 03444 NORTH SHORE DR NILLIAM D ROBINSON N D ROBINSON 3444 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0025 03458 NORTH SHORE DR P E BONMAN A B D BLADER PAUL BOHMANy^ARBARA D BLADER 3458 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 42 0001 01220 TONKANA RD F E GUTTORMSON/C J B DNIGHT F E GUTTORMSON/C J B DNIGHT 1220 TOTACANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 42 0004 01365 TONKANA RD G A J PUTNAM GALE L PUTNAM 1365 TONKANA ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0017 03410 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL F REGAN A NIFE DANIEL F REGAN 3410 NORTH SHORE DRIVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0020 03442 NORTH SHORE DR GERALD J RAY ETAL GERALD J RAY 3442 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0023 03450 BIRCH LA E R ENGLER A B ENGLER EDNARD R A BONNIE ENGLER 3450 BIRCH LA NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0026 03460 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN G NELSON ETAL JOHN NELSON 3460 NO SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 Ii REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 08-117-23 42 0002 03398 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 42 0005 03430 NORTH SHORE OR S J A A C TRANICK STEVEN A ALICIA TRANICK HIROO VISTA HONES 1301 3-9-14 HIROO, SHIBUYA-KU TOKYO JAPAN 150 33 08-117-23 43 0018 03420 NORTH SHORE DR A A KIVUS ET AL N/L AMBROSE A A ALICE J 3420 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 EST KIVUS 38 08-117-23 43 0021 03450 NORTH SHORE OR NILLIAM C OODEN NILLIAM C OODEN 3450 NO SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0024 03448 NORTH SHORE DR JAM ERLER JAMES A MARY ERLER 3448 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0027 03460 BIRCH LA D S A D K INGVALSON DOUGLAS A DEBORAH INGVALSON 3460 BIRCH LA NAYZATA MN 55391 h ,i >;I 'V...,-? r r t \p RUN DATE 01/23/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE Z BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 93 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 TOTAL BATCH 501 00019 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Cflb) c 9 >.AJy I t MA4I4 PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR JIM RENDER IN LOTS 13, 14 AND 15. LYDIARD’S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .r A \<i>- II- \\y/ "\\i \ A \>,7' ' 7 7 ^ \X / \\V.\F , /.o - ^ A-W\\~v- m\ % ^:\H\ 3 \ x/' ^ > Vx'/ ' - ^ ' ' ' - ' 23740+ - .'' '.(»*/ \'0®\ acre ;s \\\v 28680+- S.r. > '^^\\ \ - \^ . \ ^V65+- ACRES 'x i ''-\m\<14' V 2'- >'%\\ ~SF. \x\vx \vXV 6«» i. Ii \ \ 16 \^ \ \ \ \ 'x •X ^^x \ . ' \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ 100 200 X \ \ \ \ SCALE IN FEET \\ \ \ \ LEGAL DESCRPTION OF PREMISES: ..... T^t port of tots 13. M ond r5. "LYDIARO’S PARK" Loke M.nrelonko Ivina northwesterly of o line described os follows: Beginning ot vy;ru?«rvHswith the bose line shown on the plot of soid LYOIARO S PARK Loke Minnetonko: thence northeosterly perpendicolor to *®‘h'L-r» .nnino line of soid Lot 15 to the northeosterly line of soid Lot 13. ond there ending. 0 : Iron morker Beofings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed datum V \ titf' \ \ .\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 4.: -I’ i u HENNEPIN COUNTY r 7 7 » » 50 SCALf I 4, v<h r/ \\\ A \ Y W \ ' \ Xa \:\ \ • A'A 7 oW 7 \ 7 \ ^0 7 7 7 \ •v \ ^ s\vs 28680+- S.F. • \V\\ \. \<2- y V^W+- acres ■ \\^ \'^ 4AW ■■' \m. \ '\ ' ■■ AA\- >\% ^'aW ' "2.23740+- S.F. 0..54+- ACRtS •x-«. •«C sS/ \ V^’A\^ '*^V'Sb [' ^ V ••...• 2508b+- S.F. 0.57+*^ ACRES \ \ yyCss^ \ \ \ \ \ /\ \ \ \ \ H !(■ \ \ \ \ 100 200 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V t .... ------------------ B TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator A January 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2324 Gale Putnam/James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Sketch Plan for 3 Lot Subdivision 2^ning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Site Area: 2.03 acres. Site Width at Lakeshore: 31 O' ± Site Width at 75 ’ Setback: 306’ ± Site Frontage along Tonkawa Road: 284* ± Proposed Subdivision: 3 single family lots each meeting 100' width at shoreline in 75' setback, and each being approximately 2/3 of an acre in area. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Proposal Option 'A' (Applicant’s preferred layout with driveway outlot) D - Proposal Option 'B' (Modified version of A) E - Proposal Option 'C (With cul-de-sac) F - Hardcover 'Reality Check' for Options A and C G - Sewer As-Builts H - Back Lot Ordinance Site Characteristics This 2 acre tax parcel contains a single family residence. The property was originally platted by Livingston A. Lydiard in 1907, and the property is a combination of parts of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "Lydiard's Park". The existing house was built in approximately 1956, and the property has existed as a single tax parcel apparently since the house was constructed. The entire lot has generally been maintained as lawn area. The easterly 1/3 of the property is relatively low, and applicant's surveyor will have to confirm whether a portion of the property is I rw^Ab-agg- * *—s-*t- Zoning File #2324 Januar>' 13,1998 Page 2 below the 931.5' floodplain elevation. There are no apparent wetlands on the property. The site is fairly open, with some wooded area along the west side near the house. The surrounding neighborhood contains single family residences on lots of similar area and width as those proposed. The creation of two additional single family building sites as proposed would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and generally would appear to meet the LR-IC zoning district standards. Sewer. The property was provided with three sewer stubs and fully assessed for sewer in 1963. Subdivision to create two additional building sites will not require any further sewer connection assessments or charges, other than the standard permit fee and sewer availability (SAC) charge when each new' home is constructed. This area of the City does not have City water available, hence private wells will be used. Access. The site gains access from Tonkawa Road, w hich is a Count>’ Road. Any upgrade of the driveway to serve two additional homes will require review by Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Tonkawa Road contains 66' of right-of-way, which is the correct width for its "scenic parkway" collector status as indicated in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Tonkawa Road is not included in either the City of Orono or Hennepin County bike/hike trail plans, and there appears to be no indicated need for dedication of additional County Road right-of-way. Lot layout and access to the County Road are the two most significant issues for discussion. The applicant has provided three potential layouts which will be reviewed as to their merits, in order of applicant ’s highest preference to lowest preference. Proposal A: Three Rectangular Lots with 30' Outlot Access Drive This proposal results in the most uniform lot layout, with three lots ranging from 0.59 to 0.73 acres. Each lot meets the 100' minimum width standard as well as the 0.5 acre LR-IC minimum lot size requirement. However, the westerly two lots would be considered as "back lots" when only accessed via a 30' corridor, and therefore would technically be required to meet 150% of the lot area and side/front setback standards, which vvould not be met by this proposal; i.c. back lot area variances would be needed for Lots 1 and 2, and side setbacks would be raised to 15', somewhat limiting the flexibility for house construction. Proposal B: Modified Plan With Lots 2 & 3 Abutting Tonkawa In order to address the problem of creating two back lots, applicant has devised a modified layout which has both Lots 2 and 3 abutting the County Road, with Lot 1 therefore becoming a back lot which meets the 0.75 acre standard. Lots 2 and 3, by virtue of being lakeshore lots, only have to meet the 100' width standard at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback, but are not required to meet it -rrr:. • r- —— Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 3 at the road. While this plan technically meets code standards, it creates the need fo«- an additional driveway access serving Lot 3 directly onto the County Road. The subdivision code indicates that development of new single family residences on major roads should be scr\'ed by interior road systems and direct driveway access to the major roads should be limited. Also, under this layout Lot 3 is just 0.50 acre and therefore maybe somewhat more limited in development flexibility than Proposals A or C. Proposal C: Cul-dc-sac Serving All 3 Lots Proposal C results in 3 lots that meet all City requirements and which are serv’cd by a short cul-de- sac. While this plan would appear to be the most conforming of the three proposals, applicant notes that creation of a cul-de-sac adds a significant amount of hardcover as compared to Proposals A or B. In Plan C, Lot 2 is the most limited in acreage and hardcover potential, but still would be allowed as much as 3,570 s.f. of hardcover. See Exhibit F-2. For example, the existing house (excluding the detached garage) has a footprint of approximately 2,250 s.f. A similar house could be built on proposed Lot 2, and adding a 200 s.f. deck and 100 s.f. for sidewalks, could have approximately a 1,000 s.f. drivew-ay. At a nominal 16' width, the driveway could be approximately 62' in length. The result is that the house would have to be set back appro.ximately 100-110' from the lake in order to minimize driveway length to meet the hardcover standards. Lot 3 at 0.60 acre is slightly less limiting; however. Lot 1, even with 0.68 acre, would probably use up the extra hardcover allowance in additional driveway length. Each of the three lot proposals results in lots that are somewhat limited by the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75-250' zone. By contrast, a 2 lot subdivision with each lot being approximately 1 acre, could result in much greater flexibility for new home construction with relatively greater ability to meet the hardcover standards. Cul-de-sac Pros and Cons Note tliat the cul-de-sac as shown in Concept Plan C would be only 150' in total length, being the shortest cul-de-sac road developed to-date in the City. We have many other cul-de-sac roads serving just three homes, but virtually all others are much greater in length. Because this is an urban density zone, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that this cul-de-sac road would be dedicated as public and maintained by the City. By code, the minimum paved width for the straight segment should be 24', with an 80' diameter cul-de-sac, resulting in total hard surface for the entire site, including road, of 21,000 s.f. (assuming all three lots are conforming to the 75- 250' zone 25% limit). This translates to about 24% of the entire property ending up hardcover, or Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 4 about 32% of the 75-250' zone. The creation of a conforming cul-de-sac actually would result in more hardcover than the City's development standard for lakeshore lots. This impact could be reduced by making the cul-de-sac diameter smaller, or eliminating it all together. The question then is whether cul-de-sac is strictly necessaiy. The code would require such cul-de-sac for public safety purposes primarily, i.e. for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, for ease of access for residents, perhaps to provide additional neighborhood parking, and for ease of maintenance. However, without the cul-de-sac the most distant home (Lot 1) would have a driveway 250' in length, which is not extremely unusual in rural Orono, not as common in the urban area of the City. The cul-de-sac likely would be desirable from a fire fighting staging standpoint. The public cul-de- sac layout also eliminates the need for homeowners’ association and concerns about road maintenance. On the down side, though, such a large cul-de-sac will unquestionably change the visual character of the immediate neighborhood, and if this is a public road, there may be concerns about its use as a turnaround by boat trailer traffic when the Maxwell Bay access across the road is full. If this is a public road, the City should not restrict its use by the public. If it becomes a private road, the property owmers would have greater control of its use in exchange for assuming maintenance responsibility. Staff Recommendation The intent of this sketch plan review is to provide the applicant with direction as to what type and magnitude of variances might be granted for development of this property, and to provide direction regarding how the road access should be developed. Staff recommends as follows: 1. 2. 3. Option C most clearly meets the City ’s standards for providing access to urban density properties. Option C with a 24' private road with 80' diameter private cul-de-sac preser\'es the emergency access r.eeds at the expense of eating up slightly more hardcover, and limiting the development capability of each lot due to hardcover. Making the cul-de-sac a private road preser\ es the property owners' rights to control the use of that road, especially given the probable pressure on it by boating traffic. Option A is less attractive from the public safety standpoint, but provides each lot somewhat greater flexibility. Option A requires variances to the City's road standard (3 lots requires a developed road) and also requires back lot area variances for Lots 1 and 2. Also, Lots 1 and 2 would have somewhat less flexible building envelopes due to the 15’ side setbacks required because they ar b'^th back lots. The angle of the shoreline suggests that the houses Nvill also be angled as compared to the side lot lines. Option B is the least -ittractive to staff because it forces the creation of a separate access driveway onto the County Road for Lot 3. Lot 1 under Option B is still a backlot and subject to the 15' side s»*::'acks which limit the shape of any house to be developed. Lots 1 and 2 M a* >1) .Jtfam Zoning File #2324 Januar>' 13,1998 Page 5 would presumably share a driveway access via the Outlot, which is permissible, but the real tradeoff is the addition of a new driveway onto Tonkawa Road which should be avoided. Note that the building envelope for Lot 3 would be quite restrictive since the lot line along Tonkawa Road becomes a front lot line requiring a 30’ setback, and with a 10 ’ west side setback, leaves only 66’ in functional width. Of greater concern is that Lot 3 would have only 1,600 s.f. of available hardcover allowance, certainly not enough to develop a residence with amenities such as sidewalks, driveways and decks. 4.As part of the normal subdivision process, a grading/drainage/stormwater management plan will have to be developed; the standard easements granted; park dedication tees paid; and if a public/private road is constructed, a developers agreement and financial guarantee will be required. Action Requested Provide applicant with direction as to how this property should develop, addressing the following issues: 1.Which layout is most appropriate? Of the layouts which require variances to certain City code standards, which, if any, could be granted \ ariances? Are there hardships or unique site conditions that justify variances? 2. 3. If the road with cul-de-sac is the preferred layout, should that road be public or private? 4. Should the cul-de-sac dimensional standards be rela,\ed to some extent to minimize the impact on the neighborhood while preserving the public safety interest (for instance if this is a private cul-de-sac, could it be developed with a small landscape area in the middle, to maintain the continuous loop for emergency vehicle access but minimize the expanse of asphalt)? This would be a bad idea from a Public Works maintenance perspective, is not as good from a public safety standpoint, but may be quite helpful from a neighborhood view standpoint. Would hardcover variances be allowed for any of the lots? Assuming the answer is no, under Planning Commission ’s preferred layout can all three lots be suitably developed within the hardcover standards? Or should this be a two-lot plat? ■ # • ••• . . • • #. - •*■• . ^ fe*-* ** «. «» •#«. • » ««•» '^g&'i-iTi CvVecys-’ V I 0?Tlot^ K /Vvuotocrt:^ WC AfteA ftf HC - /5;(,0 0 ; q.OOO F-l /-/s-?6 :oAS^' t'A>' f-'t^5r' 7r'2rt?*A^t‘f.' j^^icO Hox.« se z,sc>o ),ooo l/OtvKS Ilf pC>qO->t<V 23 PO ^v c*^ • 3)/^)Ui?voBY' JJpo , 4'^ro 7r'?rTj'A.i<^ • 23,’»0 |VovA.je - 2.3DO Pi?C4«- r '52,ST vifcMcs- l-z^r' 0<L\\;vfvo«s«i r ^sc>0 5*/St? S^lS'/l‘).lo^- ^\/o V6«'/,,,00 =;‘/.7yo •/s^i,-70O =23.0 •/ Ofno^ V ^^C- /A j ^5 Afi^r. OF 1^1^ /.I? V ( 7r-?ii> A^’t'A 'ZZfioo ^us^ ^soc? l)€C(e- ^0 0^> lOAtls^ }Z^ P)ei\jr.oA.i (^c>o L^ Z :Lot 3 • 75-vOJ^'A.:<A-=/‘^,^c>o /?,cco rjv<:< ' C Z zoo fJrv<'.\ >roo Vi^OD -Jr. ■Zi,l60 r2S.C>'/ 1SS2, .- 243 X n^j>o .- Z5.0 '/• /SfOOO 7 -..............-r ■» i • • ^'mrrsr.n /MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on JANUARY 20,1998 Schroeder stated the septic regulations govern the planning of development and no exceptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in ° It*^ slopes are also a concern as well as the 6/o restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary SI e on the north side and 8% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic sites must be conforming. Gaffron said sewering would make it easier for building sites but there IS no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the Council IS reviewing expansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in the future. There were no public comments. (#21) #2324 JAlVffiS RENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - to iUbdivide the parcel into three lots for residential development Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for a two acre site located across from Maxwell subdivision will meet the width requirements in the LK-IC Zoning Distnct. Three options are being provided for the development. Option A is the preferred layout. It would include an outlot driveway at a 30' v.idth A private road is required for the three lots. Lots 1 and 2 require back lot area variances where 3/4 acres is required. Option B is a modified plan with two lots abutting the County road. An outlot would serve the back lot and meet the 3/4 acre standard. Lot 3 becomes somewhat limited in its development flexibility in this scenario and would creates the need for an additional driveway access. Option C includes a short cul-de-sac and is the most conforming of the three proposals. No width variance is required but there would be alot of hardcover due to the road. There are also potential changes to the character of the neighborhood in this proposal. Gaffron reviewed the pros and cons for a cul-de-sac. This would be the shortest cul-de- sac developed to date in the City. The minimum paved width for a private road is 24' and 20' for a public driveway. The total hard surface for the entire site, including the road, would be 21,000 s.f or 24% of the property. This assumes that all three lots are conforming to the 25% hardcover limitation in the 75-250' zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#21 - #2324 James Render - Continued) Staff sees both good and bad points to having a cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac would meet code and not significant add to hardcover. A road could be developed if made private for maintenance control by the residents. Gronberg was asked what the best solution was, and he said that the owner is concerned with the use of the property by the public. The character of the neighborhood is also a concern. He felt Option A is a simpler plan with the three lots and a County road on one side. He felt there was a need for three lots. A shared driveway, however, is a possibility. McMillan was informed that Lot 1 exceeded hardcover limitations as drawn. The three lots would be limited and have similar homes. Gronberg said the owner understands that no variances are allowed. The plan is to leave the existing house on the property. Gafiron said if a cul-de-sac was built, it could be made smaller. The fire department would prefer this option for staging purposes. McMillan questioned how it could be made smaller, citing example of an island. An island would make it difficult to plow. Hawn asked what effect a shared driveway would have for the fire department. Gronberg asked whether an approved fire turn, or Y shape, could be used. Gaffron said the hardcover would be about half the amount as a cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked Gaffron to review the fire turn or Y with the fire department. Smith said she would like to see all three driveways from a single driveway and submitted or review or with a variation of a cul-de-sac. (#22) #2329 BOB WAADE, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3280 AND 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - to develop townbouses in the LR-lC-1 District Robert and Iris Waade were present. Gafiron reported the sketch plan is for development of property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as the Straley property, which was owned for a time by the DNR for a possible access site. The proposal is to divide the property into two lots, each containing a duplex. The property is in the LR-1C-1 Zoning District and is within 200' of commercial zoning. This creates some options for the property with either duplexes or a PRD, attached units with a 3 unit per acre density. The sketch plan presented is for duplexes. This property has gone through several rezonings. The Shoreland regulations affect the property as a PRD requiring a tiering concept regarding the number of units on site, with less development, and located further back on the lot. The plan is for the duplex concept and meeting code. ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \\\\ Associates Engineers & Architects January 30, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates. Inc is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin L SorvalA. PE • PiCh»ird E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M Eberim. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A. Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C. Russek. A IA • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann, PE • Ted K Field, PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl ^^CSIVSD FEB 2199s CITYO?o;^0,Vo Re: Render Subdivision File No. 139-2339 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed three lot subdivision for James Render. The site is located at 1365 Tonkawa Drive (C.R.135) north of North Shore Drive (C.R.51) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: Outlot A as shown on the plat does not provide adequate width for a public or private street as outlined in the City Ordinance. A minimum right-of-way of 50 feet should be provided for either public or private streets. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide. Public streets should be paved to 28 feet in width. We recommend that the shared driveway to serve Lots 2 and 3 be reconsidered. A cul-de-sac would provide more room for emergency vehicle turning movements than the proposed shar'^d driveway / hammer handle design. Outlot A should be extended to the westerly property line of Lot 1 if the City is considering a future easterly extension of Birch Lane. The construction of Birch Lane to Tonkawa Road could eliminate a substandard shared itriveway and reduce the number of accesses onto C.R. 51. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Utilities: Sanitary sewer exists along the southerly lot line of the property. Sewer stubs have been provided to the 3 proposed lots. The well location for the existing house should be shown on the final plans. Utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the si^e lies within the North Arm drainage district. The entire site drains northerly to the lake. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MINI 55113 - 612-636-4600 « Fax: 612-636-1311 ^is.? g*—-~^ •^' ^ Mr. Michael P. Gajfron City ofOrono Page 2 January 30, 1998 RSCEIVT FEB 2,lv« CITYOrOfit, j 5. Easements: The utility easements shown appear acceptable. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetlands and drainage ways. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /<pryy^ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 1 ^1 T HENNEPIN COUNTY V ECAL DESCRPTION OF PREMISES: 'hot port of Lots 13. U ond V5. **LYDIARD* S PARK" Lake M.nnelonko \ /inq norlhweslcrly of a fine described os follows: Beginnino ot . . \ ' point on the soulhwcslerlv line of sold Lot 15 dislonl 225 feet northwesterly \ •on the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 the bosc line shown on the plot of soid "LYDIARD S PARK Loke .;inctonko: thence northeasterly pcrpendiculor to sold southwesterly »ne of soid Lot 15 to the northeosterly line of said Lot 13. end there ending. : Iron morker Searings shown ore bosed upon on assumed dotum \ \ \ HiDU&H'ornof^ , Aeef^eFK- «n.upg^c» ,_^ 'i> 3 f<acffe^ BO«-V. LxfT I 7J'2rt>’ Hous,^ 'zs^f^ Dc CK- ^'oo ijj^wKS ^p(z4y^^J^'Y )fc>0 //?zr '2.^ MV, -7i'' ? Sk^ A^k'A" ■ //ow«Sr 72-SX> t>€C»o t-jt-ui^a /fto c>*pivrwAV jQc>o __ ^v:5Z>'rr',^^0 5 2,(yo /,^>‘T 3 20 • V^3.0f2»,i‘ZO'2.2J % Pe/ivet> C>F^ Tl-r<M.A.r^( y/JC4t.te-:i, hc-S *-17-1998 15:40 FROM HEm CTY PUBLIC WORKS 94730510 P.03 m pSek#; Hennepin County. _______JL An E^ujI Opporhiiiitj Smployer Febniar>* 12, 1998 \fike Gaffiron City of Orono 27d0 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, ^4N 55323 Re: Proposed Plat - Jim Render CSAH 135 Section 8, Jownship 117, Range 23 PlaHennepin County Plat No. 2446 Review and Recommendations KCke: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 tind 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. VVe reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: • The 33 foot right of way is acceptable • Access via an upgraded street entrance at outlet ‘A’ is acceptable. All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginmng construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility constnjction, tran development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit fonns. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk infomi us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, /Thomas D. Johfison, P E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ./DKZAjrh cc; Pete Tulkki Dave Swenson DepuUntn^ ^rrubUc U'oriu 320 Wuiudulcti Avauc SMiili Horkiiu, Mioicsou 55343.^49^ (612)9J0-23(K) FAX:(612>930-23I3 TDD:(612)S30-:6>(5 OAJ pKC>fi.i^VL Peu/l/&z.e^ i FEB-13-199S 19:34 PEhLTY HCH-IEE t-12 344 19TO P.02 02 2-12-98 James Render, the applicant proposing a three lot subdivision of the property located at 1365 Tonkawa Road is planning to build three architecturally unique “cottage” style homes, one of w hich will be his personal residence. These homes are proposed to be approximately 1800-2000 square feet on the main level with smaller finished aiea on the second level, and finishable area in the walkout low'er level, and three car attached garages. The plan would be to build on lot 3 in 1998 while living in the existing house until the new one was complete, the existing home would be removed along with the existing detached garage within 24 months, prior to any construction beginning on either lot 1 or lot 2. Applicant proposes to either grant an easement for roadway purposes or dedicate right of way along the southeasterly 42 feet of the property' for the future construction of a roadway to connect with Birch Lane. Applicant further agrees to accept the prorata share of special assessments relative to the cost of constructing this roadway when and if it is built. In the interim the owners shall have the right to construct and maintain a piivatc road/drivcw'ay within this easement area. Applicant does not wish to see a city standard roadway with a temporary cul de-sac at this time for the following reasons: 1) 1 see no need to create so much unnecessary' hardcover area when it will not be used for many years, if at all. 2) Would create a potential nuisance to the neighborhood as it would attract boat/trailer parking and turnaround traffic. 3) Would not conform to the style and feel of the existing neigliborhood. 4) Wculd require public maintenance , which would be an unnecessary City' expense. Applicant requests City approval to subdivide the property along the above referenced guidelines. ^—Sijwerely, ^^ames Render I TOTAL P.02 r. L TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12, 1998 SUBJECT: #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Review • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Sewered Total Site Area:1.503 acres. Proposal:Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. Per the sketch plan review, a 50' private road corridor is being platted, since the road will serve up to 7 total dwellings. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List v D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan E - Staff Sketch of Building Envelope and Hardcover Zones F - MCWD Comments 2/4/98 G - Hennepin County Public Works Comments (Not revd. as of 2/13) Memo and Exhibits of Januar>- 13, 1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Background This property is zoned LR-lC-1, which would allow a planned residential development (PRD) for attached dwellings as a Conditional Use Permit. Under the LR-lC-1 standards, with a density allowance of three units per acre, the site could potentially accommodate up to four attached dwelling units. However, the PUD standards of the Shoreland ordinance would severely limit the potential dwelling locations and still only allow three or four units on the site depending on an interpretation of the ordinance. As a result, applicant is noi proposing this as a PRD. He is proposing a standard front lot/back lot plat to create a single family lakeshore back lot meeting 150% of the lot area and setback standards; and a front lot adjacent to the road for construction of a duplex. The duplex would be an allowed use because the site is within 200' of the B-2 Commercial Zoning District. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 2 Please review the sketch plan memo of January 13, 1998 for discussion of: a. The context of this site in relation to its surrounding uses. b. More discussion about shoreland regulation implications and duplex credit implications, and back lot considerations. The applicant has proposed a revised plan since the sketch plan stage. The new plan is nearly identical to staffs Exhibit F-1 of the sketch plan review, and results in a proposal with few if any variances required. Conformity to Lot Standards Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence (see Exhibit D). As a back lot; It meets the "150% of 1/2 acre" back lot standard (0.75 acres proposed). It meets the LR-IC-I 100' width minimum (124' at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). It meets the required 45' street yard dep*'\ (150% of the 30' LR-IC-1 standard). It meets the required 15' side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-IC-I standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The access outlot (Outlot B) meets the 30' minimum width requirement, and the driveway meets the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3). This is to provide for snow storage, etc. as well as sepaiation from the neighboring house which is only 5' from the lot line. Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at Just under the 25% limit in the 75-250' zone and just under the 30% limit in the small portion in the 230-500' zone; but the narrow driveway proposal with minimal apron may be diftlcult to maneuver, w’hich suggests that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. 1 i File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 3 Lot 2 is technically a "front lot" and in this case is proposed for construction of a duplex, i.e. a single building with two dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owners. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both will be rental. Regarding lot standards: Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre minimum lot size required (Note that the dup'ex CUP Ordinance, Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (I), does noL require additional lot area for a duplex: and Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (A) (1) requires area minimum of 17,500 s.f (0.40 acre) for a duplex within 1,000’ of a general development lake if not riparian, or 26.000 s.f. (0.60 acre) if riparian. This duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, i.e. this b a factor to account for in to determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access). Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for To duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) as measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the ’front’. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will fimetion as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlet A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MWee lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envelope for thiSj site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15 ’ required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access outlot (Outlot B), i.e. equal to the "s' Je street yard" setback for • the district, which in LR-1C-1 is 15'. The side and rear yards are correctly shown on the drawings (also see staff sketch. Exhibit E). Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be served via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex with a separate access drivev. ay coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. c\^iA, Hardcover for Lot 2 is shown as 7.3% in the 75-250' zone vhere 25% would be allowed, and 50% in the 250-500' zone where 30% would be allowed. However, the 250-500' zone should be credited with unused hardcover allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unused hardcover allowance can be transferred to a zone further from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below: File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 4 Total area of 75-250' zones in Lot 2 = 532 sf + 12,248 sf = 12,780 sf 25%=3,195 sf Proposed hardcover in 75-250' zones = 900 sf Excess available allowance = 3,195 sf - 900 sf = 2,295 sf (Credit to 250-500' zone) Total area of 250-500' zone in Lot 2 = 9,000 sf 30% = 2,700 sf Add credit from 75-250' zone: 2,700 sf + 2,295 sf = 4,995 sf Proposed 250-500' hardcover = 4,500 sf, which is less then 4,995 sf, hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Outlot B meets the 30' width requirement; however, use of Outlot B to serve as access to all three units does not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the units must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance woui J be necessary. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Outlot A currently contains a narrow giavcl driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. The City Engineer has correctly noted that the City's road standard applicable to Outlot A is a 24' paved width for up to seven units. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be served by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de- sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24'.paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. Hennepin County Public Works viewed the proposed private road access location with staff in January. The hill along North Shore Drive needs to be cut down to provide adequate sight distance. This excavation would occur potentially within the Cc anty road right-of-way and within Lot 2, and is the responsibility of the developer. Hennepin County's written comments had not been received as of this writing. General Comments and Issues 1. 2. No grading or drainage plans for the site has been submitted, but is required. The City Engineer has asked for stormwater ponding for this site, although MCWD has considered it to be exempt due to the size of the site Both proposed buildings appear to avoid existing sewer lines by at least 15*. The survey must show all utility easements of record; no easement are shown on the current preliminary plat drawing. File #2340 February'3.1998 Page 5 3, This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs arc available to serve all tliree proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. 4. The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on February 2 and recommended a cash dedication, noting that it a: oears sufficient right-of-way exists for any future trails along the County R >ad. Regarding the need for additional right-of-way for the County Road, Hennepin County comments have yet to be received. Riparian Access Issue Lot 1 abuts the lakeshore, with approximately 124' of shoreline. Lot 2 does not abut the lakeshore. Under the City's code standards, only Lot 1 may have lake access. The applicant initially requested that the City consider whether the duplexe units on Lot 2 might gain access to the lake, via a joint use dock, an easement, or some other method. The City has a long history of denying such access for lots which do not abut the lake. In fact, the ordinances disallow subdivisions to create lakeshore lots which have less than the required width at the shoreline. Therefore, creation of an access corridor along one side of Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2 would not be allowed, regardless whether such access w'as via an e.xtended leg of Lot 1, an outlot, or an easement. The classic case of this is the "Chapman Addition" on Shady wood Road near the Narrows, where a front lot/ back lot subdivision was created in the early 1980's. The City represented to the applicants during the subdivision process that the non-lakeshore lot would not have lake access, and then the property owner a few years later created an easement for the non-riparian lot to gain lake access. When the City eventually learned of this during a sale of the non-lakeshore lot, the City sued to have the easement declared invalid, but lost, because the court found there was inadequate documentation to prove that the easement was not valid, but did not get into the issue of whether it was in conformity with Orono's ordinances. The Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (B) 2, specifically states: "the number of inland non-riparian lots which may gain access via (an) outlot shall not exceed the number obtained by dividing the outlot width measured at the shoreline by the required lot width, rounding down to the nearest whole number." If an outlot intending to create an access corridor to tlie lake was platted at a width of 20', 20 ’ divided by 100 ’ rounded down, still equals zero, i.e. no non-riparian lots could gain access. And, the width of such an outlot could be no more then 24' while still allowing the lakeshore riparian lot to meet the File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 6 100' width standard. In staffs opinion the code does not in any way support nor allow the creation of lake access for the proposed duplex lot. If this had been proposed as a PRD, the Shoreland ordinances note that "the allowable number of dock slips or moorings in the designation of which dwelling units or sites will have the right to use those slips or moorings shall be subject to Council approval and shall be defined in the covenants governing the PRD. In no case shall the number of slips or moorings exceed the number of allowed under the official controls of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. All docks serv'ing three or more dwelling units shall be subject to the joint use dock licensing requirements in Chapter 5 of the Orono Municipal Code". However, applicant is not proposing this as a PRD and therefore it would be inconsistent with past City practice and policy to allow non-riparian lots to gain lake access at a density greater than one dwelling unit per minimum lot width increment of the Zoning District. Notwithstanding the above general discussion, applicant has noted that providing a single slip for each of the three dwelling units on the property, would perhaps have less impact than the possibly four slips that might be created to serve just the lakeshorc lot. It is staffs understanding that a four slip dock would generally be allowed by LMCD on this site, as long as all four boats were licensed to the owner/occupant of the lakeshore lot. Stormwater Ponding The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). The current proposal has just the bare minimum acreage in each of the two lots, and creation of stormwater ponding and the subsequent exclusion of the pond area from lot area calculations, will result in the need for lot area variances. The MCWD has indicated the site is small enough to be exempt from their ponding requirements. Since applicant has not submitted a grading and drainage plan nor plans for stormwater ponds, the impact of such facilities remains to be seen. However, it is likely that a lot area variance could be needed once such facilities are defined. The topography of the site indicates that most of the runoff from the private road and new homes would be to Maxwell Bay. This is also true of the runoff from the other homes to the east. A joint pond might be possible someday. Of greater concern is the runoff from the nearby marinas which are in the 90% hardcover range and which have no ponding facilities currently. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 7 Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Is there any reason why applicant should not provide the normal grading and drainage plans? Should a stormwater pond be required? Does Planning Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, therefore, making Lot 2 a conforming duplex lot? Does Planning Commission concur that applicant should be responsible for constructing a 24' paved road the entire length of Outlot A, and granting easements over such road to all property owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? Since the proposal for a duplex on Lot 2 appears to meet all the Conditional Use Permit standards listed in the code, does Planning Commission have any additional concerns or wish to place additional limitations on the use of Lot 2 for a duplex? Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding access to this property or to adjacent properties? Does Planning Commission find any justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? Staff Recommendation Although the proposed plan appears to meet most pertinent code standards, the lack of a grading and drainage plan and it's potential effect on lot areas, makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on this subdivision. Applicant was advised of the need for a grading/drainage/stormwater plan on February 3. Pending receipt of such a plan, staff recommends as follows: 1. 2. 3. Approval of the conceptual front lot, back lot layout. Designation of the east line of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A, as Lot 2's front line, making its frontage along North Shore Drive its side street lot line. Applicant must provide a grading/drainage/stormwater plan prior to further Planning Con .nission review. 4. Applicant ’s sun^eyor shall re-calculate hardcover zones based on corrected zone definitions, File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 8 5.Applicant shall construct a 24' paved width road within Outlot A and grant easements to all property owners who will make use of that road. 6.Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessary to the grades adjacent to North Shore Drive to improve sight distance. 7. 8. No variances will be granted for lot area/lot width/hardcover/setbacks. The duplex lot shall not have riparian access, and the City shall require the filing of covenants in the chain of title of Lot 2, to document that Lot 2 shall have no access to the lake. 9. No more then two total dwelling units may gain access via Outlot B, hence the driveway layout for the duplex must be revised. Pending receipt of a stormwater plan and knowing how it will impact the site, staff recommends tabling this application until the stormw^ater plan and revised hardcover calculations have been submitted. Options of Action 1. Table per staffs recommendation. 2.Recommend conceptual approval, send this along to Council after required submittals have been received. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. I 'J • • ' r ■; ‘-t •••' . / CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Application M 2^3>^0 PT~^ ^ Date Received Amount Paid A-' PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 7~/V Property Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Name / citv Zip^5^ Phone (work)i4^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size /.Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels \ Residential: no. of units ( l/^CAt^T)Present use (check)y Other (specify) Present Zoning District Lte-icM PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buiidling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Existing Units New Units ^ Total Units Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Odier (specify)________ •ni- .• , >•:-T •\ ,,-•/ V.u v.Tt*- Application H ^3^0 pTT 2 i Date Received /'-2'?>-‘7^_ f Amount Paid i- 2x :p-C> CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address Type of Application to be Filed_____ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANTS ^ Name Address /^/7^ C Phone (home) ^7^ 7^^ "^2. __ Phone (work) ^5"/^ Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Phone (home) Phone (vvork)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ] $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule Z PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY . Present Zoning District t-(Z-\ C - I Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). FROM ; Robert Uaade & fissoc.PHONE NO. : 6124727652 Jan. 23 199S 04:49R'1 POl I TDJZo G- • 71 0/W716 }<}dudjL^ OU)Mh/ j^WTi u>/vrm li/t oajl_j Ph\ ipisr-lsi^ i X • ■ J 4f >3 *• _i > ¥ ^1, ^V -r~5^ RUN DATE 10/24/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24 BATCH 507 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0009 03265 BOHNS POINT LA E J MC DONALD/C J MC DONALD ELGAR A CONSTANCE MC DONALD 3265 BOHNS POINT LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0010 03225 BOHNS POINT LA H A V SWEATT HENRY L SHEATT 3225 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J A MARY K DOOLING RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR 0»t4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44*0018 03280 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 44 0019 03270 NORTH SHORE DR METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM HEARS PARK CENTRE 230 E 5TH ST ST PAUL M^ 55101 TOTAL BATCH 507 00023 V yj ^ 01 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE ANU TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE W THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE QnK RUN DATE 10/2^/97 BATCH 5C7 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDFl OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR Ol'^ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 41 0004 03224 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0007 03260 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J TORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG 3260 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0010 03290 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0013 03332 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MN DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0001 03264 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0006 03220 BOHNS POINT LA R & S ALLEN RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 41 0005 03240 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0008 03262 NORTH SHORE DR LAURA ZAUNER LAURA ZAUNER 3262 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0011 03286 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA * DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0020 03342 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL m 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0007 03230 BOHNS POINT LA D F i J A DALVEY DAVID F DALVEY 3230 BOHNS POINT LA WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 23 38 08-117-23 41 0006 03250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0009 03268 NORTH SHORE OR RONALD 0 STAUFFER JANES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0012 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0021 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MII^ETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNtJ 3324 NORTH SHORE DR 0R0f40 MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0005 03300 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETOr>lKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J om\ 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 1 38 08-117-23 44 0008 03260 BOHI4S POINT LA F E CHURCHILL & L CHURCHILL F E CHURCHILL A L CHURCHILL 3260 BOHN'S POINT LA WAYZATA m 55391 FPOr-1 : Robert Uaade 2 Assoc. FHO»C MO. : 6124727t.?2 Feb. 0? 19?3 02:49PM POl Minnehaha Creek BWi Watershed District ay Freshwater Center /ys. 15 419, Navarre J \ * ^ JmprovingQuality of Water, Quality of Life rebruary 4, 1998 P all: •30 Shadywood Road celslor. MN 55331-9578 tone: (612) 471-0590 •x; (612) 471-0682 email; ijmlit9minnehat)acroek.oro VeD sue: ■.■ww.mlnneltahacreek org PoarnolMansaen: John E. Thomas Presidei't C. Woodrow Lnve Vice President Painela G. Blixt Treasurer ^Ao'iica Gross Secroiaiy Thomas W. LaBounly Thomas Maplo, Jr. Malcolm Reid Otstrict Olfice; DIano P. Lynch District Administrator J Pf|w uh A4*whb 91 nut 30% fkOfi ca'iuim^r Mr. Robert Waadc R&l Construction, Inc. 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN S5364 RE: Plat Proposal, County Road 51. Maxwell Bay, City Dear Mr. Waadc: We have reviewed the plat for Ihe above mentioned piopeiTy and have the followittg comments. 1. 2. 3. 4. The site is le.ss than two acres in size and will have fewer than four living units. MCWD Rule 13 (stormwater managctnenl) allows an exemption for sites which fit this criteria. Therefore a MCWIT permit will not be rctiiiired for treatment of stormwater runolf. The MCWD does hove a concern that ero.sion control measures be properly installed and nuiiutained until the .site is restabilizcd. We urge you to follow the City of Orono ordinances which govern erosion control. If the topographic .study of this site Indicates an impact to any area below elevation 931.5 (the 100 year fiood elevation) the MCWD would consider this to be floodplain alteration and require a permit for that activity. The plat submitted had no elevation coniour.s. Please submit a plat with said contours when tlml information is available. The MCWD is the local government unit (I .CH3) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City of Orono. If the site contains any wetlands, a plat should be submitted indicating their location with respect to the proposed activity on the site. If wetlands arc present a permit may be required. Please call me at 471-0590. extension 282, with any queslion.s. Sincerely, District Technician t GlTYofORONO Municipal OfHces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 January 29, 1998 David Zetterstrom Hennepin County Public Works 320 Washington Avenue S. Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Three subdivisions for February 17 Planning Commission meeting Dear Dave: Attached are three proposed subdivisions abutting County Roads for your review. Please advise me of any issues or concerns on these prior to the February 17 meeting. Senior Planning Coordinator c>r Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 -r— ~-Ti „ • 'J. • - H TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator DA;E:January 13,1998 SUBJECT; #2329 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Sketch Plan for Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for Duplexes Zoning District:LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum lot size subdistrict Total Site Area:1 .503 acres. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat and Topography Maps C - Sur\’ey/Proposed Site Plan D - LR-lC-1 Code Standards E - Duplex Credit CUP Code Requirements F - Staff Sketches Indicating Various Development Possibilities/Pitfalls G - Staff Concept Plans of Area Between the Marinas H - Comments from City Engineer Tom Kellogg I - Excerpts from Zoning History of Site Overview This is a sketch plan for development of the propeily directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as 'the Straley property', which was owned for a time by the DNR as a possible site for an access, then sold by the DNR when the Maxwell Bay access was built on the Gayle's Marina site. Applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots, each to contain a duplex. The property currently consists of 4 tax parcels, three of which formerly contained residence structures. Context of Site in Relation to Surrounding Uses The property in question has a unique history which may provide some context for the current proposal. Historically, the property ai\d the four adjacent residential properties to the east of it, have been located between two commercial marinas. The entire stretch of land between Tonkawa Road and the east side of North Shore Marina (See Exhibit I) was first zoned in 1957, designated as a I 1 ^ gar ^ Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 2 'commercial district ’. In 1966, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including the easterly approximately 60' of Lakeside, was rezoned residential. Shortly thereafter in 1967, the entire stretch was again rezoned commercial. With the 1975 City-wide rezoning, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including North Shore Marina, was rezoned to LR-lC-1, with the Gayle's Marina and Lakeside Marina properties to the west remaining as B-2 commercial. In 1984, the City rezoned North Shore Marina back to B-2, leaving the residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore marinas zoned LR-lC-1, which zoning is currently in effect. There has been much discussion through the years about what should happen with the residential properties between the two marinas. City discussions that led to the 1984 rezoning of North Shore Marina from residential to commercial, included consideration whether the remaining residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore should be similarly rezoned commercial. The Planning Commission at that time recommended that future rezoning of the area be proved only when a future applicant controls or owns a 2 acre parcel consistent with the minimum required acreage for a lot in the B-2 zone, and proposes a use consistent with the B-2 standards. City Council minutes subsequent to that recommendation indicate no formal action was taken by the Council to adopt such a policy. However, Council discussions prior to the Planning Commission recommendation had indicated a concern that the City risks claims of spot zoning if merely North Shore Drive Marina is rezoned without a future intent to rezone the adjacent residential properties. The City never adopted a formal policy for rezoning the properties between the marinas. They continue to be zoned LR-lC-1, a single family residential use district that would allow via a CUP & PRD, up to 3 units per acre density, with as many as 4 individual units attached per building. The only other properties the City has zoned in this manner are the twin homes in Navarre and the Brook Park/Sohns/Larson properties directly to the west of them; and a small tract just east of Carman Street near the Navarre business district. Shoreland Regulation Implications The Shoreland District standards adopted in 1992 place significant limitations on any PUD/PRD located in the shoreland, requiring the establishment of 'tiers’ in order to determine acceptable development density in a PRD. An additional implication of the Shoreland Regulations is that any duplex parcel on the lakeshore must be no less than 135' in defined width, which has an impact on applicant's site because it is only 123' in width at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Please review E.xhibits F which define various subdivision schemes for developing the site and the various concerns or issues presented with each plan. These sketches were developed by staff at the time DNR was auctioning the site. I Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 3 Duplex Credit Implications Zoning Code Sec. 10.20, Subd. 3 (I) allows one duplex to be located on a single lot in the LR-lC-1 zone as a conditional use upon application therefore, provided that the following conditions arc met: 1. Public sanitary sewer ser\dce is available. 2. The lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district. 3. The duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial or industrial district. These standards would be met by the current proposal. A duplex is (briefly) defined as a single building on a single lot containing two separate dwelling units. The duplex CUP standards do nol require a duplex lot to meet double the area standards. The Shoreland District requirements specify that any lot approved for duplex use shall be at least 135' in width and at least 26,000 s.f. in area if riparian, and at least 17,500 s.f. in area if non-riparian. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area as established in the zoning district and Shoreland standards. However, lot width and the 'back lot' status of the riparian lot stand out as potential additional issues. Back Lot Considerations Applicant's sketch plan proposes a 30' wide outlot over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. This number of homes being served far exceeds the City's three-unit threshold for requiring development of a full-fledged roadway. Likewise, applicant's plan proposes a 12'-20' easement driveway providing access to the proposed lakeshore duplex, which clearly is in conflict with many of the back lot ordinance requirements in regards to access, i.e.: 11.30 Subd. 5C does not allow the creation of back lots which are accessed by easement such as that proposed. 11.30 Subd. 5C(1 c) disallows a front/back lot division when the residence structure on a neighboring lot adjacent to the back lot is less distant fi-om the access outlt than the zoning district front setback standard. The adjacent residence to the east is within 3 feet of the proposed outlot, rather than the 30' required. Subd. 5C(2b) requires the lot width of a back lot to meet the zoning district standard Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 4 when measured at the defined locations. The standard for a duplex lot is 135'; the proposed back lot is only 123'-126' at these locations. However, the back lot meets the 100' standards for a single family lot... Subd. 5(C)4d states that no more than two residences nay be served by a driveway located within an access outlot; the proposed plan would result in a total of 8 dwellins being serv'cd by a single driveway. Hardcover The applicant's proposal shows narrow driveways and garage apron widths which in staffs opinion are unlikely to function adequately, especially for the duplex on Lot 1, the lakeshore lot. The 75- 250' hardcover for Lot 1 is shown as using up its full 25%, i.e. just over 5600 s.f. Note also that for Lot 2 the 75-250' zone is not shown, but approximately half of Lot 2 is within the 75-250' zone as measured from Crystal Bay to the southwest. The hardcover zones will have to be accurately depicted on any formal plan that is submitted. Lake Access Implications Applicant proposes a duplex to be constmeted on the riparian lot that is 125' in width. Under LMCD standards of 1 slip per 50' of shoreline, development of this site would presumably be allowed 2 slips. However, as a single family lot. Lot 1 would likely be allowed 4 slips as long as all 4 boats are titled to the owner of the riparian lot. The City has only one other lakeshore duplex situation that staff is aware of, that being the duplexes on Kelly Avenue in Navarre, In that situation, six dwelling units in three duplex buildings are located on property that contains approximately 400' of shoreline, but 300' of width as measured in a straight line. Those duplexes are allowed a total of 6 slips via joint use dock license, such slips being located on an outlot in the southerly end of the site. The correlation to applicant's proposal would be that a duplex constructed on applicant's lakeshore lot might be allowed a 2 slip or 4-slip dock, allowing 1 or 2 boats for each of the two riparian dwelling units. This question remains to be resolved as to riparian access in slip numbers to serve a duplex on this site. It is clear however that the City would not allow riparian access to the duplex lot proposed which does not abut the lake. The Shoreland Ordinances indicate that lots intended to access to public waters for use by owners of non-riparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the minimum standards set forth in Subdivision 16 for individual building lots. Therefore no easement or outlot could be created that provides lake access to the lot adjacent to the road, and the duplex lot adjacent to the road shall not have riparian rights. Zoning File #2329 January 13,1998 Page 5 How the Proposed Development Relates to the Adjacent Residential Uses Development of duplexes on this site may place it somewhat out of context with the adjacent single family residential development, and from a long term perspective might be considered as ultimately leading to a disjointed rather than comprehensive plan for the area between the marinas, unless the entire area is redeveloped with multiple family units. The total area between the marinas is approximately 3 acres, which if developed comprehensively could result in a 9 unit townhome complex with significant open space areas. The applicant notes that to-date, he is unable to acquire the remaining properties at prices that justify such a development. That is what is forcing the issue of creating two duplex buildings. Exhibit G-1 is a staff concept sketch of how a comprehensive townhome complex might be developed. Exhibit G-2 is a staff concept sketch of how this area will look if the duplexes are constructed as proposed. Exhibit F-1 is staffs concept of how the current proposal should be revised to most closely meet all code requirements. Utilities The site is provided with (and limited by the locations ofy municipal sewer lines. Since 3 residences previously existed on the property, it isunlikely that additional sewer connection charges will be required unless a total of 4 units is allowed, in which case staff will research whether charges are due. Applicant proposes to move an existing trunk sewer line, which the City Engineer has addressed in his comments. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the proposal and address the following issues so the applicant will have some direction how to proceed: 1. 2. 3. 4. Determine whether there is any justification to allow the large number of variances involved with development of a duplex on the lakeshore lot. Determine whether there is any justification to grant access type/width standards for this project, increasing the number of homes sharing a private driveway from 4 to 8. Discuss the option of a PRD (See Exhibit F-3) and whether the 'underlying zoning district' should be considered as having a density of 2 units per acre or 3 units per acre. Advise applicant that the standard grading, drainage, and stormwater considerations apply to development of this site (See City Engineer's comments), that access will neeed to be approved by Hennepin County, that the property will be subject to park dedication fees, etc. 1 Application # Date Received Amount Paid 12^0 ^ A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION C ^ S\Yecf a<ldAfi^a<uJ) PROPERTY LOCATION , i • n r\ Siteaddressc^SSC) Property Idemific^onNumber (TIP) U'7f^'^Ul on/O j 0%'^ tilHI Please check one - Property abstract or Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT torrens? qZ'HI^'OOOZ. ' or-in-p-s-^^ odL^ Name O/rvcl ILfS^ jJaClde.__________________ Address l anU I\ ) i LT)\-HA i^T ~T1Q. Phone (home)-4 7<^-~7^S7. City nUAlLl Zip^^vBfc^ Phone (workT^iLYVvit. OWNER (if diffe^t than appU^t) ^ (L /^ /Vl n or) Name 4 CLAi/\jiL<hj VTXCU'. i ^ \ r'\ U j(.' Address //DS^ £ L l )0uc^^^4T w^ City LLJn J\ZeL:rhf^ / (attach list if ifnore than one) Phone (home) Zip Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels y.^ Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land -LiiffL.Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)V?) rax\tc Residential; no. of units Other (specify) Present Zoning District / PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no SiiVMtivi^inn fnr New RiiilHino Sitf ;w Duiiaimg sites; ^ XyjupAH ew Building Sites d\-^ \ (Jl \ txtpfeV Units , 7 Proposed Gross Density \ * M * «i%i« • « TMinimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land —r---'T wu ^Acres \vo^‘v^ Ot^ Resident!^ jpXSihti. 'rercfaiZ.,^ Other (specify) ^ ^ ^ • ^ 1/^ j\ l' ^ ^ ^ \ C c}Ql/ \V6' y <'i(^ - p-2_ !$o. oeo » n \ c ■■ .♦V • 1>-I SBC. 10.26. SUBDISTRICTS . LR-lC-1 ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back/ Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, and Accessory A. Any use as regulated in the "LR-IC District.(^/^^J^ Subd. 3. Additional Permitted Use. Within any "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling unit density over the "LR-lc" District may be obtained providing all conditions below are complied with: A. All provisions of Section 10.32 Planned • Residential Development are complied with; B. Public sanitary sewer is available; C. All dwelling units must be attached but hot more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty 30 feet; D. Parcels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hard cover; E. Building size and location meet Council approval; F. Vehicle ingress and egress meet Council approval; G. A minimum of two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit, one of the parking spaces shall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves; H. Density provisions under Section 10.60 are not exceeded. Subd. 4. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. (See Section 10.25, Subdivision 6). P'2^ SBC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA” . District. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any '•LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-lA” District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-lC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted’ accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-lA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited a9i^icultura 1 activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have Immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R~1A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds, C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: . Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a ^ conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or Industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential DUllaing. < . ^ i ■4 :fc Cj3 I\; K«W. o4 5"s i I t iC I fe 4 d o 111 I L ? *, I ♦ * A ■ry » : 1... •' (1 - 2^0 S*>/2^AJg" • 3 AC- ^ ft • 2V>7^> z«L€\/rt- *33gOs/. * ^ ^/es5 t:m. * /I'U- (A^ trM'/<^ bAJ^ TIB^ *2- J ^l64fT • sHAjeeb PocjcT COf^cef^j-piM^ (U^(A0 C0t^C<zPT eiM^ 'As Bonestroo. Rosenc. Anderlik Associ^itei. Inc is an AffirmMive Action Equal Opportunity EmployerROn©St TOO Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE. • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE •Richard E. Turner. PE. • Glenn R Cook. PE • RoOen G Schumcht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE •Robert W Rosene, PE. and Susan M Eberlm. C PA . Senior Consultants^ Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. Pc • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE •A ^ Richard W Foster. PE • David O. Losnoia. PE • Robert C Russek. A.I.A • Mark A. Hanson. PE. •IliX « Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE •Sidney P Williamson. PE. L.S • Robert F Kotsmith ^ Offices St Paul. Rochester, Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee, Wi Engineers & Archiiects January 12, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Plannirg Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2329 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed three to four lot Waade subdivision. The site is located at 3280 and 3290 Northshore Drive (C.R. 51) east of Tonkawa RoadfC.R. 135) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The private road on Outlot A does not meet the minimum width, design speed or right- of-way for a private road as outlined in the City Ordinance. The private road currently serves 4 homes and potentially would serve 7 or 8 homes. No more than two units may be serv'ed from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. Due to the existing house locations it would be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. We recommend a minimum pavement width of 24 feet and minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet across Outlot A. The two driveways shown to serve the site should be combined to form a single driveway at least 20 feet in width. The proposed pavement at Unit No. 2 should be enlarged to allow for emergency vehicle turning movements. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Utilities: The proposed easterly realignment of the sanitary sewer falls within 6 feet of an existing home. The proposed alignment may need to be shifted westerly to allow tor construction. The existing overhead power may need to be relocated to allow for construction. Utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s’ Comprehensive Stonn Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies witliin the Maxwell Bay drainage districts. The entire site January 9, 1998Mr Michael P. Gajfron City ofOrono Page 2 drains northerly to the lake. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Utility easements will need to be revised based on the final sanitary design. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetlands and drainage ways. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC /cn*>i Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono "__ 'p(ejoi^'n>__l5 57 - pap.fe<!a3!!ri_^?*>«r?to€-C<^ ; ‘ ’______A<i€V^..CMA^‘^*^ -TO jbeMr7/»rt_ /N ^ BArOfi- TO ___.S-2— ....................................... . . ■ jx-|fl-'7t/ ne^’t^nT.” ^l*i7St.0MI^C» C6bff\^ .. - ________________ ___Jif^lA:alL?£J^‘^^ ^'^^^ ..........-....-............ . TO /K-"^ 0«v.. _%e^ 14*^9/Co ------------- ---------- -------------------------- ~ - ^ ---------------- --------------_ CMrC^^T- ....... td ^#e.-/c-j fees»t>r^iTr<«,, 3-//-S7 Qg->>------------------------------ ---- 6-M-W oie^|L2/s^^ r^/rt^- _______________ ____ ____________. y\/[j^fjA. •7?>Nia<AJ!A»_4.A>?^!?t-QE_Cf<>P<^'-^V^^------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------— -____ 7_ .... »/- ,,i /if SeC..^f?...----------------iNg^t OP t-z—«.— ------- /.......- Bet/Mo»^y (lcg^)fc^^<»^oMJr ----------------_____"’.'ra'xi-x.'tx ’x.'ry.-^-^ -.—------------------------. ^'ZS'0»G> y*w»/s - j£eze i»J!gfe_jSgo^agl3g?—€Ag?l^£j4 ---------------------- ................................^^.fv.^AiT-}^ 'Tj6»/VgM' fge&LOgg^nAt ._r7^?4II ------— • •' V ----------- • ----------- fjti^ IS. A AK><orZLggkg?L//AJg-:!!Zfi-^ ••• • • u •« ..^^8^^—- ~—— ------------------y ^/7A>g WQUU> fc6_^asTTo£. _ _. ------------------------> •• • • —— ,*.-. •• • .•••** *<•** ■- •*** •. »T' • a.9 M p»»' )V7 — Af4ViAtVt DOCUMENT COMMUNICATIONS FEB-17-1993 15MO FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC UORKS 94730510 P.04 .S',Hennepin County ^ An X<f lul Op|>orl uailj Empkjtr ^ Februarj^ 12, 1998 Mike GafFron Ci^’ of Orono 27^0 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Cr^'stal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Proposed Plat - Maxwell Landing CSAH ’51 Section 8, Township 117, Ranee 23 . „ ;plaHenneptja Count)' Plat No. 2447 Rc\’iew and Rccomniendations Mike: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above piat and make the following comments: • The developer should dedicate the additional triangular right of way sho''/n on the attached sketch. This dedication will accommodate the current roadway and the grading noted below. • Access via a public o.* private street in outlot ’A’ will be permitted vvien a grading plan showing adequate slope removci providing acceptable sight-distance is submitted • M proposed constructio.n within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility constmetion. traiT development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at >30-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure^ wc request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc; PcteTulkki Dave Swenson Dtpaiinitni of Public Woiii 1 320 Wasiiingloci Aveiue SiXjrh HopiUtW, MuMOU Wi:j930-2JOO FAX:(6U}930-2513 TDD:(C12)930-26?<G U:yzl<dTi;.<r TOTAL P.04 FEB-17-1998 15:50 FROM HEW CTY PUBLIC WORKS 94730510 P.02 PRgUMfMAPY ly •• V ' / / / / > MAXWELL CO.road NO 5f TOTAL P.02 To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12,1998 Subject:#2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Cr>stal Bay Rd. S. - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area:17.5 Acres ± Proposal:7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Drawing - E - Preliminary Grading Drainage & Erosion Control Plan F - Comments from Steve Weckman, Septic System Inspector G-Comments from Hennepin County Public Works (>or<ecV6 ArT ©p H - Draft Planning Commission Minutes from Sketch Plan Review ^ 6 I - Wetlands Assessment J - City Engineer Comments K - Memo & Exhibits of January 14,1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Summary' The applicant has addressed most of the issues identified during the sketch plan review, and has submitted a preliminary plat that creates seven lots rather than eight, three of which are lakeshore lots. All access is now proposed via a single private road entering Old Crystal Bay Road at a location that Hennepin County finds acceptable. The applicant and his consultants have completed additional soils analysis for septic systems, and Steve Weckman indicates that each proposed lot now has suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. Conformin' to Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Standards The proposed subdivision creates a residential development of 2+ acre lots served by septic system and wells, conforming to the LR-IA Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan rural residential standards. Pi J File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 2 Relationship to Surrounding Development Noerenberg Park abuts this property on the southeast. To the west, north, and cast of the site exist similar low density residential developments. The proposed subdivision is in keeping with the general character of its surrounding neighborhood. Lot Layout and Lot Standards Each lot meets or exceeds the 2.0 acre minimum lot standard for the LR-1A district. Lots 2 and 3 are cul-de-sac lots, being approximately 110' and 170’ in defined width respectively. However, each of these two lots exceeds 200' in functional w idth and the City has commonly granted lot w idth for cul-de-sac lots. Due to the unusual shape of the site, the topography, and the location of septic sites, the lots in this subdivision are uniquely shaped. However, each lot appears to accommodate a suitable house location that is somewhat flexible with out encroaching into septic drainfield sites which must be preserved. Applicant's surveyor has depicted the required setbacks on the preliminary plat drawing. The setbacks shown by dashed lines appear to be correctly depicted. Lot 1 is techriically a 'through' lot having roads on three sides, surrounding the existing house which will remain. Lot 1 will accommodate thj^existing house w ithout the need for any setback variances. All other buildings on the property are intended to be removed, so that Lots 2 through 7 will become new building sites. Lots 4, 5, and 6 are lakeshore lots, and each meet the 200' minimum width requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75’ setback line. Note that Lot 6 has an hourglass shape that leaves a functional width of 165' at the proposed building site, , jThe road outlot, Outlot A, has been extended to the southeast to provide a driveway corridor for Lot without requiring direct access to Old Crystal Bay Road. Staff sees this as a positive improvement, \/ and recommends that this layout be accepted as providing suitable access to Lot 7. Note that while Lot 7 has 600' of frontage on Old Cry stal Bay Road, the Citv’ will require that all existing direct road accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road be eliminated. This likely will also be required by the County. Because of the 50' proposed width of the access for Lot 7, staff does not consider Lot 7 as being a back lot, and it therefore does not have to meet the higher standards associated with back lots. In general the proposed lot layout appears to provide for sufficient building envelopes for each lot, and the only variances apparent would be for the width of the two cul-de-sac lots. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 3 Road Layout and Standards City Engineer has reviewed the road layout and his comments are attached as Exhibit J. The horizontal curve for the private road at 125 ’ radius does not meet the City’s 275 ’ standard for a 30 mph road, but would for a 20-25 mph posting. We normally don’t post speed limits on private roads. Revising the road to meet the 275 ’ radius will likely impact septic sites on one or more lots. The Engineer has also noted additional information which is required for submittal. Park/Trail Easements/Or Dedication Applicant has shown a 10’ bike easement along Old Ciystal Bay Road, based on the Park Commission recommendation. Because such casement is concurrent with the 10’ drainage and utility easement along that east boundar>', the easement has not been subtracted from the calculated lot areas. Staff does have a concern that actual construction of the trail might have significant impact on the future use of the alternate septic sites on Lots 2 and 7, with the toe of the alternate mound site of Lot 2 being only 10’ from the trail easement, and that on Lot 7 being only 15’ from the trail easement. Also, on Lot 2 the shoulder rises steeply above the road, above which the septic site is perched. Staff would not want to see a bike trail developed so close to a septic site, which would actually put that site out of conformity because a 20 ’ setback to any hard surface is required from the down hill toe of the mound. For the reasons noted above, staff hesitates to recommend granting of 10’ bike way easement in Lots 2 and 7 at this time, given that no definite trail construction plan has been developed by the City as of this date. While it might be appropriate and consistent with City’s past practice to require this developer to construct a segment of trail along the road, note that the City also gained an easement from the French Creek Woods Plat to the east for trail use. If the intent of the City (and the County?) is to connect the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park, careful planning is need to ensure proper siting of the trail. Given that the existing house is intended to remain on Lot I, only Lots 2 thru 7 are subject to the Park Dedieatiori requirements. Per the City’s current ordinance, the City Assessor will be asked to provide a pre-development fair market value for Lots 2-7, with an 8% park fee. The City Council will determine wtiether the value of the easement and/or any trails constructed by applicant should be deducted from the park dedication fee. The City Council has indicated an intent to establish a cap on per-lot park dedication fees which may apply to this property. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 4 Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed Hennepin County is likely to indicate that additional County Road right-of-way should be granted ' for future needs. The Comprehensive Plan categorizes this segment of Old Crystal Bay Road as a 'scenic parkway' which requires a right-of-way width no greater then 66'. Since 66' exists, and since no additional right-of-way was granted or required from the French Creek Woods plat across from this proposed subdivision, the City would be consistent in not requiring the dedication of additional right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. Applicant has provided a grading plan for construction of the road in Outlot A, with the intent that the future owner of Lot 7 would construct a driveway within the portion of Outlot A dedicated for that use. Note tliat the length of the proposed road and cul-de-sac is approximately 700', meeting the City's cul-de-sac length limitation. Stormwater/Drainage/Grading Plan Exhibit E is the applicant's preliminary grading/drainage and erosion control plan. At this time, applicant is not proposing any stormwater ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided for this site. This also needs MCWD review. The City has consistently required stormwater ponds for this t\ pe of residential development, hence the developer will have to make a strong case to convince staff that it is not needed for this site. Note that most proposed grading stays within the right-of-way of Outlot A, a portion of the grading extends into the adjacent lots. It is especially critical to maintain the grading limits within Lot 4, where fill will be needed directly adjacent to the primary septic site, as is also the case in Lot 5. In Lot 1, the grading also is ver>' close to both the primary and alternative trench drainfield sites and extreme caution must be taken to avoid disturbing those sites during the road construction process. For Lot 6, proposed grading to create a walkout site is proposed near the middle of the lot. That grading appears to extend slightly into the bluff impact zone (20' from top of bluff) and should be revised slightly to avoid such encroachment. All other lots appear to have suitable building sites for the intended house types, with no grading proposed for the building loeations on those lots Utilities Since there are no City utilities serving this part of the City, there are no assessment or connection fees required. The applicant is responsible for arranging necessary electric/gas/phone/cable utility lines as needed to serve the plat. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 5 Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weckman has confirmed that all lots have viable primaiy and alternate sites, and that future testing would be needed to confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where mounds are now acceptable. Bluff Impacts Lots 5 and 6 contain a bluff, and the 'top of bluff was defined by staff during the sketch plan review. A 30' setback from top of bluff is required for any structures, and fill or excavated material is not allowed to be placed within the bluff impact zone. The top of bluff as depicted in the preliminary plat for Lot 5 does not match the top of bluff location identified by staff, and top of bluff actually is very near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the street setback and top of bluff setback requirements. A more thorough analysis of the allowable building site should be considered for Lot 5, since that lot appears to be the least flexible of the lots in regards to house placement. Tree and Woodland Impacts: Easement Proposed Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic background map (See Exhibit I of Sketch Plan memo). Most of the wooded areas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. The dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Maxwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 75' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. During the sketch plan review, Planning Commission agreed that it would be appropriate to require that some type of 'tree conservation easement* be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11.60, Subd. 1. The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Issues for Discussion 1. Will Planning Commission accept the two cul-de-sac lots which require width variances? r i File #2341 Februar>' 12, 1998 Page 6 2. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed method of access to Lot 7? 3. 4. How does Planning Commission view the road radius issue, especially if making it conform to the City standard will have an impact on septic sites? t ,-V-^ ^ (>A>Should llie trail easement be granted at this time?^an it be relocated around the potentially impacted septic sites on Lots 2 and 7? If so, will this have an impact on the area calculation for those lots? 5.Is there any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? 6.Is there any reason why the grading of the building pad on Lot 6 should be allowed to encroach the bluff impact zone? 7.The bluff impact zone should be correctly depicted for Lot 5, although this will show to an even greater extent how limited the building envelope is for this Lot. 8.Does Planning Commission have any specific guidelines to propose for a tree preservation easement to be developed for the lakeshore lots? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the applicant addressing issues noted by the City Engineer prior to presenting this proposal to Council for preliminary plat approval. If changes to the road layout, grading plan or stormwater pond development will significantly change the lot layout, staff would want to first bring this back to Planning Commission for further review. 2. Any recommendation for approval should include or address the following: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. Acceptance of access method for Lot 7, including a requirement that all existing accesses to the county road be eliminated. Road radius issue. Trail easement and location. Stormwater ponding. Bluff impact variances or adherence to standards for Lots 5 and 6. Tree preservation easement. Adherence to normal development requirements, including perimeter drainage and utility easements, private road easements and covenants, developers agreement, park 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 7 dedication, etc., all of which will be formally identified in the resolution for preliminary plat approval. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval with conditions as noted above. Table for further information (specify). Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. . > ^ • % •'• v' .a;v : ;^v 1’ JL Application ^ 5 Date Received / -^3-^v* Amount Paid I 5 37 :T^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address QoS> f±yj CQ,KjsU>iL^ Sha V . Property Identification Number (PID) 3 3 rcx:?^/? Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? a Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT m CL of>cr^ CO A City Zip'^'^w' Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name tz‘ ------—^ Address Phone (home) City Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL^ Division for Tax Purposes ^ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 1 Existing Units New Units 1 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Units per Acres Minimum Lot Size "Zi o ficfu Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use (check)Residential Other (specify) I1 RUN DATE 01/26/98 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR 0I«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADCU PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 30 0^-117-23 43 0008 00820 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S GAB HUST GEORGE A HUST 820 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0002 00840 * OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S A J ELLIS A J ELLIS 840 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0007 00880 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD GERALD G JOHNSON JR GERALD G JOHNSON JR 860 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 13 0006 01020 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S KENDALL ELLIS KENDALL ELLIS 1020 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S NAi'ZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 21 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J M DAYTON « E J DAYTON JUDSON £ ELISABETH DAYTON TCP TONER 8860 121 8TH ST S MPLS MN 55402 38 09-117-23 24 0001 02865 NORTH SHORE DR HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIST RTE 1 BOX 296 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 09-117-23 11 0007 00898 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO 335 BRONN RD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 09-117-23 12 0005 00050 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD RAYMOND 0 HALE RAYMOND D HALE 850 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0008 00890 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S J A S M N TROUP JOHN A S MARGARET N TROU. 890 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 14 0001 01100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RU S R J GUMNIT A F H GRAHAM ROBERT GUMNIT/FRAhXES GRAHAM 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S NAYZATA m 55391 30 09-117-23 21 0005 00825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO J M a E J DAYTON JUDSON M DAYTON TCP TONER 8860 MPLS MN 55402 TOTAL BATCH 501 00016 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 38 09-117-23 12 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GAB HUST GEORGE A HUST 820 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 C9-117-23 12 0006 00870 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S C S A S H LANNOM CHARLES S A SUSAN H LANNOM 870 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0009 00038 CITY OF CITY OF P 0 BOX ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO ORONO 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 09-117-23 21 0001 00825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD J M A E J DAYTON JUDSON M DAYTON TCF TONER 8860 MPLS MN 55402 38 09-117-23 21 0006 00905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO ANCO LAND DEVELOPMENT IMC ANCO LAND DEVELOPMENT INC 3540 MONTGOMERIE AVE DEEPHAVEN MN 55391 /•tv ' Jj B 'V i A 4 0 9 •8 2 8 J iSl <S2 Is* I 8o" ^>«S "ft l“* S&5 ‘II s iif; t \ I I I a. I I I I •* '— > §8 MIs i 5" ogl \ I < I I I I I 98 P?< §*ils8 « J 8 P< Isf ^ Si <n tf o § wt Ksa xSst ^^'=‘•7 2I • • • I-— O o ■ oo 0 i H4 01 k| m : ; L \— ilj # (/) Cl! ■ ■•P L.i• • ^ • \<f Q. ■-^cr. ■ •:^v Uj-j Q, uo- , % CiP • \ • i2i. f - •■ Q.'.vV,'oo F TO:Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:February 7, 1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2321, Dan Anderson - Subdivision The proposed seven lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Soil borings and percolation tests were performed by Otto Associates to identify primary and alternate drainfield sites on each lot. The early information provided conflicted with septic inspection information on file at the City and additional information was requested before the soil testing report could be approved. On January 27, 1998 1 was present when several pits were excavated with a backhoe to confirm the information provided to us. The proposed drainfield sites on lot 1 were located in filled soils and could not be used for the subdivision and two additional sites were located. Additional testing and design work will be required on this lot in spring, but two trench drainfield sites are available. The remaining lots all had suitable area and slopes for mound systems. Additional testing will need to be performed this spring and may prove that some areas are suitable for trench drainfields, but most will likely require mound systems. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the subdivision on the condition that additional testing will be performed and designs submitted for each lot before any permits are issued within this subdivision. The city requires the drainfield sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. /•/' l\ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 Dillon asked about the hardcover variance. Schroeder indicated that the building has been reduced in size. Lindquist and Schroeder were in support of the variance request. Sketch Plans OF (#20) #2321 DffN ANDERSON,“ILWING AN I?ffEREST IN 903 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into 8 lots for residential development The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the review is of a sketch plan for the 17-1/2 acre Carpenter property located on Old Crystal Bay Road. All existing buildings have been removed. The plan calls for 8 lots with two cul-de-sacs, with septic systems and wells. Lot 8 is to be served by an individual driveway. The property also contains woodlands and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline, which will impact lake setbacks and tree preservation. The MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 bluff located on 3 of 4 lots forces the setback to an average 150 ’, where normally the setback is 75'. Gaffron indicated the issues for discussion include access, lot area/width standards, on site sewage treatment, bluff impacts, tree preservation, park dedication, archaeological sites, wetlands, and stormwater drainage. Gaffron said the code would generally limit individual access to major roadways. A change will be necessary for access to Lot 8, possibly by an outlot road. Hennepin County will also need to review access. Gaffron said the best plan w'ould be for all lots to access from one road, but with circumstances being as they are, two roads would make sense. Gaffron reported that the lots meet the 2 acre zoning. Lot 3 does not meet the 200' width requirement. The four lakeshore lots are narrow, and the angle of the existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out the lots. The setbacks are 50' front, 30' side, 50' rear, and 75' setback from the bluff. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 Septic sites have been tested. There is limited building flexibility, especially for Lot 6. Steve Weckman has reviewed the sites and is concerned that the 6% slope is not being met. More mound systems may be necessary and additional review required. The bluff affects 3 of 4 lakeshore lots. Gaffron indicated that the tree line follows the shoreline presenting pristine views from the bay, which should be preserved. He is concerned with building a corridor to the lake and suggests some limitations witliin the corridor to ensure that trees are not cut down to the lake. He suggested a tree conservation easement. Gaffron said a trail corridor is laid out for the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Hennepin Parks has a long term intent for a trail system connecting the Luce Line to Noerenberg. Difficulty in continuing the east side trail is due to topography problems and preference has been shown for the trail continuation on the west side of the road. The subdivision will be subject to park dedication, whether by fee or land. s, kt MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 There are no apparent wetlands on the property but confirmation will be required. A site grading plan will also be required when the preliminary plat application is filed. Issues for consideration include access and number of access points. Gaffron said Staff will scrutinize the viability of the building envelopes of specific lots noting the septic system feasibility is key to determining the number and layout of lots. The applicant will be asked for tree or woodland preservation methods as well. The applicant said Ed Otto of Otto Associates did the plan and soil testing. Anderson said he appreciates the beauty of the area and tree preservation is vital to maintaining the value of the property. Anderson said the areas most appropriate for building sites are not in the wooded areas. Smith indicated that the problem with tree and v/oods preservation would most likely £irise once the residences are built and resided in. Lindquist suggested the use of a restrictive covenant. Smith agreed. Anderson felt the property owners will want to maintain the trees. Schroeder asked for a plan regarding this issue. i "V \- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 Otto responded to the issue of access. He said consideration was given to a horseshoe type connection, but the property lacked the depth and hardcover would increase. He felt the outlot option would be best for site distance. He suggested an option for Lot 8's driveway. Otto understood that the County would have to review access. Otto did not believe a frontage road would be a good option to serve Lot 8. Gaffron suggested a driveway run across the road. Otto was concerned with being too close to Old Crystal Bay Road. It was indicated that the applicant is not adverse to a bike path or easement. McMillan suggested that the only way to solve the access issue for Lot 8 may be to eliminate a lot altogether, noting Lot 7 would have a difficult building envelope. Gaffron noted that this would decrease the number of lakeshore lots to three. Schroeder stated the septic regulations govern the planning of development and no e.xceptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in obtaining two septic sites for 2 acre lots. Otto said the slopes are also a concern as well MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 as the 6% restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary side on the north side and 8% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic sites must be conforming. Gaf&on said sewering would make it easier for building sites but there is no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the Council is reviewing expansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in the future. There were no public comments. (#21) #2324 JAMES RENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into three lots for residential development Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. “•1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5,1998 draft (#3 Bike Routes - Continued) McDermott felt the list of bike routes with separated trails and widened shoulders should he maintained only. Wilson felt it was the job of the Commission to flag bike routes and leave the determination up to the City whether to add cautionary signs on bike routes before these roads meet the standards. Wilson suggested the changes be made to the bike trail maps, reviewed, and a recommendation made at that time to enable the Commission to see the maps in their final form. Use asked that the changes be reflected in the master plan. Use and McDermott suggested the motion be tabled. Wilson disagreed. Welles felt the speeds should be kept at a minimum and signage encouraged. The third category was changed to "Popular Bike Routes" in order to maintain the list while not designating the roads for widening. Erickson will provide updated list and map for all Commissioners. Bike Routes will be discussed again at the February meeting. Wilson will discuss this topic with Mayor Jabbour and Council Member Flint prior to that meeting to get their feed back. The motion w’as withdrawn. (#4) SKETCH PLAN (CARPENTER PROPERTY) - GAPPA Gappa presented a sketch of the plan for the Carpenter Property. He indicated it appears that the layout of 8 lots is problematic and will most likely result in a lower number of lots. The Plamiing Commission will review the sketch plan at their January meeting. The bike route is currently located on the opposite side of the road from the Carpenter property. Wilson said she had been opposed to the route location on that side of the road as the route has to ultimately end up on the same side as the Carpenter property. It is desired that the route will be added to the Hennepin Parks system. The telephone poles are located on the west side (Carpenter side), but it was felt that this was not a problem. Gappa did believe it would cost more to build the route on the Carpenter side. Wilson noted, however, there were 8 homes that would be affected on the east side while only three on the west side. White indicated a four-way stop might be necessary; Gappa agreed. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1998 draft (#4 Carpenter Property Sketch Plan - Continued) Discussion was held regarding the retaining walls. The fence currently located on Ae property could be placed on top of the retaining walls. The stone gates can be moved. McDermott asked about the pond. Welles said the route could come back in from the pond. Wilson voiced opposition to retaining walls suggesting the grade be taken down. She thought lilac bushes would be attractive. Gappa said some retaining walls would be necessary. Wilson questioned whether the use of retainuig walls would hinder the rural character of the area. Erickson questioned whether the new large homes would also affect the rural feel. Wilson asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in taking land for a buffer on the lake. Problems with access, marshy conditions, and acquiring lakeshore were noted. It was determined that with the lineal footage on Old Crystal Bay Road, a width of about 40' could be obtained. A bike route would require between 20-30 ’. Welles felt rt would make sense to take the minimal amount of land and the remainder in cash. If land was taken for buffering only, less land would be required. The current trail on the east side has been cleared and gravel has been added. There are several large trees on this side. The terrain is better for a bike route on the west side. Wilson suggested recommending the bike route for the west side, even though the bike route currently exists on the east side. If the Council determines they do not desire a change to the bike route, she suggested money be taken in lieu of land for p^k dedication. The Park Commission would like to see the bike route be completed to Noerenberg Park and is concerned with completion of the bike route on the east side due to the location of existing homes. McDermott felt the bike route could cross to the west side in another area and preferred cash be taken for park dedication. Wilson indicated this scenario would cause the bike route to cross the roadway twice. Wilson voiced concern with being able to complete the trail 10 Noerenberg if this land was not taken for park dedication. Gappa agreed that it is important for the trail to continue and be completed. Welles moved. Use seconded, to recommend park dedication be taken in the minirnum amount of land necessaiy for the design of a bike route to maintain the character of the property with the remainder taken in cash. . elles amended his motion to recommend that as the Planning Commission evaluates the project, they consider taking land for a bike route and review the problem \yith contmuing the current bike route on the east side owned by the City. The Park Commission needs to analyze whether the need is shown for the tra-'* on the west side. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5,1998 (#4 Carpenter Property Sketch Plan - Continued) Wilson agreed that the route location cannot be determined at this time. McDermott said the entire roadway should be reviewed in order to make the decision. The Park Commission would like to recommend the consideration of whether the route would be more appropriate on the west side before any decision is made due to the possible problems existing for a bike route on the east side. All Commissioners agreed. (#5) REPORT OF \MHTEHEAD PARK DEDICATION - GAPPA Gappa reported that the park dedication for the two-lot Whitehead subdivision was $7,000. • • (A short recess occurred.) (#6) REVIEW AND AMEND TWO YEAR PLAN It was noted that the master plan is basically completed and will be presented this spring to the Council. It will be reviewed with Mayor Jabbour. Gappa reported that the development is the northern portion of Saga Hill is not being pursued at this time. The developer is in the process of determining the economics of developing the southern portion. Wilson reported that the Park Commission had not received all vital information when the recommendation was made to take money instead of land for the southern development. The Planning Commission decided to take land based on the information they were provided. Wilson informed Staff that the Park Commission needs to be provided with all information in the future in order to make their recommendations. McDermott asked if the Commission needs to consider access to the park land. Gappa indicated that they need to wait to determine what development takes place. It was reported that the developer of Spring Hill Golf Course is determining whether a direct agreement can be reached between the County and themselves without involving the City for construction of the tunnel under County Road 6. No agreement has been reached. Gappa reported that the bike route to Baker Park will be completed by the County in 1998. Hennepin Parks is in possession of the plans and are putting together bids at this time. An agreement for future maintenance will be necessary, but Hennepin County is taking over all of the development according to Gappa. Wilson asked that Gappa follow through to see that the bike route is completed. 02/04/1938 07:40 612-472-1040 KJOLHAIJG E^WIROrl■^£^;T Ptt(3E 02 I^OLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SEK\aCES COMPANY ProuidirgSound, Pcihwd, Comprthirvin U-'-tuml Pt:tnirce Sn/ut-on; Febmar>' 4. 1998 Mr. Dan Andersen ANCO Land Development Company 905 Old Cry stal Bay Road South Orono, MN 55391 RvZCSVdSD Vtti 5W CtTV OBOMO Rc' Little Orchard Site assessment for wetlands 905 Old Cry'stal Bay Road South, Orono Dear Mr. /Vndersen: As you requested, I completed an evaluation of the described site for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. The site assessment was completed on February 3, 199S. Review of Available Information Before visiting the site I reviewed the National Wetland Inventory Map (Excel'ior Quadrangle), the Heonepiu County Soil Survey, and the topographic map wliich you provided to identify potential wetland areas. The NWI map show’ed no wetlands on the property*. The soil surv ey shewed the majority of the site as Hayden and Lester soils, with slopes typically from 6 to 18 percent. These soil types ore not associated with wetland conditions Small units of Hamel soils extend onto the property in the northeast and southeast comers Hamel soils are commonly associated with wetlands when unaltered by drainage. A narrow ftinge of sandy lake beach s tils are shown adjacent to Lake N:Unnetonka. Sandy lake beach soils may be associated with lake fringe wetland or shallow lake beaches The topographic map indicates no depressional areas capable of developing wetland conditions The site is steeply sloped and 'well drained. Apart from the lake shoreline, the topographic map indicates no surface water on the she. Evaluation of Site Conditions The primary land uses on the property include a building she and associated mowed lawn, and open grassy Geld (abandoned pasture), and steeply sloped wooded hillside adjacent to Lake Minnetoi^a. The lawn is mowed and has been planted with commonly used trees and shrubs No wetlands were associated w-ith the buildio^ and lawn • • • 4T5? Richmond Fo*d, Mound. Minr.caoti 55164 • PHoa«; 6i2-472-4*®75 • 6U-47*i-l04w J l2- 02/04/1938 07:40 612-472-1040 KJ0LH4l.»3 E^^■'IRC1^ME^•T PAGE 03 The abandoned pasture was doinimfec bv upland grasses such as brome, ordiard grass, and timothy grass. No wetlands wenj associated with the abandoned ■['asture. The wooded hillside was dominated by red, white, and bur oak, sugar maple, and basswood trees, and with buckthorn and eastern hophombeam shrubs. No wetlands were associated with the steeply sloped wooded hillside. The preUminary grading plan prepared by Otto Associates (dated 1/23/98) will not result in impact to wetlands within areas indicated for roads, house pads, or septic treatment systems. Two smal! :akc fringe wetland areas were identified within Lots 4 and 6. The wetland in Lot 4 is less than 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, while the wetland is Lot 6 is approximately 40 feet deep and 60 feet wide These areas should be considered when future propert}' owners decide on locations for the placement of docks and other lake shore improvements. The preliminary grading plan indicares no impacts to these wetlands. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at the indicated number. Sincerely, ^olhaug Environmettial Services Company^ Inc. Mark S. i^olljat^g ProfesaonSTWetland Scientist 1 ji BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 02/12/98 12:39 0 :02/0A NO:957 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^ !■ Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects PtffM'i fftif i.* .| ,if hit •% f'» M'‘j., Aj ^*1 • * f I ii- it. U ••* • ••• !*• • '♦ m Ri> h.iiil r riiMir'f rf • «^|#nnK ' »*| • P' 1*111 /*• *•> • * H- u 'Iv**! t'l • Piiiji'if VV P‘i.\ri'r l*i t f* » .1 ^ m»» *3 A \\,i- t.tft' Hi <nt tp,i! s •• I 'X f*l • •••■in n *'| • r.*|«,i| i; h|« 11« t | • I't.nu.lV.’ rt • I -.kiH • '*• • ' I , . » I A • ^ li • Virh.irf I l*itulrl>#rM« n • Tr**f >■ I •^lff •'» • *»iH «%»).«• r>«.n ••» • uk fJ Pi • SufMi'v W IS* fl».L«*H I .mkMi .'/r»* i*s M I'Mil Mnrru \l*irt.» i* .im I »i ClOi»wl VN • '.»i» *. m>.*. ‘Jl » Fobmary 12. 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coorclinalor City of Orono Po.''l Office Bo.\ 66 Cry.stal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Andersen Subdivision Flic No. 139-2.’4I Dear .Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the propo.sed seven lot Andersen subdivi.sion. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of Scctiim 0. We have the following comments in regards to engineering maiier.s. 1. Access: The sight distancc.s at thi.s location appear to be adequate. A rock construction entrance 10 the .site should be installed and maintained throughout the construction period until the Class 5 is in place. The proposed acce.ss onto County Ro.td 84 should be reviewed by Hennepin County. 2. Streets: The proposed street design meets City requirements for street widili and cul-de-.sac length for a private road serving 7 or more units. The propo.sed 125 foot horizontal curve across OiiiiiAf A Ki» minimnm nf TiT mnh de<ii?n snectl as SCI fonh bv CitvOulloi A should be a minimum of 275 feet to meet a 30 mph design speed as set forth by City code. Geotechnical recommendations should lie submitteil to verify the proposed typical street section. Final plans and specifications, including street and storm sewer dc.sign and profiic.s, should be submitted to the City prior to construction. Street and utility record plan.s should be provided to the City after project completion. 3. Grnding: The grading plan appears acceptable. Existing driveway removal and excavation for the street will result in erosion concerns during construction. Additional erosion conliol measures should be installed along County Road R4 prior to construction and remain in place until the street has been paved and vegetation is establi.shed Home and .septic .system construction will require additional erosion control measures. 4. Drainage: In accordance with the draft version of the City’s Comprehensive .Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). we recommend that a storm water t|ualiiy pond to treat runoff prior to discharging into the lake be constructed on .site. A drainage area map and drainage calculations .should be provided with the final plan .set. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County for their review. 5. Ivu.semciit.s: na.sciiients .shown appear to be acceptable. Drainage casements should be provided acros.s all wetland, drainag; way and pond areas.___________________________________ 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN SSII3 • 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 6t2'636*131f BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 02/12/98 12:59 Q :03/04 NO:957' 6. Financial Guarantee: Wc have estimated the total cost for site improvements at $78,?00. The COM estimate is attached for your review. If storm .sewer and a ponding area arc added to the prqjecf the cost estinuue .should be revised. A financial guarantee of !50 percent of the e.stimate or $1 17,450 .should be provided to the City. Plea.se contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding thi.s matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Tom Kellogg Cc; Cireg Gappa, City of Orono I BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 02/12/98 12:59 0 :04/04 N0:957 CITY OF ORONO LITTLE ORCHARD RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PL^T FILE NO. 2341 SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE feST.UNIT EST. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COSTMobilizationLS1$5,000.00 $5,000Site grading LS 1 10.000.00 10,000 Common Excavation CY 1200 6.00 7,200Aggregate base. Cl. 5, 100% crushed TN 1800 10.00 18,000Type 31 bit. base course TN 250 32.00 8,000Type 41 bit. wear course TN 200 35.00 7,000 Surmountable concrete curb and gutter LF 1350 6.00 8,10018" CMP culvert LF 60 18.00 90018" CMP F.E.S.EA 2 150.00 300Silt fence LF 1500 3.00 4,500 Seeding with 4" topsoil AC 1.5 3.000.00 4,500Sod with 4” topsoil SY 1600 3.00 4,800Estimated Construction Cost +50% Security Deposit Total Security Deposit Required $78,300 39.150 $117,450 234Hittleorchard.xls ilD To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 14, 1998 Subject:#2321 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Cr> stal Bay Rd. S. - Sketch Plan Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsevvered Site Area:17.5 Acres + Proposal:8 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Survey/sketch plan D - Septic test hole locations E - Steve Weckman Septic Testing Review 1/9/98 F - Bluff Analysis Diagrams G - Airphoto H - Staff Sketch of Building Envelopes I - Wooded Areas Map (from topography map) J - City Engineer Comments Overview This is a sketch plan for the 17.5 acre Carpenter property located just north of Norenberg Park on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. It appears that all existing buildings are intended for removal, and 8 new single family lots created, 4 of which would abut Maxwell Bay. This property is outside the MUSA and will be served by septic systems and wells. Applicant proposes to provide access via two short cul-de-sacs and a private driveway. The property contains some woodland, and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline which will impact lake setbacks and tree preservation. Topics for Discussion: 1.Access: Applicant proposes 2 relatively short cul-de-sacs seizing 7 lots; Lot 8 apparently is proposed to be served by a separate driveway directly to Old Ciy'stal Bay Rd. An intent of the subdivision road standards (Section 11.32) and in the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is to limit direct individual lot access to major City roads. Nearly all new development along Old Crystal Bay Road in the last 20 years has been required to K #2321-Sketch Plan January 14,1998 Page 2 2. 3. provide private intereior road access for all new lots created. Shared driveways serv ing two lots have sometimes ben allowed. 1 he currently proposed subdivision should ideally be served by one access point. There may be justification for allowing the two cul-de-sacs from a hardcover and functionality standpoint; a single access road may be difficult to develop due to the depth of the property and the intended creation of four relatively long and narrow lakeshore lots. Access will also need a Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works permit. Lot 8 should not be allowed a separate driveway access to Old Crystal Bay Road but should be served by an interior road. Also see City Engineer's comments, Exhibit J. Lot AreaAVidth Standards: All lots as proposed meet the 2.0 acre minimum lot area standard of the LR-1A District. All lots except Lot 3 meet the required 200’ width, measured by definition in a straight line at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Lot 3 is only 168' at the shoreline and just meets the 200' width at the 75' setback. Total shoreline width is 870', allowing just four lakeshore lots to be created from this site. While Lots 4 and 7 meet the 200’ width at shoreline and at 75 ’ setback. Lot 4 has a 'functional width' at the probable building site of only 150 ’, and that of Lot 7 is only 145'. This may be limiting for house placement when the 30' side setbacks are accounted for. The angle of the existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out 4 lakeshore lots that have any flexibility, and topographically the tendency may be to place homes overlooking the neighbor's yard to gain the best lake views, similar to what we see along the east side of Tonkawa Road. Exhibit H depicts the buildable envelopes for each lot, taking into account the lot line setbacks and bluff or lakeshore setbacks. The septic sites have not yet been laid out for each lot. On-Site Sewage Treatment: Septic site locations will be very limiting. The septic testing information provided to date is inadequate to define individual system types and locations. Based on the Hayden and Lester loam soils mapped for this property, typically at least 80% of the systems will have to be mounds. According to Septic System Inspector Steve Weckman, a number of sites which will likely need mound systems do not meet the 6% slope limitation (See Exhibit C). The applicant ’s site evaluator did not contact the City prior to starting work, which could have avoided this problem. More septic testing detail is needed to confirm usefulness of sites tested. It is likely that some lot lines will need to be revised, and possible that 8 lots may not be feasible. For instance, the tested sites for Lot 6 leave very little useful area within the allowable buildable envelope when bluff setback is accounted for. #2321 - Sketch Plan January 14, 1998 Page 3 4.Bluff Impacts: Lots 4, 6 and 7 contain a bluff which will reduce the area of the buildable envelope and result in required setbacks from the lake ranging from 130-160' rather than the 75' standard. The bluff impact zone is also an area where intensive vegetation clearing is prohibited (See Exhibit F). The buildable envelope of Lot 6 will be impacted by the required bluff setback. 5. 6. Tree Prescr\'ation: Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic background map (See Exhibit 1). The site is mainly open, only about 15-20% wooded. Most of the wooded areas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. Of great concern is that the dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Ma.xwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 75' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. If preservation of this wooded shoreline in its current state is critical, the City may wish to require that some type of 'tree conser\ation easement' be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 1 1 .60, Subd. 1 . The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Park Dedication: The Park Commission has indicated that a bike/hike trail corridor should be preser\'ed along the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road, for future extension of trails from the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park. Althought the City has not attempted to design this segment of trail, and although a similar corridor already exists directly across from this property on the east side of the road, it may be appropriate to obtain a 20'-30' casement along the right-of way, with the value of said easement being deducted from the 8% park fee requirement. Hennepin County Parks staff has indicated a long-tenu intent to establish a connector trail between the Luce Line and Noerenberg Park, but has no plans for trails within the park; they would only be at its perimeter if developed. However, this portion of Old Crystal Bay Road is not delineated on the official County Bike Trail Plan. It is unknown whether Hennepin County Public Works will request additional right-of-way for the road itself (currently Old Crystal Bay Road has 66'). #2321 - Sketch Plan January 14, 1998 Page 4 7.Archaeological Sites: The developer should check with the State Historic Preservation Office to determine if any archaeologically significant sites are within the property'. 8.Wetlands: There are no wetlands apparent on the property, and none mapped. The developer should have a wetlands consultant confirm whether any wetlands exist on the site. 9.Stormwater, Drainage: A site grading plan will be required when the preliminary plat application is filed. Stormwater ponding will potentially be required The developer should contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding stormwater facility needs. The topography indicates that most drainage on this site runs away from the site, either directly to the lake or to neighboring properties Also note that the topography used for the submittals was created by Horizons, Inc., not Mark Hurd as noted on the submittals. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review with the applicant each of the above noted topics related to the development of this site. While this development does not appear to involve any issues which require significant land use decisions, certain facets of the proposal need further work by the applicant to confirm the viability of the plan. Specific issues the Planning Commission may wish to address for the benefit of the applicant include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Access, number of access points Viability of building envelope of specific lots Confirm that septic system feasibility is key to determining number and layout of lots Tree or vvoodlot preservation methods 1 J \Application it Date Received /:3 - '7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION S ite address______^L»0 ,C.yS4AL. * :address ________^0*^ perty Identification Number (P^ ^Jli *2.*^ OO^k> ase check one - Prooerty iXabstractor____torrens? 5 Pro Please check one - Property Attach legal description to application. S3 >>ns O. cri APPLICANT Name -------------------------------—-----—---- Address Sg~4^ Phone (home) V ^ ^ City _________Zip^^^i Phone (work) 2. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address--------. City s/y ' w ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Zip Phone (hom& [work) 1 Present use (check)^s^ Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_______ PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites _____ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites ^ \ Existing Units ft New Units 0 Total Units ______Units per ^ Acres ^ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) _________ Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) < CL O liJ CO I ,/ uz ■^1 <Jz oc I *-1- I : KJ v'' U< I QC 0 01 oz zo tM Ui N| ffi o (N I*o 04 oz *85 1/7 5 Ui 2D 2 I I sa bia Sg :£ 52< CDO d a oo' 4JO |i O , Z^CM 'X./i V. \ r . /•/ COo I h- s o> S oM £ UI UI O h- ILI CO UI UI X CO O O o i ID O F S oo oo l!§! iii< IIr *•tUi I I f TO: FROM: DATE: Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager January 9,1998 SUBJECT; Septic Review for applictUon #2321, Don Anderson 905 Old Ciy'stal Bay Rd. S. Sketch Plan Review The proposed eight lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. The information submitted to us by Otto Associates is incomplete and will not be acceptable for a final subdivision approval, however, the following is a review of each lot and its potential to have suitable drainfield sites: Lot 1 Soil borings performed by Otto Associates indicates a seasonal water table at 40 to 47 inches, but my soil borings from 1993 indicate a seasonal water table at 30 to 36 inches. Their soil borings indicate that trench systems may be feasible while mine show that a mound system is the only alternative. The soil borings are located in areas where the slope is too steep for the installation of mound systems meeting City Standards. Additional testing would be required to verify whether two mound sites are possible on this lot. Lot 2 Soil borings performed on this lot by Otto Associates indicate a seasonal water table at 38 inches or less and would require the use of mound systems. The slopes on these areas is too steep to allow the use of mound system. Additional testing would be required to determine whether suitable drainfield sites exist on this lot. Lot 3 Soil borings performed by Otto Associates on this lot indicate that mound systems would be required, but slopes throughout the lot are too steep for mound systems. It does not appear that this lot can meet our standards for septic systems. Lot 4 Soil borings by Otto Associates indicate that mound systems must be used on this lot, but the slope direction and narrow lot shape are not favorable for any drainfield site. This lot will not be suitable for septic systems. Lot 5 The soil borings performed by Otto Associates bring up more questions than answers. One soil log indicates that a sandy clay texture was found at 40 inches, but mottled soil was observ'ed at 47 inches. Soil boring number 6 had a seasonal water table at 34 inches while soil boring number 7 had a seasonal water table at 45 inches, yet these borings w ere performed within 20 feet of each other. It is very likely that mound drainfields would be required for this lot and the slopes are too steep to meet City Standards. Additional testing will be required to determine whether suitable drainfield sites exist on this lot. Lot 6 This lot looks good for locating drainfield sites. Lot 7 Soil borings by Otto Associates indicate that trench systems will work on this lot. There appears to be sufficient area on this lot for drainfield sites. Lot 8 This lot appears to have sufficient area for two drainfield sites, but the building pad would be forced into an area with steep slopes. Based on the above information, staff recommends that several of the lots be altered to provide suitable drainfield sites. At this time much more information must be provided before we can approve any subdivision plan. Each lot must have tw'o drainfield sites which are suitable for a five bedroom residence completely designed and located on the survey. Special concerns on this parcel include assuring that the mound sites are located on slopes less than six percent, identifying potential building sites and providing driveway locations on difficult lots. SSOCIATES ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, INC. December 15, 1997 Dan Anderson ANCO Construction Company, Inc. 3540 Montgomerie Avenue Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: SoU Tests on “LITTLE ORCHARD’ Otto Job No. 97503 '*An Dear Dan: As you are aware, we have finished the soil tests for on-site septic system suitability on the Orono site. I enclose three sets of the soil boring logs and the percolation test sheets. As you look these over, some critical points are that in order to put the shallowest trench system in, we need at least 42 inches to the mottled soil in the soil borings. A mound system can be installed if there is at least 12 inches to the mottled soil. Soil borings 1, 3, 4, 5, 7,10,11,12,15, 17,18,19,20,21,22,24 and 26 have a depth of 42 inches or more to the mottled soil. All the soil borings have more than 12 inches to the mottling. In the perc tests, we are looking for a perc rate from 5 to 60 minutes per inch for a standard system (with 5 being fast and 60 being slow). The majority of the tests indicate a perc rate between 8 and 40 m.p.i. The only two tests that I am concerned about are THs 27 and 28 which had a per rate of 79. These holes were tested in what I would think would be the alternate site on Lot 3 and a mound system could be installed on this type of soil but the basal area of the mound would need to be enlarged. So, in conclusion, these tests were good and do indicate that all the lots are buildable using on-site septic systems. If you have any questions, call me. Sincerely, Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. Edward J. Ott^L.S. MPCA No. 964 Enclosures ■5 IL O <L O i li- \f\ Or d\ X I 0z b) 3i 5 r^ 1 ■5 a.o i I 1 2 o to k % \l\ J IS: d> I X ybI k0 Z %A la) & r- 4 vS t no 3. iM *.*’>;•• V ■•V'.ti:-. " S :•* V • >.'*; * • V vVv • r-- W-'- ••■- ■••'?■.'iw kk r i i^iiSm Ai'C^iK-'v c' . ;'?'?4C >■' ’ r \y.‘ { n'-'i?M ••'* .V rV l?i^' * •-/*iV * /iT^ *' • ^ * '*^V'.• ii'.>i'y:,y.:jr' * . J » \ ii'air •;•: W^1^;m- M; ?• «?T, r«8^.‘ • J HmM^>'A .<l''.it^s ■ .^‘.rv.,.' ..*^f-.vv V 'i ^V'-' ; Ir-U yy^XrJ}t&n ,v;'j V ■ ',n ;'.‘,ri‘ ■ ■■>!>r w-‘T:v/ir‘y 1 • <^tsV/'.s = := -. .* • *1 iVv'V .' CS:/, ,V'--: rST'' ^ ti \*A :*•<•:'. . .“v '7;, / > ^ m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\J| Associates Engineers & Architects January 12. 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Andersen Subdivision File No. 139-2321 Boneitroo. Roi^ne. Andcrhk ^nd Asjoc/.if^s. Inc is an Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Quo G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PC • M<irvin L Sorvdij. PE • Richard E. Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schumcht. PE • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. FC • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfeffcrie. PE • Richard W Poster. p£ • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A l A • M.vn A Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rauimann. PE • Ted K Fieid. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P Williamson. P.E.. L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wi 3 t-i'i-p Dear Mike: Wc have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed eight lot Andersen subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (C.R. o4) in the northwest quarter of Section 9. Wc have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: Access to Lot 8 is unclear. We would recommend moving Outlot B approximately 150 feet southeast to provide access to Lot 8 and eliminate private driveways onto C.R. 84. How will future access be provided to the Lots immediately west of the site? Will the existing buildings on Lots 1. 2. 4 and 5 remain or be removed? The existing grades on Outlot A exceed 10 percent. City code allows up to a 12 percent grade on private streets, however, we would recommend that grades not exceed 2 percent for the first 50 feel off of C.R. 84. It does not appear that adequate sight distances exist for cither cul-de-sac. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the lakcshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within two major drainage districts, half draining easterly and half draining southwesterly. Wc recommend that storm sewer be included as part the project to direct flows in accordance with the SWMP. The final plans should include a storm water quality pond to treat runoff prior to discharging into the lake. A drainage area map. storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 84. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of - ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed wc will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 FEB-17-1998 15:40 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS 94730510 P.02 Hennepin County _______________________X. Aalqujl Opport luiilT Employer Februaiy 12, 199S Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Proposed Plat - Little Orchard eSAH 84 Section 9, Township 117, Ranae 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2445 Review and Recommendations Mike: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comhients; • The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of road right of way, for a total of 40 feet from centerline. This dedication will accommodate future utilities, snow storage, ditch maintenajice, etc. • Access via a street entrance at outlet ‘A’ is acceptable. All c.xisting driveways must be removed and no other access will be permitted. • All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin Count>' permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Pemiits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, distiubed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548 As a matter of procedure, we request that the Citv Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, Thomas D. Jemnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc; Pete Tulkki Dave Swenson Otpirlnicnt ofPublh; Worki 320 Wuhut {ton A\'cfuie South Hopkins. Mbiusou 3S343«S4S^ (612)9JO-:}00 rA.X:(612)9JO-25l3 Tt»D;(612j!!30-2<94 SecyckcrifV TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12, 1998 SUBJECT: #2338 Lakeview' Golf Course, 405 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Request for conditional use permit for land alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards for two separate areas of the golf course. The first is expansion of tees and creation of a pond for hole #18, near the northeasterly side of the golf course. Second is expansion of tees and creation of a pond near tht center of the course between the 4th green and 5th tee generally. Both projects are part of the Lakeview Golf master plan which the City first reviewed in 1995. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Grading Pians for Both Projects F - Overall Master Plan G - Enlargement of Master Plan Sections H - City Engineer's Comments Discussion In the decade prior to 1995, applicant had requested a number of conditional use permits for land alterations within the golf course property. As part of the most recent request in 1995, applicant provided a course improvement master plan which involved numerous individual projects. Applicant has intended to accomplish these improvements over a number of years, and the currently proposed improvements are the next in what we expect to be a continuing series of requests as the master plan is brought nearer to completion. The current proposal includes expansion of tees for the 5th and 18th holes, with concurrent excavation in adjacent low lands. This adjacency results in an efficient land alteration process; materials from creation of the ponds can be used to create the tee boxes, resulting in a balancing of excavation work on the site and little (if any) importation/exportation of fill. The golf course operates as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone, and continues to be a good neighbor to the surrounding area. Zoning File #2338 February 12, 1998 Page 2 Fifth Tee Improvements Please review Exhibit E-1. Applicant proposes doubling the area of the existing 5th tee and creating a pond to the south side of it in an area that is low but not an Orono designated wetland and not appearing on the National Wetland Inventory'. Applicant proposes a pond approximately 6' deep at the center, and somewhat triangular in shape, being approximately 100' in diameter and approximately 6,000 s.f. or 0.15 acre in area. This project involves the movement of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material. Eighteenth Hole Improvements Please review Exhibit E-2. The 18th hole improvements are slightly more extensive, involve the excavation of a pond approximately 60' wide and 200’ in length or 12,000 s.f. in area, expansion of the 18th hole tee boxes, and general filling in a low area near those tee boxes and adjacent to the 9 acre pond in the east central portion of the course. The pond is listed in the City protected wetland inventory as a Type 5 wetland, and is primarily open water. While no filling of the pond is proposed, the proposed grading would appear to be within the 26' w etland setback, hence technically a variance is required. This portion of the course has been maintained in mowed grass, and the proposed filling will have no significant added impact on the quality or quantity of nmoff to the pond. It appears that the proposed new 1/4 acre pond will overflow' to the east, underneath North Arm and eventually to the wetland complex at the north end of North Arm Bay before reaching the lake. The existing 9 acre pond discharges generally to the south through a second wetland and under West Branch Road before reaching Forest Lake. General Comments Neither proposed pond excavation involves impacts to existing wetlands. The creation of ponds at these strategic locations on the course will potentially be of benefit to the watershed in general by creating more runoff storage, allowing sediments and nutrients to settle or assimilate prior to runoff discharging to downstream areas in the watershed. The expansion of tee boxes is a normal and necessary improvement for golf courses, and at the locations proposed in this request, has no significant impact on the watershed or neighboring properties. City Engineer ’s Comments Please review the Engineer's comments. Exhibit H. They include the following: Zoning File #2338 February 12, 1998 Page 3 1. 2. 3. 4. The ponds should be graded to include a 10:1 aquatic bench at the normal water level. The bench should be at least 10' in width to provide a vegetative safety buffer. (Note that golf course ponds commonly do not have such a bench at the normal water level, but have relatively steep slopes to allow retrieval of errant balls. There are two potential reasons for the 10:1 bench. The first is clearly as a safety bufTer. The second is that such construction more closely resembles the NURP pond design which allows the vegetated buffer to uptake nutrients and provide better water quality treatment). A potential but not thoroughly discussed benefit to either the applicant and/or the City would be the use of these newly created ponds for wetland credits towards other projects. If these are created as permanent wetlands, such wetland credit might be of value to offset wetland impacts elsewhere. Emergency overflow elevations should be verified and their locations shown on the plans. Note that neither pond has an outlet structure proposed, and it is unclear on the pond near the 18th tees as to the absolute overflow' direction. There may be some benefit in forcing that pond to overflow to the large pond rather than to the east, since no dow-nstream residential properties would be impacted by super-storm type flows. The Engineer also notes that erosion control measures should be provided at ihe overflow points. In conjunction with the above, applicant needs to identify the invert elevation for the 12" culvert heading eastward under North Ami Drive from the 18th hole pond. The proposed plans do not indicate any intent to import or e.xport material from the site. If such hauling is expected to occur, spoil site locations and haul routes must be identified. 5. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to the start of construction. Conservation and Flowage Easements? The City has neither normally nor consistently required the dedication of conservation and flowage easements over golf course ponds that are created in upland areas not identified as protected wetlands. The golf course ponds are generally decorative in nature, and, as in the current proposals, located in drainage ways or relatively low land areas where maintenance with mow'ing equipment is often liindered by soft ground. In both cases, the proposed wetlands have minimal wildlife value, and are relatively small as compared to most natural wetlands the City has intended to protect. Rather than requiring conservation and flowage easements over these two specific wetlands, staff would recommend that either no wetland easement be required at this time, or that wetland easements be granted over every identifiable wetland on the golf course. Zoning File #2338 February 12, 1998 Page 4 Issues for Discussion 1.Does applicant have any objections to creating the 10:1 bench at the perimeter of the two proposed wetlands? 2. 3. Can applicant confirm that there will be no import/export of fill to or from the site? Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding this proposal? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the two land alteration projects as proposed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Creation of a 10:1 bench at the perimeter of each of the proposed wetlands. Erosion control measures to be in place prior to beginning excavation, and remaining in place until the site has been revegetated. 3. 4. Applicant to obtain the required land alteration permit prior to beginning construction. Applicant to provide the information requested by City Engineer prior to this item being presented for Council action. 5.Applicant to obtain all necessary permits from MCWD of any other agencies witli jurisdiction. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. 4 CITY OF ORONO Mui Application U__________ Date Received / - -9S Amount Paid A USE APPLICATION - COPDI'ni»>-5- ("GEMIT PROPERTY LOCATION , A / / /- //-/' Site Address ^^ /K?p7/ At^AA Jjy^. , L-aK<!*(y/ <r{A^ Gy^a(f^oc*-hT^ Type of Application to be Filed_________ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) APPLICAN Name Phone (home) UTOJ Cl. ^<7/^ Phone (work) -? AdAtt ^^O^ City _______Zip IT OWNER (if differentjAan appMcmtj. Phone (home) Name Gra.Ayi~UA-^AfT^^Ay_________ Phone (work) tTCf' Address /{< C\\s /{/(^ tj ______Zip 6 ^C/ Date Property Acquired j(/(o. ^y /^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ______________ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify). RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH BOA PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HEW4EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST 36 01-117-2^ 0004 00325 CO RD NO 19 JAMES A EHLERS & HIFE JAMES A EHLERS 325 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0001 04801 NORTH ARM DR J L LINDER A C K GELIt4E JOSEPH LINDER A CAMI GELINE 4801 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 00605 CO RD NO BONNIE K GRANT BONNIE K GRANT 605 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 0009 19 36 01-117-24 44 0001 00705 CO RD NO 19 GARY H GUTZKE GARY H GUTZKE 705 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0005 04640 NORTH ARM DR H DAL IVERSON DANIEL A LINDA IVERSON 4640 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED N F A L OESTREICH NORMAN F A LINDA OESTREICH 4760 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 14 0005 00425 CO RD NO 19 J C A D L MC CORMICK JOHN C MC CORMICK 425 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0002 00505 CO RD NO 19 DOROTHY E NELSON SCOTT A PATRICIA NELSON 505 CO RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0011 00635 CO RD NO 19 STEVEN R POSTHUMUS STEVEN A DEBBIE POSTHUMUS 635 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 44 0002 00805 CO RD NO 19 S G CHAPMAN A J K CHAPMAN STEPHEN 6/JEANr4IE K CHAPMAN 805 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0006 04680 NORTH ARM DR H J A MYERS ET AL TRUSTEES MYERS REVOCABLE TRUST JAMES A MYERS 7850 E EL SENERO #13 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262 38 06-117-23 23 0009 04740 NORTH ARM DR H J A J HEDBERG JOHN A A JANICE HEDBERG 4740 NORTH ARM DR H MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 18 36 01-117-24 14 0006 04870 NORTH ARM DR J J A R M LUCKING JEROME J LUCKING 4870 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0003 00036 ADDRESS UTUSSIGNED M A SASS ACL SASS MARK A CHRISTINE SASS 22690 MURRAY ST SHOREHOOO MN 55331 3b 01-117-24 41 0012 00665 CO RD NO 19 6 M HFJNA A K M HEJNA GARY M A KATHLEEN M HEJNA 665 CO RD NU 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 44 0004 00695 CO RD NO 19 PAUL T S0BER6 PAUL T SOBERG 695 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0007 04700 NORTH ARM DR N RAD MAIJALA RAYMOND 6 A DOROTHY MAIJALA 4700 NORTH ARM DR MOUND m 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0010 04760 NORTH ARM DR H N F A L OESTREICH NORMAN F A LINOA OESTREICH 4760 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 o RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 50^ HENNEPIN COUITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 19 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 23 0011 00350 NORTH SHORE DR W A V A S L BLAKSTVEDT ANFIN V BLAKSTVEDT 350 W NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0012 04760 NORTH ARM DR W E FORCIER A K FORCIER ELLEN JOAN FORCIER 3109 DAKOTA AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 06-117-23 24 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO R W ARMSTRONG ETAL JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 06-117-23 24 0006 04590 NORTH ARM DR W B L A J R HAGLUND BARRY L A JANICE R HAGLUND 4590 NORTH ARM DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0008 00370 NORTH ARM LA RAH SMITH ROSCOE S A HARRIET C SMITH 370 NORTH ARM LANE HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0011 00366 NORTH ARM LA MAM LARSON MARK JAM LARSON 366 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 31 0001 00420 NORTH ARM DR R W A M L SLAOEK RICHARD W A MARY L SLADEK 420 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0003 00440 NORTH ARM DR RAP STERNAU RENE A PATRICIA STERNAU 440 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0004 00460 NORTH ARM DR T J A S J WANNER THOMAS J A SUSAN J WANNER 460 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 31 0005 00520 NORTH ARM OR TIMOTHY PELLIZ2ER TIMOTHY PELLI22ER 520 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0006 00540 NORTH ARM DR PAUL HANSSEN PAUL HANSSEN 540 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0007 00560 NORTH ARM DR T A S MAZER THOMAS D A SUSAN S MAZER 560 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 31 0009 00500 NORTH ARM DR M D A H J HOY MATTHEW D A HEIDI J HOY 500 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 32 0003 00405 NORTH ARM Dk LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA UK: 855 RED OAK LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0001 00660 NORTH SHORE OR W JAMES E BARUTH JAMES E BARUTH 660 NORTH SHORE DR W MOUND m 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 33 0002 04760 WEST BRANCH RD M K A C H RODEWALD MICHAEL A CARMEN RODEWALD 4760 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0003 00710 NORTH SHORE DR W G A V WENKSTERN GRANT R WENKSTERN 710 N SHORE DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0004 04700 WEST BRANCH RD JACK D A JUDY A KRAHL JACK D A JUDY A KRAHL 4700 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME. TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 06-117-23 33 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAKEVIEH GOLF MTKA LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0008 04640 NEST BRANCH RO H L 6 J F SCHULTE MICHAEL L SCHULTE 4640 N BRANCH RD HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 34 0004 04520 NEST BRANCH RD MICHAEL A/THERESA C MICHAEL AyTHERESA C 4520 NEST BRANCH RO MOUND MN 55364 EASTMAN EASTMAN 38 06-117-23 43 0001 00650 NORTH ARM DR J BRAUCHLE & E SCHOONOVER JEFFREY R BRAUCHLE AND ELISA H SCHOONOVER 650 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0004 00720 NORTH ARM DR J S LEECH A V E LAIS-LEECH J S LEECH A V E LAIS-LEECH 720 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0007 00750 NORTH ARM DR NILLIAM L SCHMITT W L SCHMITT 750 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0006 04680 NEST BRANCH RD T R TENGERDY A R L TENGERDY T R A R L TENGERDY 3470 BIRCH LA NAY2ATA m 55391 38 06-117-23 34 0001 04580 NEST BRANCH RD DONNA E HAGER DONNA E HAGER 4580 N BRANCH ROAD HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 42 0005 00580 NORTH ARM OR B V JOHNSON APR JOHNSON BRYCE V A PAULA R JOHNSON 580 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0002 00680 NORTH ARM DR DOUGLAS F HATSON DOUGLAS F HATSON 680 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0005 00710 NORTH ARM DR JERRY D OLSON ETAL JERRY D OLSON 710 NO ARM DR MOUND m 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0008 00760 NORTH ARM DR »*IALFRID LARSON ETAL NILLIAM SCHMITT 750 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 20 38 06-117-23 33 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAKEVIEN GOLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 34 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAKEVIEN GOLF OF MINNETONKA LAKEVIEN GOLF OF MINNETONKA 855 RED OAK LA MOUI4D MN 55364 38 06-117-23 42 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6MED VICTORIA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS VICTORIA ESTATES HOMcOFWERS C/O THOMAS MAZER 560 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0003 00700 NORTH APJti DR GREGORY M HARTY GREGORY M HARTY 700 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0006 00740 NORTH ARM DR E 6 EINAR HAGBER6 ET AL H/LE E G HA6BERG 740 NO ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0009 00770 NORTH ARM OR CONNIE K PIEPHO CONNIE K PIEPHO 770 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 504 HEfWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OW4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 21 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 43 0010 00780 NORTH ARM DR 0 A CARLSON A M C RAY 0 A CARLSON A M C RAY 780 NO ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0012 00645 NORTH ARM OR K H A 8 M SHIN KWAN6 H A BARBARA M SHIN 645 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 44 0001 00790 NORTH ARM DR C E ENGELER ACM ENGELER CHRISTOPER A CUUOIA ENGELER 790 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 44 0016 00800 NORTH ARM OR R M FRANZEL ET AL RICHARD M FRANZEL 800 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-25 11 0008 00835 WINDJAMMER LA MARGARET A BLAZEK MARGARET A BLAZEK 835 HINOJAMMER LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE MOUND MN 55364 'PROP ADDR OHNFR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 12 0004 00800 FOREST ARMS LA R W BONNEMA A J R BONNEMA ROBERT N A JANIS R BONNEMA BOO FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0005 00030 FOREST ARMS LA T K SAMUEL A A SAMUEL T K A A SAMUEL 830 FOREST ARMS LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0006 00860 FOREST ARMS LA R I A C S SNOW SR ROYETTA A CHARLES SNOW 860 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 PROP AODR OWrJER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 12 0007 00890 FOREST ARMS U C A CLARK ABA SEGNER-CLARK C A CLARic ABA SEGNER-CLARK 890 FORESr ARMS LA MOUND MK 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0009 00C05 FOREST ARMS LA J A A E S FRETHAM JAMES A ELIZABETH FRETHAM 805 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0010 00815 FOREST ARMS LA M A M MC ELLIGOTT MICHAEL A MARY MC ELLIGOTT 815 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 PRJP AODR NAME NAK.'»ep4 i 38 07-117-23 12 0011 00825 FOREST ARMS LA M 0 PARKS A K L PARKS MATTHEW D A KAREN L PARKS 825 FOREST ARMS LA. HOUND MN 55S'<4 38 07-117-23 12 0028 00865 WINDJAMMER LA GERALD R HELGRlN A WIFE GERALD R HELGREN 865 WINDJAMMER LANE MOUND MN 5536< 38 07-117-23 12 0029 00860 NORTH ARM OR RAJ DAVISSON RONALD A JUDITH DAVISSON 860 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-73 12 0030 00875 Wirj)JAMHER LA B T A C A BROGHAMMER BRETT T/CAROLYN A BROGHAFMER 875 WINDJAMMER LA MOUND »4 55364 38 07-11 •’-23 21 6014 04505 L-ST BPtNCH RD DAVID Ltvi' DAVID LEVY 4505 NEST BRANCH RD ORONO MN 55364-8277 38 07-117-23 21 0015 04455 WEST BRANCH RD JANE E KLINE J«NE E KLINE 4455 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 RUN DATE 01/22/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OJ-WERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 22 BATCH 50^ PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 22 0014 04625 WEST BRANCH RD S J RUCE A I E SILBER STEVEN RUCE A IRENE SILBER 4625 WEST BRANCH R3 MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 504 00073 hiSSItonka 355 RED hound MN 35364 38 07-117-23 12 0001 LAKEVItW GOLF OF MTKA INC 355 RED OAK LANE MOUND MN 55364 855 R£0 OAK LA '' mound MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0007 LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE HOUND MN 55364 '^6 ^3 ^ •J1 . 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FOR LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE IN SECTION 6-117-23 #233 r'^uo' ooK.Nir cauw\t> ai«>^vv p*n ■iMM rnpHNi & gronberg. Inc. rv / ‘ V ^ __^ I' l.nn.n.uL \\» uu • I fii4 (.iL» . \1\ u\: 4“'^ 414] I K'n'H irrtiK tfu: ih»« Hinrt prjvifi'J H n»» invfct an Jarti AivJ llul iMt J Juh rri;*«lrrvO tnil Ifiparct jnd IjnJSjnnw iK- U«»% rt thr fUlr ri ____________________________________ Mill S (ImiNflt \tonr..«i I nrfMAamNt ID* 4«. R*5;53S95^5 82»nnEt?C 1 « y n aU£55155 M 355S33J5E !»«5 <3 5 1 <s • f* «> -•s 3 'c*!S5SS = n»5 •MM =53232153 ! f« 3 VI i 5 m E55J521I5 = c A :£ n 5 a 3 3 a 3 J 3 V% 4 1 k. «s t = 222S5j:5 } 4 * i •. • I*.'*% t • I . ; rt^ *. t — » # mw / IKi V P-«| w M r-!.^'£sWt ^ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\ I Associates Engineers & Architects January 30, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lakeview Golf Course Land Alteration File No. 139-2338 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and AssodMes. Inc is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE. • Marvin L. Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberhn. C PA Senior Consultants Associate Principals^ Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster. P.E • David O. Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A.I A • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson, PE . L S • Robert F Koismith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. WI Dear Mike: We have reviewed the grading plan for the proposed two pond addition to the Lakeview Golf Course. The site is located east of C.R, 19, west of North Ann Drive and north of West Branch Road in the south half of Section 6. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. • We recommend that the ponds be graded to include a 10:1 aquatic bench at the normal water level. The bench should be at least 10 feet in width to provide a vegetated safety buffer. • Emergency overflow elevations should be verified and their locations shown on the plan set. Rip rap or some other type of erosion control measures should be provided at the overflows. • Inverts for the existing 12 inch pipe under North Arm Drive should be included on the plans. • It is assumed that all excavated material will be used as fill on site. Spoil site locations and haul routes should be provided if any excavated material is to be hauled off site. • All temporary erosion control must be in place prior to the start of construction. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /o^ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant February 2,1998 #2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR<1B Lot Area:10,350 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.24 acres) Application:The applicant added screening and supports over an existing deck in the summer of 1997. No building permits were obtained for the enclosure. After the fact variances are needed for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage in order to complete and retain the enclosure. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Structural Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback U2317 Khosro\¥ Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB requirements subject property Lot Area 1 acre .24 acre Lot Width 140’ 51’at OHWl. 50’ at 75 ’ setback Lakeside Yard 75' 111’with porch 121.5’without deck Side Yard 10’ 9.55 ’ Street Yard 35 ’ 15.15’ The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Recently in this area there have been lot line disputes regarding lot width. The existing residence does not meet side or street setbacks. The screened area that was added is not located in either of these setbacks. The enclosed area is located in the lakeside yard and encroaches in the average lakeshore setback. Average Lakeshore Setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings or lock boxes. Decks that are less than 30" above grade and do not have guardrails are considered a non-encroachment. Converting the deck which was considered a non encroachment in the average lakeshore setback to an enclosed area requires a variance. The screened area encroaches approximately 7 ’ in front of the average lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Str tctural Coverage Percentage 10,350 s.f.1,698 s.f.-with porch 1,490 s.f.-%vithout porch 16.4% 14.4% A structural coverage variance is required. The deck that had not been enclosed did not contribute to structural coverage because it did not have railings or walls that extended more than 6’ above ground level (Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C2)). The enclosed deck becomes structure and exceeds the 15% lot coverage requirement on lots that are less than 2 acres in area. The total ma.\imum allowed lot coverage for the subject property is 1,552.5 s.f. or 15%. m23l7 Khosro\¥ Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2 17/93 Pogel Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,841 s.f.987 s.f. (25.7%) (643 s.f., 16.7% w/o plastic) none 987 s.f (25.7%) none 75'-250'6,509 s.f.3,840 s.f (59%) (2,330 s.f, 35.8% w/out plastic) 1,627.25 s.f (25%) 3,840 s.f (59%) none The subject property does not meet hardcover requirements in the O' to 75' or 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. Hardcover variances are not required for this application as the structure was built over an existing deck. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's statement of hardship is included as Attachment J. The minutes from the July 28 City Council meeting including the testimony of the applicant in regard to hardships is also included as Attachment K. He should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be put to a reasonable use without screening over the deck. However the applicant previously indicated to staff that he wanted to screen the deck because of mosquitoes. U2}!7 Khosrow Daivari J082 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Page} 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. While the property does not meet the lot area requirement, it is still allowed 1,500 s.f. or 15% of structural coverage, whichever is greater. In this case, 15% allows for the greater amount of structural coverage. The enclosure exceeds the structural coverage limits. 3. The variances, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage may change the character of the area. 4. 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Screened porches for residential purposes are allowed in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The subject property is near the maximum allowable 15% of structural coverage. There is no hardship for increasing beyond this limit. The location of the residence on the lot is also consistent with adjacent properties. Allowing the structure to encroach ahead of the average lakeshore setback line may have a negative impact on neighboring views. 6.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The adjacent properties are aligned in a relatively straight line along the lakeshore. These properties have decks, rather than enclosed porches. The deck on the property to the south is considered a structure because it is more than 6' above ground level. It is not an enclosed structure and is located lower than the subject property. It is not detrimental to views. Most other properties in the area are similar in size and subject to the same structural coverage regulations. #JJ/7 Khosrow Dai\ari 1032 Loma Linda M enue Variance 2/11 m Page^ 7.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The deck as previously existing is in character with the neighborhood. The applicant will not be deprived of use or enjoyment of the property by requiring the removal of the screening over the deck. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Allowing the applicant to enclose the deck would serve as a convenience to the owner and is not unique in its configuration or physical layout. Issues 1. The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. 2. There is a significant amount of rock over plastic on the property in both the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. 3. 4. There is a non-conforming deck near the lakeshore. The subject property is situated significantly higher than the property to the south. Screening over the deck may interfere with the views 5.The screening was added to the existing deck without a building permit. The Building Inspector has indicated that if the variances are approved to retain and complete the porch, the applicant needs to provide plans indicating how the porch will meet building code requirements, particularly deficiencies in the roof and base. According to the building code, structures require enclosed roofs. 6.The screened porch does not have either a solid roof or windows. The screens can be removed. The screening and supports are considered structure. U2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Pages f [•Mt rtx«i7riii] [•YsIKt ^irtivr^iVsTiTii riWtMlITsIKt ware rniR ’iimjiwnroi rtitp-wt] rtTiMawf] AppUcation Jl Z i 7 Date Received IjT^TT? Amount Paid c . c h t yidM-th fL'C'JCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORi\LATION Site Address Property Identmcahon Number (P.I.p;)' 1 I in - 2^1 2 a Attach legal descnption to application J^ot included on required survey Date Property Acquired . / 4 4 - ft r ^ I (do) (do not) also ov ^eadjM parcels oHanl^-------------------------^(month/yeax) Present use of property: ^^^esidential other (specify) Zorung District: 5^1 ■/ APPLICANT Ntime kNT/ /OU Ihe/-ryc>ro XJOl/'i Phone (home ) J'^of Phone (work) "74^ 7- 7 Address:^ j 9/ Cjye^^ry 6 td ((>qL Citv: m aV j/di Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip.\ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimate Construction Cost $ ^-rrf^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area 1 Setback:Front Lot Width Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage V Average Lak<whore_ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:.____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) RUN DATE 12/02/97BATCH SOI PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 08-117-23 23 0005 01056 LOMA LINDA AVE C 0 A M J HOLCOMBE C 0 A M J HOLCOMBE 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE hound MN 55369 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 08-117-23 23 0006 01058 LOMA LINDA AVE R F OORLOG A K J OORLOG RICHARD F A KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND F5N 55369 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 130 08-117-23 23 000701066 LOMA LINDA AVE CAROL M RADUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOMINGTCW HN 55937 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 08-117-23 23 0008 01079 LOMA LINDA AVE MARGARET E MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1079 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 0009 01062 LOMA LINDA AVE K H * F OAIVARI KHOSROM S FATEMEH DAIVARI 2359 CHERRYWOOO RO MINNETONKA MN SS30S 38 08-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE N H BOCKMANN » N L BOCKMANN WILLIAM H BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 08-117-23 23 0011 01098 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1098 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN ET AL W/L EST WILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINDA AV mound MN 55369 36 08-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE W J A C J POLLARD WILLIAM J A CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55369 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 23 0022 01095 LOMA LINDA AVE T G OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERG TIMOTHY G/KRISTl J OSTERBERG 1095 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55369 •TOTAL BATCH 501 00010 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS /^^^ppp^^^^TlL^^TO^THE BEST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROP^TY TAX^I0I4» TO T OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. - DATE II J ' Ivi , <Si Vo\ \ ' \ r~1 A^V0 t JLdrVi^ /.fAcia. /hf\ f PERMIT RECORD Permit No,Date Type of Permit J (y (o//' <^^09 //-V- 77 CpApr^jP xTijP J J 3/^/0-9./-y<r ^2.^otrkL-up ixj<iL ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 9/30/1997 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. JOB NO. 971260, RO CALL JIM PARKER. 474 7964 WITH QUESTIONS SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE I 0-75 ’ 175-250' 250-500’ 500-1000* Length Width Area Area Area Area ' 1 RIPRAP1 124 S.F. 2 RIPRAP2 295 S.F. 3 LAKEDECK ,198 S.F.i f ' 4 RE7WALI.26 i S.F. 5 ROCKPLASTIC3 i 344 S.F.! 6 ;S.F. i 7 S.F.1 i 8 1 1 ; ;S.F.. 9 i i i 1 L 1 • 1. S.F.—! 10 1 '--------1 ------S.F.i 11 1 1 S.F. 12 :1 S.F.__j 13 j 'i ' T . I . 1 i S.F.n i 14 r ^ ^ ^ s;f: n 15 1 : •'* 1 1 S.F.1 16 j ■ i S.F. 17 1 , ' ^ . 1 ____^ -------------------^- S.F.t ____i 18 ________ _____ ■ ’ 1 S.F. I 19 : : - i ' S.F. ' i I 'S.F.1 __________ ' ^_____' . S.F. _ ' l 22 1 1 ' ’ ____ ... .... ; I i 1 S.F. 1 i ■23 . __________________ 1 M 1 I S.F. i24 : ! M ' ' 1 ' t S.F. 125 ; t S.F. 26“} tOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 987 1 S.F. A __j 1 i TOTAL PROPERTY AREA iN ZONE 3841 :S.F.*B 1 PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HARDCOVER !N ZONE =25.7%A/B % ]_____^ ' 1 ‘ * PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE uengtn Width 1 I "28 t m m • 1 ^ J 1 • i T - - ' -*29 -- -- - -- - -- -- - ' ! ' • ‘ ;i ! : i 30 1 ^ ■ ■ ;3j ' ' ! , 1 i TOTAL PROPOSED AND EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE '987 S.F. C 1 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3841 S. F. D i PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING & PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ■ 25.7%C/D % 1 / / V'>' ^ i * *'V / // ^ .♦ V ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 9/30/1997 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. JOB NO. 971260. ROSSW^HAD CALL JIM PARKER. 474 7964 WITH QUESTIONS ^ L‘ -%■ *• •/ //? >*i .V- -r-i wz SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75’ r 75-250' 1 250-500’ 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE Length Width Area Area Area Area 1 X S.F. 2 HOUSE ‘X ’878 1 S.F.! ■ i 3 GARAGE X 431 S.F. , 4 SHED X 81 ' S.F. 5 WALK X 411 S.F. 6 WALK2 X 46 S.F. 7 DRIVE X 236 S.F. : 8 ROCKPLASTIC1 X 581 S.F. i 9 ROCKPLASTIC4 X 584 S.F. 10 ROCKPIASTIC5 X !53 _________S.F., _ _ , ■11 ROCKPLASTIC6 * ......... * * ■ r X 292 S.F. : 12 RETWALL X 39 S.F. 13 X !S.F. 14 X i S.F. ,15 ^ X i ■S.F. 16 X S.F. i Pi 7 TOTAL HC X 1 S.F. 18 GREEN1 5087 X •S.F.. ; 19 bREEN2 46 X S.F.i i 20 GREEN3 368 X y S.F. < 21 GREENS 22 X t S.F. 22 TOTAL ................X 1 __ .J 23 TOTAL 10350 X S.F. 24 % HC •••**“*•• X S.F. : 25 Shed 4.1 X 1 1 ' i 'S.F.' i 26 Shed 12.2 X i S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3632 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 6509 ...................S.F.*B' PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE =55.80%A/B% ’ ' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ♦Length Width ! i27 PORCH L 1 C 208 /S.F. , "28 i! !! S.F. i 29 S.F. 1 30.1 'S.F.I 31 ’ S.F. “ 1 , TOTAL PROPOSED AND EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE <3840^' S.F. C 1 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1 ',6509 S.F.D 1 PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING & PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE C/D % # I V "v! r i r . ♦t'; / i i II Khosrow Daivari 2354 Cherry Wood Minetonka Mn 55305 January 27,1998 City of Orono Planning Commission Re: Variance Application #2317 Dear Planning Committee: u' requesting an approval of a variance for screen porch for my house located at this address 1082 Loma linda. I use my house mostly in summer time. Because of excessive mosquitoes we can’t use and enjoy our outside deck after sun set. This screen porch hopefully will help us to get a better use of our house. This is a screen porch with screen roof and removable screen. Sincerely Khosrow Daivari MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on JULY 28,1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Barrett Continued SlTup1,n ““ ^ recommendation. He asked that “d '' ”'='”8 “■*' <=“ be Khosrow Daivar, 10^ Loma Linda, informed the Council he had added a screened in rri!?nW °" f^ *P°''e rvith Van Zomeren of the need to make T, a survey of the property. Daivar feels the law s ou ec ange . He indicated he feels he has a hardship regarding the screened area. '’“"'*'"8 <=“ ‘be detenninationregarding the need for a building permit. to^rcomcn ^ *’“''‘‘'”8 P®™'‘ “™®‘ be waived, but if denieu, it can be appealed hiifchir''^'^ ** “PPbeation. He feels the p rocess is a Jabbour noted the purpose of the law and his support of it. ^ r begun without obtaining a permit, and Daivar was notitied of his need for a variance. ?. -id he did not think he needed to have a building permit. K II • 1 H • I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS Khosrow Daivar Continued Jabbour told Daivar that all similar cases require going through the variance process. Kelley related the importance of the law. He informed Daivar that with the hardship as noted, he should probably be able to receive the variance for the screened area. Van Zomeren indicated that there is no survey on file. She said the need to acquire one would involve a time issue for Daivar. Jabbour said staff would have to review the history of the conformity of the property. He asked Van Zomeren to work with the building inspector in the variance process. Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced his outrage with the defacing of the City property by landscape workers using a skid loader. He informed Council that the damage must be corrected. Council indicated the matter would be addressed. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#4) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3931 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3931, granting side setback, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback variances for construction of add itions to the residence at 3265 Sixth Avenue North for Donald and Robin Helgager. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. rA r V I - I //s TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant January 16,1998 SUBJECT:#2334 Lecy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive Variance--Public Hearing Zoning District: Rl-A One Family Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:23,731 square feet (.54 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing the construction of a new house on a lot where the previous residence had been demolished. Constructing a new residence on a substandard lot requires a lot area variance. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.20, Sub'l. 5(B): R-1A Lot Requirements ^2114 Lecy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Che\y Chase Drive Variance 2/17/98 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard R-IA 1 acre 140*35'10'30' subject property .54 acre 142.3'39.17'18.07'60.4' The zoning lot meets all requirements with the exception of lot area. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 23,731 s.f 3,193 s.f.13.45% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the subject property is not located in a shoreland overlay district. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. In 'y should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The lot is considered unbuildable without the granting of a lot area variance. The proposed residence meets all other zoning requirements. Lecy Construction Co. on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive yariance 2/17/9S Page! 1 1 1 j 2. 7. 8. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 1 he subject property was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The owner demolished the residence without knowing that rebuilding requires a variance. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for lot area will not change the character of the area. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Most lots in the immediate area do not meet the 1 acre minimum lot area requirement. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The applicant had removed the existing residence to build a new one. The lot is currently vacant. Constructing a new residence on the vacant lot requires a lot area variance. Most zoning lots in the Chevy Chase neighborhood are fully developed. Lot area variances would be needed for tear dovvTi/rebuild situations. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A new residence can not be constructed on the property without a lot area variance. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. While the subject property does not meet the lot area requirement, the proposed residence can adhere to all other zoning requirements. 1^2334 Lecy Construction Co on behalf of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive Variance 2/17/98 Page 3 Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The property is connected to municipal sewer. A residence has previously existed on the property. No other variances are necessary in constructing the new residence, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval a lot area variance of 19,829 s.f. (.46 acre) to allow the construction of a new residence on the zoning lot consisting of 23,731 s.f. (.54 acre) where 1 acre is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings U2354 Lecy Construction Co on behalf uf Jeffrey and Elizabeth Jacobsen 127 Chevy Chase Drive Variance 2/17/98 Page 4 Application H J>?SrS4- Date Receivedjft^ iX /^t Amount Paid /r o> O 0 ' 1 t- f\-:. / ViAKz^sm k\ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LNFORi\UTION Site Address. 101 ____________> ___________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z5> A\ OQ 1 q_________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey ?Ta f^^SSiAcquired----------^_________________________________(month/yeai) 1 (do) Ldo not y also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___other (speciiy) Zoning District: R-( \ nr,/c ifft APPLICANT Name L.g~c^ 4vic. Phone (home) ... ---------------------------------Phone (work ) q4^-q4qq AddressT)v^ City: &dkg.y\ P^-niv^g Zip: SS:=^44 OWNER (if ^erent Aan applicant) J • p^one (home) SIO- miQ .vJCpnr 0.00b __________ Phone (work ) - *10^ (^11 *414-11 ll) Address:ja^OO Mo.\ri or> Lv^ City: Zip: Mm. SSSOS Ap"t- 4 \:^S DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ OQ/\ Descnbe request in detail: fewest \far±at^ 4r» l^avv^tly Kz>mg p.-ev;ica^ cCbs. , Kleuj 'Zjovw^ci C (attach additional sheets if necessary) Co.Us -Cc> cr» \v\Q Oxie r 1 Ac-r<. Ic'bs, VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ..Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: A Cl/veLyiae tn -fV>p Oi~t-y —^gy^e-s__o^'P'Tev~ "Hvvs^ 0>rep>gv~4^ p^nc.C\ot.aTO _0.t\c>—b.tXi (t t*h Ivy^ p<p£»^t b le -fp Opi/wpiu______ Cvt'HA—*~TggLo.y«T Ooejl^ vvFs ■. ' ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) RUN DATE OX/13/98 BATCH 503 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR HEhWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435A01 PAGE 6 38 36-118-23 41 0017 00123 CHEVY CHASE DR JANIE N BLANKENSHIP JANIE N BLANKENSHIP 123 CHEVY CHASE DR S HAYZATA MN 55391 58 36-118-23 41 0020 00129 CHEVY CHASE DR 0 M SAHLSTROM/J E SAHLSTROM DAVID M S JEAN E SAHLSTROM 129 CHEVY CHASE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 58 56-118-23 41 0039 00124 CHEVY CHASE DR G L ANCROLI A S L ANOROLI GERALD L t SANDRA L ANDROLI 124 CHEVY CHASE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 58 56-118-25 42 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB PO BOX 151 HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0018 00125 CHEVY CHASE DR R S OLSON A M N OLSON R S OLSON A M H OLSON 125 CHEVY CHASE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0019 00127 CHEVY CHASE OR JEFFREY 6 JACOBSEN JEFFREY A ELIZABETH JACOBSEN 127 CHEVY CHASE DR S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0021 00131 CHEVY CHASE OR P D MOYNEUR A L W MOYNEUR PATRICK D MOYNEUR 131 CHEVY CHASE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0038 00122 CHEVY CHASE DR JOANNE C CARLSON JOANNE C CARLSON 122 CHEVY CHASE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0040 00126 CHEVY CHASE DR RUTH L BRONNANELL RUTH L BRONNANELL 126 CHEVY CHASE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 41 0041 00128 CHEVY CHASE DR G C A E S SMITH 6 CONNELL SMITH 1Z8 CHEVY CHASE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNOJ'ILEOGE AND BELIEF. ^ h!^'9S BYDATE u 'Vi/ fs. ■1 o OHM mu RO 0 § SEE MAP 4fl MEDINA roMo KfUfT I Nocrenbers MaxtveU '< Q*'*" • TN AVI M HOO / k 9 M...I •<«*tMAAMMS ■ a * . ^ I iUl jilt UM M ^*••'1 >wu 15 8 itMca £ /,/«!.i» /-f/lr o:^ H'ft*3^-A' >^ i^i:; 5 I CMiftna<]|•im u ■■ 4 iiMMiTii A U 'VV”- • • * * ’ s.vr'..... •U«e ■Mil CMS ( IVVinf....* I ««T Orumt Country Club DNO __A II I 0 ^M>0 (_^ Wj'~! CRIMUIRR y Lvmtim UUMVVII II \_a -AVTW' !S irtiAMR :»hOO irwiMH 1300 \mmrn '<\Seoo__ OtO(0«9 ................ __ '\ . .......... ^----- •^/'•*«.i:„*j.............. 300 / • ' Woodbil Ca^iVy ci^ /’ni* ty Jirowns lUtv SEC MAP 76 Prerzy Point l! AYZATA Wayznta Ha\I \Vedaf JPoint J^OOLAND (77 Ckei/y (kniL' F PERMIT RECORD Permit No, OcH Date V-3-5 '55 Type of Permit I 31^1 ¥ij/) 5/9C. njUt/ - • *•*’»*• ' * •' .•*' • ' ,•'■.•• ■ •■ ■' • ..;rT • ?:.• .\v..> •./^•. • . ... \ -^. ;;:v . . • ■'. •« • . . ^ ' • • . *•. • * . V .*• " • • ••• . • .« • •• • • • - • \ : ''1. «-h 972.40 + 970.44 + 971.95 rmmi r S 84*44 ’08* E -168.69 + 971.21 r«M r Q)-- >73.89 “"^ 974.17 }QtO|v«iN i r<p ■ 4.58 ■;rE»STlNG HOUS N\ -.r (fiM> irnowo" .of ^ •» \l2 ^1 -I 1 existing house V PROPOSED I 2( W" ' I ^7.0 13 C0URSE+ Syp WALKOUT •l 977.2> 8.00- 13.871 a GARAGE (78.19 frn0<4m\ \i'g 77.15 39./7 \ X 1-0.j------977.30 DRIVEWAY idrk ^/ii> { 15^91" ” N 88"49'07\E rMt« r ■ . 976.40 1 INCH FEET LOT AREA 23,731 9^ft a04 ocrw E%iST co/ma/t 7<— pR0fO2£b ccyrium GRAbiNQ CmiT^ + 975.47 + 977.86 Top iro*^ pipC.* ^"JS.S^ £/€V« + 9^0.74 978.61 LEGEND • ■■ Iron monument tound n l»'An nr^ rr\fyf\'**ti ( A. - ^ / TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE:January 30, 1998 SUBJECT:#2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:19,290 square feet (.44 acre) Application:The applicants are propwse rebuilding and expanding an existing upper level deck on the lake side of their residence. Variances are required for structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback.________________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 15(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations U2355 Lawrence Molsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Idriances 2/17/98 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lol Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140*75’10’35’ subject property .44 acre 142’ at OHWL 118'at 75' Setback 57'-existing 50.4’-proposed 16.13’42’ The subject property does not meet lot area or width requirements. The lakeshore setback is also not met as existing or proposed. Lot area and width variances are not necessar\' for this application. A lakeshore setback variance is necessary, however. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 19,290 s.f.Existing: 2,758 s.f. (w/o overhangs)14.3% 3,137.31 s.f. (with overhangs)16.3% Proposed: 3,075 s.f. (w/o overhangs)15.9% 3,454.11 (with overhangs)17.9% Currently, the lot does not meet the structural coverage requirement if all portions of the residence having an overhang extending beyond 1.5' from the structure are counted toward structural coverage. City policy states that if overhangs extend beyond 1.5' from the structure, they count as structure. If overhangs are not counted toward structural coverage, the lot currently meets the 15% structural coverage requirement. As proposed, whether overhangs are counted toward structural coverage or not, a structural coverage variance is required. Most overhangs on the residence appear to be approximately 2', while the rear overhang is 3.4'. H233S La\%rence Molsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances 2/17/98 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0'-75' 75 ‘-250’ Total Area in Setback 11,185 s.f. 8,105 s.f. Existing Hardcover 1,519 s.f. (13.6%) ♦1,553 s.f. (13.9%) 2,701 s.f (33.3%) Allowed Hardcover none 2,026.25 s.f (25%) Proposed Hardcover 1,836 s.f (16.4%) *1,870 s.f (16.7%) 2,701 s.f (33.3%) Variance Requested 1,836 s.f (16.4%) *1,870 s.f (16.7%) none ♦Hardcover calculations show the increase in hardcover if portions of the residence with an overhang exceeding 3' are calculated as hardcover. City policy states that overhangs extending beyond 3' from structures count as hardcover. While not reflected on the surv'ey, the elevation drawings show that the entire existing deck is located under the overhang on the lake side of the residence. As existing, the lot exceeds allowable hardcover amounts in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. As proposed, hardcover would be increased by 2.8% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. A hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback is not necessary as no construction is proposed in this zone. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants' statement of hardship is included as Attachment J. They should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence and deck were built prior to current zoning regulations. Any proposed improvements. Any proposed improvements may require variances for structural coverage and hardcover. if2333 Lawrence Stolsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Idr lances 2/17/98 Page 3 1 r 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The house and deck were also constructed before the current zoning requirements. This results in a lot that exceeds the allowable hardcover limits. 3. The variance, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback may change the character of the area. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A deck is allowed in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. While the existing residence is closer to the lake than several residences in the neighborhood, many other lots in the neighborhood also have hardcover excesses. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Many lots in the area are already fully developed. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Allowing the applicant to construct a deck that would require several variances without demonstrating hardship would not be consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning code. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing use of the deck is limited in its current state. H2335 Lawrence Motsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances 2/17/98 Page 4 Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. The zoning lot does not meet area or width requirements. The current deck is 2.5' wide and underneath the 3.4' overhang on the lake side of the residence. The deck could be expanded to 3.4' wide and which would not increase either structural coverage or hardcover nor would it further encroach on the lakeshore setback or the average lakeshore setback. Further encroaching on the average lakeshore setback may negatively affect views for the adjacent properties. A variance applications was submitted in 1990 for the addition to the south side of the residence. The application was tabled for lack of an accurate survey. The application was not brought before the Planning Commission again and the addition was not built. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances to allow the reconstruction of an existing deck on the lake side of the residence subject to several amendments. • Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 1.3% to allow 16.3% structural coverage to remain where 15% is allowed and 17.9% is proposed if overhangs exceeding 1.5' are calculated as structural coverage. • Staff recommends denial of a hardcover variance of 16.7% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback to allow a 2.8% increase in hardcover where 13.9% hardcover is existing and none is allowed. • Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 18' to allow the 57' setback from the OHWL to remain where 75' is required and 50.4' is proposed. • Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback to allow 21' of encroachment to remain where none is allowed and 27.6' is proposed. if2335 Lawrence StolsalherfLinda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances 2/17/93 Pages Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Calculations Elevation Drawings Statement of Hardship Lawrence Motsather/Unda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances 2/17/98 Page 6 Application fi eP 33^ Date Received A Amount Paid ^ ' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 a § ($50.00 per each additional variance) __ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 f B (no change j&om original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address___3285 carman Rnaft. Excelsior. 55331________1 Or— I'vJ O. CD IT* Property Identification Number (P.I.D.’l 20-117-23 14 0Q13 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired Marrh 3i. iqq4_________________________Xmonth/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___other (specify). Zoning District:____lr - is_______________________ APPLICANT Phone fliome ) (612) 471-1039 Name Lawrence R. Molsather and T.i'nHa D. Sal 1 oPhoneCwodc) (612)_832-2790. Address: 3285 Carman Road_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City: Excelsior, MN 5533lZip:_ _ _ _ _ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: Replace and Extend Existing Deck on Lake Side of House (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED . Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage )C Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Attachment l„------------------------ (attach* additional sheets if necessary) -R / / / / \ ?|g //V\ I/' ^0 " VV\ \y \ ^'v> / t /. / / 6 /' /' / ^ '> *, >., ■ \ 5. 33 5i* <r cno 1C ui \;S0 (Ocn C I >7 >y :.>^xt ,L ^k c n.6. / eft/ ^ / X Z \ V. / (7) jrg. 6 /I I. 49 4 // / PARK '•'%•' I '■ ^ I (C-lef X, V.-/ ^ rv'43.4 ;; (M)piii % %-s|^\r»jf\,ssmesm.X' '‘■=‘'‘^10^ ■ " 'se: - - -' ^ X i? \ N / •T? > X r 'jc OL 3 (45) '• ■ .' • > ; ;V >^3.-.r >.‘, /-3 ■„ -. ■• • ^ * , ^ • X- \ 5 >1 Parcel Information Pared 10 2011723140013 House Number 03285 Street Name CARMAN RD * •. ‘ -• * • ■• . % * • * * e, ♦•' • Oj*. .••• •., •.• *• • V ‘fv *'"’-i ••. -’ •;* •■ ■ '. } ' • ■ /■ •'! * \‘ ■•' : »•' ’ -.‘I- • •»,'y ■ •• • . '^-*' ^*i ^•x*-r - * .*;. •- •; v■^■■vv^.^ ’-liv: . /- V .. ••.% V-* V .-.1 , : • . %•• r •• -:v * ••'■• Vv:‘--■ •■ I ■-.• ■%"v-.'-:-';''t^'V ■ .X.. :fv '■■ I ■■;■,■•■■■• '•.' ’ ' •. • •••*' ■■ y -r '.' .“• - •m* r. ••..-•,* •..• ■'■4*. '■>•.-.> . . ■. r: ■•■ ••■ - • * *•* - •,* PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20 117 23 14 0010 3245 CARMAN RD C A STEIGER AWN KUENDIG C A STEIGER AWN KUENDIG 3245 CARMAN RD 05/30 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 10/27 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 14 0013 3285 CARMAN RD L R MOLSATHER A L D SALLEE L R MOLSATHER A L D SALLEE 3285 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 14 0018 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VILLAGE OF ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 14 0011 3265 CARMAN RD B D A K A MILBRATH BENJAMIN A KAREN MILBRATH 3265 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN i 38 20 117 23 14 0014 3295 CARMAN RD T P LOWE A R A LOWE THOMAS P LOWE 3295 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 14 0025 2655 KELLY AVB J W EUGSTER ACM EUGSTER JACK EUGSTER/CAROL M EUGSTER 2655 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 14 0012 3275 CARMAN RD MICHAEL HALLADAY ET AL SORAMAE G HALLADAY 3275 CARMAN ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CC^IDNN 8 i J 38 20 117 23 14 0015 3300 CARMAN RD JOAN E NIELSEN JOAN E NIELSEN 3300 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN 8 ^ -■' .J) r> 9 ;O. I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OP MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE / - 'J r\ 3z^3 G duc I c; tit.t So Ijtc V 'w../ CD % H % CO MC l»OCi CO* NEl/4 SEC. ; T1I7N.R23W HENNEPIN COUr roa Oranor ninntte MO/1//OMS. /A AlllAi lUPPiBC PtO^CtSIO*' ■«••• C-i*. W • aMItNt VMJ « tU«« • stklilt biLi: 3'S>0S CcirrH'^^Yl. PERMIT RECORD PERMIT NO. ^3S 70 W DATE -Fid. L > ^-96 TYPE OF PERMIT \J /\LPA~€>^ rntnAJ’rUry^ 'VA h3^^AjU u __ rnn V' ikO'^D^'TUdJC /33^/6'X^L>U- * U -^I'SS fi2 __________ # :• I ! •i , J • • •• •.• •». <• . ,-N. • • • * I , ..#r • •‘•'V ‘ 6 .-.f t • *• *4• • •- •• • H LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 1, CAJRMEN COVE Hennepin..County^ Minnesota Area above 929.4 feet contour line HARDCOVER PERCENTAGES Hardcover': House Deck & _ Concrete ZONE 1: 0’-75* Area above 929.4 contour 19,290 sq. ft.» • • • nfo^ossD - .* ' •———». • 968 sq. ft. 2*4^ s^. . //: JZ sq. ft. *" • • • * 3rr • 253 so . /X ^ 4^/9 39. /i'. 0• ■/0J0 • • = 11t/S£ sq. ft.% * = 13.6 , percent •• hardcover • ' I Hardcover:.- . • Driveway • ' 720 sq. ft. Sidewalks, planters^J66/V/%96^;^^M^ *■ .. sq. ft. •. ■* . 1,620 sq. ft.House ... Total : . ZONE 2: 75'-200* . Lot area above 929.4 contour r- •••.= 2,70-t. sq. ft^ •*- = 8,105 sq. ft. •33.3 percent Hardcover • • # V.• •* • ,* . • •• • ^ • %• .. I • •- "« *• .• r • ‘ • • PREPARED FOR • • ff • H tXCK ^ SrAMlA OGkOriMA 6r"^ Tn'.n~r COTC7 Bl Tt .1 Otoe. Cnrotio*! y\x4 Vlt.W • »MT 4 • I El>l«T. T l ^VTOIC V^aLLS ( R.A*ma • ftaXtaf t-MtHG Oi C»to**«o Ls.vCl.1 P<OK>^D 0€OC t4rCilv«^ *T-MA. g.Lfc>/ATie>4 \/i6W SQurn • f:Ar 4 ! Hd^iSA r. /'■}, >. . i'••./ -r^ <;•*' V ^ 'o c ’ : *• V 1 "\1) Q'J c % V-'■fi v< t4.*T. riM Ho««ic ALIVATIUM V^g«J L?yi«MrWtlt • r%4T ♦ —1 —f-------------- 1 1 1 OBun 1 ••• ]»• [ ;Bom i/to/li DC£X CCPlAE.CMt*4T / CxitMllOiS T= / Attachment 1 O O Ofe ■^s-' ^J) & ;y y City of Orono Variance Application Molsather/Sallee Deck Replacement/Extension 3285 Carman Road Orono, Minnesota Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions: Our existing deck has aged to the point where it needs to be replaced. Our records indicate that the house was built in 1962 or 1963. The existing deck was poorly planned in that it cannot be used if any of the crank out windows eu-e open. The windows extend 2 feet out into the deck walkway which has a clear width of just approximately 2-feet 6-inches. In addition, neither of the two doors to the deck can be fully opened since they are 3 foot doors and again the deck with is just 2-feet 6-inches. Encroachment of the windows or doors into the deck space creates a potentially unsafe condition in case either door must be used to exit the house to the rear from the first floor. In addition, maintenance of our roof gutters along the back (lake) side of our house requires that we work from the roof or from a ladder at a height of approximately 17 feet above the ground. We have a heavy tree canopy over our house, and we have to clean our gutters about every two weeks and/or after most storms. The requested extension of our deck will enable us to keep our lakeside gutters clear of leaves, seeds, and branches without the existing hazardous climbing or working from our roof. In addition to the above, the existing deck is basically useless for enjoyment of our view of the lake. It is so narrow that there is no room to place a chair to simply look out on the lake. This seems unreasonable. An extension of our deck as requested will in no way interfere with the view of the lake by any of our neighbors since we are located on a gradual point, and each adjoining neighbor’s house faces the lake at an angle away from our house. Also, the view of our house from the lake will be virtually identical to the current view from the lake. List of Legal Names (including marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property: Lawrence R. Molsather and Linda D. Sallee, Husband and Wife 3285 Carman Road Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1039 i February 16lh, 1998 Permits City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 To whom it may concern : VVe have reviewed the proposed plan for the Molsather/Sallee deck extension. We have no objections to the proposal. The deck would not cause any obstruction to our view of the lake or any other view. Our two houses are located on a subtle point, and face the lake at different angles with very little ot the Molsather/Sallee house being in our view. Thomas & Rebecca Lowe 3295 Carman Road Excelsior MN 55331 Homeowners directly to the West. Sincerely, 1 C5WV thn\'e@ new eratele.com littp:/Avw'w. neweratele. com 612.47I.975S h. • 612.471.0322 fx. d February 15, 1998 Council and Planning Commission City of Orono 2780 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: #2335 Request by Larry Molsather cuid Linda Sallee to Extend Deck on Lake Side of Their House. Dear Council and Planning Commission Members: I am writing to let you know that Larry and Linda have informed me that they are requesting your approval to extend the deck on the lake side of their house toward the lake. They have indicated that they want to add approximately 6-feet 7-inches to their existing deck. An extension of this amount will not interfere with the lake view from my property, and I have no objection to your approving their request. If you have any questions you can call me at 471-8519. Sincerely, Sorcunae Halladay 3275 Carman Road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 i- r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE; Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant February 2,1998 SUBJECT: #2336 Bruce Newton 3580 Frederick Street Variance —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:14,000 square feet (.32 acre) Application:The applicant has replaced an existing 203 s.f deck within the required rear setback. After the fact variances are required for rear setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements { i U2S36 Bruce \e^vton 3580 Frederick Street Variances 2/17/98 Page I •V r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC Requirements subject property Lot Area .5 acre .32 acre Lot Width 100 ’ 100' Front Yard 30' 69 ’ Side Yard 10 ’ (15 ’ abutting street) 28.2’ Rear Yard 30 ’ 14.77 (22.5 ’ for deck) The property does not meet the lot area or rear setback requirements. The lot is 100 ’ by 140 ’, or 14,000 s.f. in total area. The front of the property is the shortest dimension of the plat of the public street. The shortest dimension is on Casco Point Road, although the residence faces Frederick Street. The southwestern comer of the lot is paved roadway for the intersection of Casco Point Road and Frederick Street. The paved street uses 954 s.f or 6.81% of the lot area. If this amount is excluded from the lot area, the lot is 13,046 s.f or .29 acre. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 14,000 s.f 1,465.25 s.f 10.5% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. ^2336 Bruce \eyvton 3580 Frederick Street Variances 2/17/98 Page! ■ i Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 250'-500'14,000 s.f 4,814 s.f (34.4%) with street *3,860 s.f (27.6%) excluding street 4,200 s.f (30%) 4,814 s.f (34.4%) with street *3,860 s.f (27.6%) excluding street 614 s.f (4.4.%) The subject property is located in the 250' to 500' setback from Lake Minnetonka. Approximately 954 s.f. of the southwest comer is paved street. The road represents 6.81% hardcover. Hardcover calculations that exclude the paved road reduce the total lot area to 13,146 s.f. or .29 acre. Revised hardcover calculation are 3,860 s.f or 29.58% of the reduced lot area. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. However, the applicant should be advised that future variances that increase hardcover would not be viewed favorably. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining L^yidue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The deck is in place and is the same size as the previous deck. This replacement could not be retained without a rear yard variance. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The definition of the front yard being the shortest dimension and the location of the residence on the lot creates a need for a rear yard variance. f(2336 Bruce SiMlon 3380 Frederick Street Fanances 2/17/98 Page 3 i 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for rear setback will not change the character of the area. 4.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. 5.The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The deck could have been reconstructed to meet setbacks. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The coiiditions applicable to this lot include the street ever the southwest comer and the orientation of the house on the lot. 7.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The deck is a replacement. Encroachment on the side lot line will not be increased beyond what previously existed. 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Without the granting of variances, the applicant would be required to remove the deck. Issues 1 . The residence faces what is technically the side yard. 2. The deck replacement does not affect hardcover. 3. The rebuilt deck does not encroach in to the rear yard setback more than the residence. H2336 Bruce Xewton 3530 Frederick Street Variances 2/17/98 Page 4 . * f 4.The City does not have a recorded easement over the portion ox the property that is being used for public road purposes. This area has been used for many years for road purposes, so the City has prescriptive easement rights on this property. To clarify this situation, the Public Services Director has requested that the applicant provide a permanent road easement for the actual road and utility area and an additional five feet behind the curb for maintenance purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the granting of the necessary variance to allow the applicant to re» un the 203 s.f deck subject to a condition. Staff reconunends approval of a rear setback variance of 7.5' to allow the deck to remain 22.5' from the rear lot line where 30' is required and 14.77' is existing. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval an easement for the street be obtained for the paved area and 5' from the curb. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey As Built Diagram WJJ6 Bruce Sewton 3580 Frederick Street Variances 2/17/98 Page 5 Application it Ji, Date Receiyed /-^rj Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ , ' Initial Application Fee $220:00 A i ' J \j&X& I Renewal Variance Fee S 120.00 (no change from original applicat®^^ Variance for non-conforming structures $22b.60‘ After-the-Fact tees (Double application fee) V O ''i\- •>■>*-’ \]r ;■.) 4U. • i.v* uT..: V oo ?-J 03 CU ^ i PROPERTY INFORiMATION S ite Addres s fttOK' _____________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^3 ^ Attach leffal de?;rnnfi'nn tn ir ____ COcr» oru Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv’ey. Date Propgrty Acquired ^ t/ z/ 4^ ^ ____________________^(month/year) I (do) ^o noj ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ,/^^esidential other (specify) Zoning District:______ __________ APPLICANT Name Address: A,9^ /^Aa?t'HujkS Phone (home ) V 7 _____ Phone (work) ^ ^ *? City: ^Ay/^ Zip: .9V^/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name__________v Address: Phone (home) V Phone (workX City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ u/t^T ou /iU /99^ (attach additional sheets if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage V Setback:Front Side V Rear Average Lt^eshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL' PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ ?i'S P6'T ^ Z.^tr /V jU^A>tA • -----djfjfn ^ SkA'Sdk/* (attach additional sheets if necessary) I 'U V-* V • ^ * L. I • « • 52 -••250.....100 (29) 7 • 4:^28) y « \ \ \ \ DOC NO ^l_0670j[ DOC NO 194Q782-ac, oi lU niTL ? 33 t 140 ^(23) 140 o 25 \ f N 140 < 4 ;( 11) 140 NI 8 (22) : ^ r\ \' 24 t 140 3 140 ( 12) ^ 91 •2 30 ^DOC NO 1932423 -(56)""(SZ) IE 1—cno 1 91 35 '■%(- '7) RUN DATE 01/29/98 BATCH 502 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 12 0013 02^3 CARMAN ST D M FISCHER A L K STRAIT DIANE FISCHER/UURIE STRAIT 2443 CARMEN ST NAY2ATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0016 02469 CARMAN ST DANK OF AMERICA TRUSTEE B E BALGAARO A C A BALGAARD 2469 CARMAN ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0019 03580 FREDERICK ST L Y NENTON ET AL TRUSTEES BRUCE 0 NENTON 3580 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0025 03585 FREDERICK ST J D PUGH A J A JOHNSON J D PUGH A J A JOHNSON 3585 FREDERICK ST WAYZAT;. MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0036 02490 CASCO POINT RD H M A C G CLOUTIER JR HEATHER/CORTLEN CLOUTIER JR 2490 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0014 02447 CARMAN ST T A ANDERSON A S L ANDERSON TERRY A A SHARI L ANDERSON 2447 CARMAN ST ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0017 03555 FREDERICK ST PHYLLIS MARGARET ANDERSEN PHYLLIS M ANDERSEN 3555 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0020 02474 CASCO POINT RD LYLE A BUERKLE ETAL LYLE A BUERKLE 2474 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0028 03605 SHORELINE DR N N BELL TELEPHONE CO US WEST INC *:AX DEPT ATTN KLAUS COX 6300 S SYRACUSE WAY STE 700 ENGELNOOD CO 80111 38 20-117-23 21 0037 02480 CASCO POINT RD CORTLEN G CLOUTIER CORTLEN G CLOUTIER 2480 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 38 20-117-23 12 0015 02455 CARMAf4 ST J E SNELL ACE SNELL JOHN E A CLARA E SNELL 601 WOOSTER ST LODI OH 44254 38 20-117-23 12 0018 03565 FREDERICK ST JOHN S MCLEOD JOHN S MCLEOD 3565 FREDERICK ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0021 02454 CASCO POINT RD J C ROBERTS A J E ROBERTS JOHN C A JANET E ROBERTS 2454 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0033 03701 SHORELINE OR CASCO RUT4 LTD PTNRSHP CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP C/0 LISABETH C CREAR BOX 126 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 TOTAL BATCH 502 00014 r\- n'f^k***- '. • ^. -^ •. V ' W • V* < • • *i'' • ' V..- i.’:^ ;t.~^i.. 3'S'^O f)TJ2ci}zA.iQjC PERMIT RECORD f Permit No. ?>s :2p. n. 0-7^ e> 4i??3 Date Q-n^U)9 -la T^-7f //-3~9'S"___ Type of Permit /3. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:January 27,1998 SUBJECT:#2337 Scott Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Variances-Public Hearing i Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6,562.75 square feet (.15 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing the construction of a second story addition of the existing residence that encroaches into required side and lakeshore setbacks. Variances are required for side and lakeshore setbacks.____________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements WJJ7 Scutt ^oung JJS9 Bay Road Variances 2/17/98 Page I V, ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IC Requirements .5 acre 100’75*10'30' subject property . 15 acre 50'at OHWL and 75' setback 61'(74'for second story addition) 6.4' (7' for second story addition) 6.8' The subject property does not meet lot area o'" width requirements. Setbacks for street, side, rear and lakeshore yards are also not met. For the purposes of this application, only the portion of the existing residence that encroaches into the side and lakeshore yard over which the addition will be built requires variances. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 6,562.75 s.f 1,289.23 s.f 19.6% The subject property exceeds the 15% structural coverage limitation. However, it is less than the 1,500 s.f of structural coverage allowed per Section 10.03, Subdivision 15(C). A structural coverage variance is not required with this application. Scott Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Variances 2/17/98 Page 2 u Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'4,034.75 s.f.1,856.7 s.f. (46%) none 1,856.7% (46%) none 75'-250’2,528 s.f.1,234 s.f. (48.81%) 632 s.f. (25%) 1,234 s.f. (48.81%) none The property does not meet hardcover requirements in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. The amount of hardcover in the 0 ’ to 75' lakeshore setback is due to Crystal Bay Road. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Any second floor additions over existing structure encroaching on required setbacks requires variances for those setbacks. 2. 3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The residence is on a lot of record not meeting area or width requirements. It cannot be expanded on the lot. The proposed addition would not further increase the footprint of the existing structure. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore and side setback will not change the character of the area. ^233 ' Scott Young 3359 Crystal Bay Road Variances 2/17/98 Page 3 4. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit M a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property ,n the zone wherethe affected person's land is located.Such an addition for residential purposes is allowed in this zoning distnct. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. An adjacent property to the east was recently granted variances for side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover to construct a deck over a driveway to provide a protected parking space. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most residences on Cry stal Bay Road were constructed prior to current zoning requirements or granted variances to be located within required yard setbacks as most lots are of substandard size and width. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The addition to the existing residence cannot be built without variances, even though it does not further encroach on required setbacks . The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. No second story additions can be constructed over the existing residence withoe.: the granting of variances. Issues 1. The proposed addition will be built over a portion of the existing residence and conforms to height limits. 2. The addition will not funner encroach upon any required setbacks. 3. The existing residence was built prior to current zoning requirements. M2337 Scott Young 3359 Cry^stal Bay* Road Variances 2/nm Page 4 m 4. Variances were granted for side and lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks in 1986 to allow the construction of the deck and enclosed porch on the lake side of the residence. 5. The proposed addition will not obstruct adjacent property owners' views of the lake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of variances to allow the construction of a second story addition over a portion of the existing residence not meeting side and lakeshore setback requirements. Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance of 3' to allow the addition to be built over a portion of the residence 7' from the side lot line where 10' is required and 6.4' is existing for the residence from its nearest point to the side lot line. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance to allow the portion of the residence to be built over to be located 74' from the OHWL where 75' is required and 61' is existing from the nearest portion of the residence. Attachments A B C D E F G H 1 Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings Hardcover Worksheet tt233TScott Young 3359 Cry stal Bay Road yarlances 2/17/98 Pages 1 m Application U ^33 7 Date Received /X^y Amount Paid ^3on CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 (S50.0C per each additional variance) . * n Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ’ fX-C. & ^ (no change from original application) •. ‘'‘ V) •. Variance for non-conforming structures $220.0^ # - After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY information SiteAddress^Xi'^^-q (Sr\^ RoAb ' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) i “7 I! 7 4 I Q O Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired D tT P 9 ____________________________ I (do) ^d^no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Y residential other (specify) ZoningDistrict:._______ _________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name NeolT V qu jJ C Phone (home) ^7 I lOf^ ^ _________________Phone (work) - Address:. City: Z\x^\ <C3lO.Q OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ . Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $’MO, C'CCi« OO Describe request in detail: SF: e~ ATTAr PkAAJ.S.__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot A’a>Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback. Front ><; Side Rear • «2k Average Lake-^hore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) s I r-> o o -O' £> (lJK.y, VAC 12:-4-e NOTE 1 REARRANGEMENT OF LOTS A2, 43. 57, 03, 59, 69. 70 & 71 'WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH. / y * A ''S’ 7 ; ^ \^( ioX fA* " V' csV^(20)\ "'S' - -.....................Ww^ A ■; V -.•* Y:^ Parcel Inlbmiatlon PamI 101711723410(125 HouMNumter 03350 StTMt Nairn C^TYSTAL BAY RO 21 ,v /'i'w^ 'M^\ -VMO Nl-iC '/'(C8/ 9 A>Xc/X^/ (27/^6-f' .. ■ ■ ’■ ■• '■* '■ ■* • '*•'' ■• • •- • i. '* ■ i'. . - *->/• -••• ' i '■ •».•<’• .4 ■•.L. •• • > ^v; • AV' /* * V...» * . • » . • •- * _■ ■i . • /(28)/27 y />/,V-.4'VC>.;V4 - • 7; >•;'V.“.• .• Tr^'-'uh? Vj PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17 117 23 41 0022 3345 CRYSTAL BAY RD B C & L A BAKKB BRADLEY C BAKKE 7024 WEXFORD RD EDINA MN 55439 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 41 0025 3359 CRYSTAL BAY RD S J & M S YOUNG SCOTT J & MONICA S YOUNG 3359 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0018 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RD JAY B REISER ETAL JAY B REISER 3375 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 3286 NAVARRE GRACE MARIE DAHL GRACE MARIE DAHL 3286 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 0109 LA CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 41 0023 3349 CRYSTAL BAY RD W L fir L D PASCHKE WARREN L & LUCILLE D PASCHKE 14441 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 41 0024 3355 CRYSTAL BAY RD ELLEN DEMIVVEN PETERSON ELLEN DiUlAVVir^ PETERSON 960 SHr'm* ^ ^ 11/13 v^i laTA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0016 3365 CRYSTAL BAY RD J R LOFRANO ETAL J R LO FRANO 3365 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0017 3369 CRYSTAL BAY RD PAl C HAGEN PAUL C HAGEN 3369 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0019 3385 CRYSTAL BAY RD D TRYGGESETH k E TRYGGESETH D TRYGGESETH U E TRYGGESETH 3385 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 17 117 23 44 0082 2200 BAYVIEW PL DALE MATSON ETAL DALE MATSON ETAL 2200 BAYVIEW PLACE WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 i Vi? jr *>■. .. - i". • I1 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE /-ZI-9& 1 ICCO •m fMiiiof S MUfflllO mutw M««» Qijil fhMi •• ©. SEE MAP 61 Jennings ■i¥ MINNETRISTA 9400 M00IO6I M/4 iSaunder Lake y -^•Aieitsr m ---^ )^ « ■ ^ «.«• S’ "1 Matt 5 ai! X Harrison itaMOO I Ofiravr k Kings Ptnm ffnletfii iIk 4000 UVD 4^i|VHltlV02 MAm lOD ID ■USN NO Hmum ?Zl5 lANUITT^ f-NUtT U JjC«Alian^«3 j w witmm m **[ l^CU MOAU «0 C7f>il5 Bay MOUMD 'latJuuihlr rxPtnm MlMITtift lav Lake s @rw I i I I 33^ PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit 9- i^-sa >1S m'b -/-/I-7^ Uio&nu:^ 'h'io\ ■MiupiAU. /l —-?o nJtAdJi- rt^^tbn cAAHI c 6>'/'-(?a <n J.< I /Ui'l ^LtrttXJl^ 1 4 ■. • • .• • * :*r :::* :v.:-::.* • *:'• •:**• 'r ' .•^ . :;V X ^ •*•*••* ^^^-^* .*:•* ••;;; :*v V :’>* .';•<•* . *•;!.•*•, :*■ • •*! • • •■• ‘ .*’*•'.****.•*• ? *• .* • •• SC<^ : 4 . '» * : • \ ^ m ' \ -•••: < f \ \ o\' ^ \ ^ ^ \ca V V «»•» * v\0' V" oP <tsp LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 12, WALLACE' S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, SCALE: 1/4"= r-O' o [ LINE OF INT. 6/12 PITCH VAULT ------------------ SADDLE AS REO ’D TRAP UNIT DIMENSION TO MATCH THAT OF CW145-2 IN WIDTH AND SHORT LEG UNIT DIM. TO BE V-6" HIGH (OTHER LEGS ARE SET BY 6/12 INT. PITCH) 12 r- 4" OVHG 2’- 0" ANT. l> A\lKA\lfiA • i i j /AREA OF NEW ADDITION 4\lk a \iIi a \ lliAVlii a \iA a \lIva ' o V- 4' OVH' FRONT ELEVATION u 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEt: 1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 250-500’ i Aoo. r<»Tf»i: 500-1000' EyiSTlNO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X 92^ 1 S.F. Length Widlh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X . D. Sidewalk X X E. -Prtto/DcckceEFN Poecrt X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X 5TFP5/AHO *n+IN<ifS G. Other ON ^aarU f vt/g~sr x5/f)C Op nOO^B ' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B X 100 PROPOSF.n HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage *. t C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 SI S.F. s S.F. s S.F. S.F. s S.F. s S.F. s • S.F. s S.F. u S.F. s •6 S.F. S.F. s S.F. S S.F. =2 S3 S.F. /Z34 S.F. A -zsza ±S.F. B % < •. • S.F. SJrii -'SD ■ s ■ S.F^?;., r:S.F. s .r-\ S.F. 1 J '! s S.F. .. . s S.F. g- 1 S.F. - s S.F. 8 ■■'r S-F. \V 8 S.F. " f S.F. s •S.F. rin* 8 S.F. 8 S.F. S.F. A •S.F. B =% ■ j TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12, 1998 SUBJECT: #2342 Mark Casey, 255 Landmark Drive - Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for land alteration conditional use permit and variance for excavating approximately 2.2 cubic yards at the shoreline to create a beach area. The proposed grading is an area 20' wide and 7.5' shoreward of the 929.4 contour. Pertinent Code Sections 1. 2. 10.22, Subd. 2: No excavating, filling, hardcover, etc. allowed within 75' of the shoreline. 10.55, Subd. 8: No filling, grading, dredging, excavation, etc. allowed v^thin the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area nor on any land within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake shoreline. 3.10.55, Subd. 9 & 10 (re: Flood way and Flood Fringe District permitted and conditional uses). 4.10.56, Subd. 16(J) (standards for topographical alteration/grading and filling within the Shorelands). List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Ov.Tiers List D “ Site Plan (excerpt from former preliminary plat) E - Grading Proposal F - City Topographic Map G - MCWD Permit5 H - Pertinent Code Sections I - Comp Plan Excerpts Discussion Applicant requests a conditional use permit and variance for excavating approximately 2.2 cubic yards of material in an area 20'x7'/2' within Outlot A of Bayside Landing. Outlot A is owned in Zoning File #2342 February 12, 1998 Page 2 common by the applicant and the Ilarren's of 175 Landmark Drive. These are the only two properties that have access rights over Outlot A. Applicant’s intent is to create a 20’ wide beach area that extends shoreward from the rip rapping which will flank it on either side (see Exhibits D & E). While the City has generally encouraged property owners to rip rap their shorelines to protect them from erosion, excavation to create beach areas has not been encouraged. This generally is based on the Comprehensive Plan principles that suggest the existing nature of shorelines should be preser\’ed rather than modified. The City receives very few applications similar to this one, since most property owners with a natural beach have merely left gaps in the rip rap for pedestrian access or have merely accessed their beach via a doc^Vstairway system. The idea of creating a sand beach area above the OHWL is technically an alteration to the natural shoreline, although in this case a fairly minor one that will likely not have a significant visual impact nor other significant shoreline impacts. DNR regulations allow rip rap to occur via MCWT) permit, and DNR regulations also allow placement of sand blanket lakeward of the OHWL. Applicant has obtained the necessary permits from the Watershed District for rip rapping and for sand blanket placement. Section 10.55, Orono’s flood plain ordinance, makes certain land alterations w ithin the floodway or flood fringe a conditional use, including "all dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto". Other code sections specifically prohibit land alteration within 75’ of the lake, so that the current application also needs a variance. This inherently requires that a hardship be shown. Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. Will approval of this request result in any significant visual impact to the shoreline? Will approval of this request result in any other enviromnental impacts that can be identified? Can the applicant identify any specific hardships which support granting of the request (note that because this was properly presented as a conditional use permit request, applicant has not provided a specific hardship statement). Staff Recommendation Given the fairly minor scope of this reqr.est (2.2 cubic yards takes up approximately the same volume as 3 full size file cabinets), and given the minimal impacts associated with the prooosal, staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining an land alteration permit; subject to t.ie Harrens also providing a letter indicating their approval of this proposal; and subject to no weed control ____ Zoning File #2342 February 12, 1998 Page 3 fabric being placed under the portion of the sand bed shoreward of the 929.4 contour (while the City has considered that such fabric is not considered hardcover when it is part of a shoreline erosion protection system such as rip rap. in its proposed application it would be considered as hardcover). Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons, 3. Table for further information. 4.Other. Addendum City Council has directed staff to investigate whether applications of a minor nature such as this one could be handled on a staff level. This would likely require an amendment to the zoning code that would establish a low threshold (say u«' lO 10 cubic yards) for minor land alterations within 75' of the lake. Does Planning Commission have any initial thoughts on this? ch I CITY OF ORONO ■ff-r © 6124730510 ^ o 01/29/98 08:40 0 :06/11 N0;853 . •I < ■ C-'x » ‘ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address JS'S /.<>/>«/__________ Type of Application to be Filed____La,tJ Aivt^o-Hw Application # Date Received Amount Paid k Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) or -//? ^ co jx____ APPLICANT Name /7)at/l^ u. ______ Address rfSS __ Phone (home l V76-(g7^< ______Phone (work) City __________Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Address Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City Zip. Date Property Acquired Ac<Aocxr iiiJL.TOperty Acq I (do) (oo~n^) also o^vn the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ^ $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain (month/year) ____Grading and filling • 101 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore . PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fiom original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ___ $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PI)D - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _____ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). JflN 29 ’98 08:59 6124730510 P8GE.06 CITY OF ORONO ^ 6124730510 01/29/98 08:40 0:07/11 NO:853 0 QUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. n/ Describe request in detail. ___Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350\ labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). - J5 A->/K»v © y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. y/ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). \/ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(.s). 8. Construction plan, if applicable (sec staff for requirements). 9. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initial.5 of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date________________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE 'fhe applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature /yjnAX X Date ^eP OWNER ’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commisalon Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all Kheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. JAN 29 ’98 09:00 6124730510 PAGE.07 •^jWBsrra*'i I T-TmIT ii-T7l.ra .•■n * i-SHtm'. Legal Names of People with an Interest in Property ID # 05-117-23 23 0035 Mark L. Casey - Married Karena S. Casey Lee C. Hcrren - Married Julie M. Herren /i O RUN DATE 01/30/98 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OVINERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35401 PAGE 5 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 21 0005 03780 BAYSIDE RO C L A R J WICKLUND CRAIG L A RENEE J WICKLUND 3780 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 21 0020 03750 BAYSIDE RD JOHN A MARY JANE BURGER CHRISTINE A GARY VALERIUS 3750 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 22 0011 00175 LANDMARK DR L C HARREN A J M HARREN LEE C A JULIE M HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 22 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D S PERKINS A P M PERKINS DANIEL S A PATRICE M PERKINS 55 LANDMARK DR ORONO MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0007 03855 BAYSIDE RD PEGGY PETERSON PEGGY PETERSON 3855 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARK L A KARENA S CASEY MARK L A KARENA S CASEY 255 LANDMARK OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0038 03850 BAYSIDE RD P M MADSON A K F MADSON PAUL M A KAREN F MADSON 320 GEORGIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55^27 38 05-117-23 22 001^ 00185 LANDMARK DR R F A K A KYLE RICHARD F A KATHLEEN A KYLE IVfO TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0008 03865 BAYSIOE RD DAK DIANIS DAVID DIAfUS 579 N E PLANTATION RD t410N STUART FL 3^;96 38 05-117-23 23 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LANDMARK DR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC LANDMARK DR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/0 LEE C HARREN 175 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0039 00332 WESTLAKE ST B M BICHANICH A M B JANSSEN B M BICHANICH A M B JANSSEN 332 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0006 038^5 BAYSIDE RD J B THIESSE ASA THIESSE JOHN B A SHERRI A THIESSE 3845 BAYSIOE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0010 03865 BAYSIOE RD DAK DIANIS DAVID DIANIS 579 NE PLANTATION RD i410N STUART FL 34996 38 05-117-23 23 0037 00255 LANDMARK DR MARK L A KARENA S CASEY MARK L A KARENA S CASEY 255 LANDMARK DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 24 0105 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 •t u ’. i, t * X *• J■fl PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 24 0111 03775 BAYSIDE RD G R A CE ROWLETTE GERALD L ROWLETTE 3775 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 24 0112 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 38 05-117-23 24 0115 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 RUN DATE 01/30/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 6 BATCH 502 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 05-117-23 2^ 0116 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 05-117-23 2^ 0120 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 LOND LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 2A 0121 03770 BAYSIDE RD WINFIELD R STEPHENS III WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR TOTAL BATCH 502 00021 r ? S w I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KrXMLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE- : Ih,, p/t^A/fi A)7m SiS'^si, C/f-S£^Y : li6., P/UA/Aim ssrj:^ • -j % 1 i • • IB % ! ! ' . ! :» ^___ i m l i ■1 i. I 1 1 i i-v:’ ' 1 -—t—1—1— I•;---u- / \ FEB-Of— 19'?8 12 •• E5 MIHflEHAHA CPEEC MhTEF'SHED b124710682 P.01 02 INNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT [pray Freshwater Foundation - Suite 37 Ph: 471-0590 iSOO Shady wood Road, Excelsior, MN 55331 Fax: 471-0682 SHORELINE EROSION PROTECTION- FAST TRACK PERMIT t(Property Owner)(Sired Address) •L£2fi (Oily) ■ PH; request approval to install ~ (Sl^lc, Zip) , located iniiprap shoreline erosion protection on property described as (Street Address) ^ 11 1 ol3. The rip rap installation |Cit>) (County) i • livill consist of I ^/ U>catcd on lox stotein^nt) along the shoreline of }f)/\ T'AC/^ (Uncal feel) (Lake) .. . in fliil accordance with (Boy) the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Shoreline Protection Guideline for riprap placement required for issuance of a Fast Track General Permit, i have contracted with (Name of Company) (f'hone) ___________, to perform the work who is familiar with the technical requirements and has (Bond Number) fulfilled the bonding requirements of the watershed district (see reverse). I have read and understand the requirements of the MCWD relating to Shoreline Erosion Protection. Minnehaha creek WATERSHEC ^.oTRICT ^ 7______ prnperty owner) r (Date) DEC 3 1 1997 Subscribed and sworn to before me on th^ . 199't^ F^ ' ' • \ ' ^ E' Npjary Public Approved By:.4L^^ \ 'James Hafner(S)istrict Technician (Dale) i(:» Dislrihutifm*Property Owner Conlraclor MunicipaiiW DNR Dislricl rilo/r.ngmccis fad FEB-0T-199S 12=^6 MinriEHAHH 'IPEB MhTEPSHED El24710632 P.02 Cf2 SANDBLANKET PERMIT & SAND SOURCE EXHIBIT FORM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT Cas&Y^ Troper^’ Owner re.siding al 3. (0/LO/^O Ad tiro 55 za C S3 City, Sraic» Zip or PID# Count>' Township, Seelion, Ran;;c (from pn.>pci1y tax staiemenl) own and occupy the above single family residence and \visli to install a sandblunkct on — Stu^SS S ____. Lake ^ Bay contracted with 7 ____nt ^.r^ZZji ^ contraelor flJdrc*'^ Si OfLj install clean sand from the folic ^ cityT^c. zip bJjy>.0 A'e^uA£- rr)A^* supplier address source: supplier Qu-tiiv^ I will install the sandblankel myself from the followang source. phone address phone supplier If this project requires municipal approval or review, please allach documentation of the municipal approval with this application. My shoreline is^C/___ and the dimensions of the proposed .sandblunkct arc; (Length) x /D (Width) x ^ (Depth). Sandblanket dimensions cannot exceed a length of 50’ (or 50% of shoreline), a width of 10 ’ and a depth of G”. I understand that if this application is not completely filled out, or if I fail to submit the required exhibits the application is incomplete and wall be returned. It will not be reviewed by MCWD staff until complete i By signing this application, I agree and understand that the Di.strict may enter the properly at rea.sonabh hours to conduct an inspection to determine whether the term.s ol the permit arc being met t furthe understand tliat if I violate the terms and condition.s of a permit that i.s issued based upon Ihi.s application the District shall conduct a field inspection of the project per MCWP Rule f, provided with thi.s application ‘ I understand the District will charge fees to cover the actual costs of field inspections, including investigatioi of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, including the .sen'ices of legal counsel and engineers and any .subsequent monitoring of the work. The District’s actual costs are deemed to begin accruitig whei the District issues notice of the violation to the permittee. 1 have read and understand the MCWD Technica Guidelines for sandblankets. .‘^.Signature of property ovvncr /MtvA-7 Date Subscribed and sv/orn to before me this day of-/2^CT/ i y * -...- NICCUM *DEC 31 1997 KcNNtPlN COUNiY | My Comm, txpjes Jan. 31. 2000 ^ ^ | ' '* 0 Date 5.1iul I • M«l' 'j' TOTAL P.02 ^ _T I i i § 10.21 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 15 feet Rear Yard 30 feet1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet SBC. 10.22. REGULATIONS FOR "LR-IA", "LR-lA-l", "LR-IB*, ■LR-IC" AND •LR-lC-1" ONE FAMILY LAKESHORB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-IA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-IB", "LR-IC", or "LR-lC-l" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: A. Shall be 75 feet for all structures except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, « lock box not in excess of 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in height is allowed on the lakeshore portion of the lot and requires a building permit from the City. B. No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications) except that this does not apply to structure allowed in subsection A above._ _ _ _ ___ _— Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. J1 i i ORONO CC 283 (4-1-84) I i § 10.55 Subd. 6, Zoning Use Districts. The Zoning Use Districts as designated on the Official Zoning Map shall remain unchanged with the adoption of this Section. The provisions of this Section, including the designation of Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Areas, shall be in addition to all other provisions of this Chapter. Whenever conflicts occur between other provisions of this Chapter and provisions of this Section, the most restrictive provision shall prevail. Subd. 7. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain. A. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross-sections shall be interpolated. B. The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. C._____The regulatory flood protection elevation within the General Flood Plain District shall be calculated by a qualified registered professional engineer in .accor^^nca—with—ptocedurai^et forj:ji__b.erein^_ _ _ _ Subd. 8. Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted,, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, tempo ary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Sectio.i and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. Subd. 9. Floodway District (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Floodway District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provisions or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect r [ I i i i i I I ORONO CC 365 (4-1-84) I I I I I m m m m 13 li m M n M J § 10.55 the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. Chapter): A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this 1. Agricultural uses such as pasture, grazing, and wild crop harvesting. 2. Fish and wildlife sanctuaries. 3. Recreational uses such as fishing accesses, unpaved hiking, biking, horseback or nature trails, and picnic areas. 4. Residential uses such as lawns and gardens provided no filling, grading or hardcover is involved. 5. Seasonally installed residential boat docks for single family dwellings. 6. Natural stone rip rap shoreline protection. 7. Sand beach blankets meeting the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources Regulation 6MCAR15021B. this Chapter): B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with 1. All other forms of shoreline protection including wood, metal, mortared stone or concrete seawalls. 2. All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. 3. All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. 4. All multiple boat docks including residential or commercial structures, whether seasonal or permanent. 5. * Water control structures such as dams, culverts, and weirs. 6. Bridges and abutments. 7. Utility lines. 8. Other similar uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council and other regulatory agencies, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flood flow or which will raise the level of any flood flow. Subd. 10. Flood Fringe District (FFD). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Flood Fringe District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provision or ORONO CC 366 (4-1-84) § 10.55 SdVng°liUout'’!Lurt^^^^^^ agencies having jurisdiction, S!reroSa ‘c-ns “"^^^ f ?rlbu “lr'" t^“t\=e‘ =hann\"l"s“or°" Xoo"d°ways%f tjis s:^£.;K/;r4Sr r»/s; ; i ;;.,Tr.s"' -•> '■"■>” - » "Su%”s Chapter) :A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this District. permitted in the Floodway outdoor Plant nurser ?;s, pr%"s"e/veT^^^' -"ngel^«lh\r “;Vances' rar^Rs“nd°na%\%% this Chapter): ®‘ (When in conformance with Ploodway District. conditional uses as listed in the open decks and patios pr^ldeS^tL' stru'lt'^r^ .%'etft^e%ftS*’ ^ required by Subdivision 8. meets the setbacks equipment in the "B-r* 7^n°n"!n« boats and marina meets the requirements of the^”B-2® zi^in^Sse'’D?s''tr^®c^.®^^ storage listed when approved ”*'by the ^Council ^“^but" no*®® not specifically :^i^v^i^^of"£-f®i-d - uses_ Shall be =onst^ucted^n^^“=^rdVncrWth““h\" s\ate°"B" Ud°i"ng Conditionaf “us^es.^^‘ f loodwa71^i~7TS5d-F?THg? permanent), fill, deposity^obstruc^tion^*^ storaoe* of ^ iL“r--es“ f!-d ^h^^^Vcrs^^ --“-tVe-caraci^%®%°r^ie^ ORONO CC 367 (4-1-84) I I I i I I I / I I I i ^ --T-"-1 \ § 10.56 Intensive vegetatiorj^'^ring within 75 the Shoreland feet of the shorelxne 5 earing of shrubs andoverlay District is proh^ed^ ^^^d ci^^^^^^ pruning and trees less than 6 to provide a view to the trimming of trees of any ®^site and to accomodate the water from the Pr^ncxpal^ellxlvQ^iue an areas, access olacement of Ve^^tted lock boxes, paths, beach ^ vehicles or otherprovided that th^^creenxng of s.^uctu?^ summer, leaf-on facilities as viewea rrom the water, assunrx^iy _ _ _ _ _ _ conditions, is not substantially reauced Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling 1 Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the issued construction permits systems, and driveways unaer valioiy iss ^ separate Hr these facilities do not filling grading and-filling construction of structures, sewage filling standards of this section. 2. Grading, filling and = |5S?^‘’w\ttrs^™rlVed°in''subd?vlsion^®o/t^ 3 Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public Ordinary*Hi^h^Hater Level ofnot be constructed witnin 75 of the Ordinary 9 section. If the public waters enumerated hal 1 be subject to the take into account the following considerations: a. Such imorovements shall be designed 4.r,rro of uatural vegetation and topography to achieve /r*om"ll“ew *from%ublic waters. b. All roads and parking Sller^s^^^contifte^^^^^^ \°he"''’?i^XeTe^nt%°''of° alTl^^^^^^ with jurisdiction. 4. Except for those projects requiring of sfuctures, sewage treatment systems, Ind"*d*rivl5ayl?^ a’' land alteration permit will be required as follows: ORONO CC 376-14 (2-24-9Z) r • § 10.56 a. For movement of 1-100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the Citv Council is required in addition to the required iand alteration permit. 5. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals; a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: and retention; (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping (2) Storage of surface run-off to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; (4) Recreational use; . (5) Shoreline or bank stabilization; (6) Noteworthiness, including spe cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local State or Federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. b. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest eiraount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible; d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) • ^ I I I I I I I I r I II 1 1 J 1 J 41 I 4 II 1 1 i I f § 10.56 e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable ®^°sion control standards^consxstent^wit^^^^^^^^^^^^ distrLtl'^and^the b^it^^^^ States Soil Conservation Service; Pill or excavated material must not be olaced in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or material on steep slopes must be of continued slope stability and must not create r.nis 30% or greater; Pill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; i. Any alterations ^dinary Statutes, Seciton 105.42; i. Alterations of topography must only I 1 ' -.p Ph^v are accessory to permitted or conditional uses 'and'^lo not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property, rfiet horizontal to 1 5°°/,y”ti=?„Vrv ’^»e the o^thinary High water does not lelufroment^oi Section ISfo3, Subdivisions 22, 23 and 24 of thxs zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. where the intended ^ ® and"harbors,''°are'’proh^^^ theriv ,‘tsr concurrent jurisdiction• "• - =/°Tha”ri%%P^Tiraddltirn%l°tl;°ofe“^trn"^^^^^^^ lSunl'’irl«ti “n%"“ro.55 and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code: 1 When possible, existing natural 4-ianri« and vecetated soil surfaces must be used to conieT“stVreT filter and retain storm water run-off before discharge to public waters. * • » ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) V ENVIRONMENT JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 9. So. P^CTICAL ^THOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water qualxty management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. 1- IS the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management plan. MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. lake resources will ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. ^E SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. in areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM ^D LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 im. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20,1998ROLLThe Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members oresenf Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder (arrived dunng discussion ot item #5, Sandra Smith Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard (who left the meeting shortly aBer artvao al- Uii McMiiian. Janice Berg was absent, Councii Member ooei.en was a.» present The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planmng (Toordinator Michael SZ Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City h f TedZ Planning Intern Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost, Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS nent. OLD BUSINESS Conditional Use Permits (#1) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - permit to seasonally allow a horse in the LR-IA Zoning District - 6:33-6:44 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to keep one horse on the property during the summer months, April through November. There are two pasture areas proposed. Pasture#! is 1.14 acres and pasture #2 is .67 acres for a total of 1.81 acres A previous proposal under consideration included a bam and the housing of two horses Bressler reviewed the findings, namely the requirement for the 'TUP, compliance with applicable provisions in the zoning code related to feedlots, and fencing. Pasture #1 is not considered a feedlot due to its size and would not need to meet a 300 setback from protected waterways as required for pasture #2, which meets the 300’ setback. A minimum of two acres of pasture is required for keeping one horse. The intention for the minimum size requirement is to provide adequate area for each animal if the pasture is used as a food source. The horse would be fed and would not be dependent on grazing in the pasture. Staff recommends approval with pasture #1 being the primary site ai^ the use of pasture #2 to occasionally relieve pressure on the vegetation of pasture #1. The recommendation is based on findings of the extension educator from the University of Minnesota, Mr. Geske. Pendleton had no additional comments at this time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998(#1 - #2289 Jon Pendleton - Continued)There were no public comments.Smith confirmed that the horse would be housed elsewhere over the winter months. Lindquist asked the applicant if he was satisfied with the staff recommendatmns. Pendleton asked if pasture #2 would require fencing if only used as a secondary LeLtive. LindquUt said it could be fenced if it is needed for use. Bressler indicated the use of pasture #2 primarily to provide relief for vegetation growth in pasture # 1. Pendleton said he would wait and see if pasture #2 would be used. Hawn noted the letter referencing best management practices is not specific as to handling of manure. Pendleton said he will speak with Mr. Geske regarding this issue and comply with requirements. Smith said Pendleton would most likely be required to compost the manure. Lindquist asked that clarification on this issue be resolved by time of Council review on February 9. Hawn asked that the compost pile be located away from any wetlands. Pendleton agreed noting the terrain is higher in the pasture area. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2289 per staff recommendation with letter from Mr. Geske referencing proper program procedures. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2290 STEVEN AND ELAINE SILUS, 3225 CASCO CIRCLE - Conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south propertj line to allow a driveway and retaining wail - 6:44-7:02 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the construction site from last summer and current pictures with the garage removed. She showed the plans and survey of the property with elevations highlighted and including the landscaping plan. The driveway plan was reviewed The driveway is located 2* from the property line with a retaimng wall and curb to prevent runoff. Runoff will be directed into the south side yard. The dnveway had previously been blacktopped and was shared with the neighboring property^ A drainage swale with steel edging and rock mulch is proposed in the side yard. No fabnc underlayment is proposed because it would increase hardcover. Hawn asked about the height of the retaining wall. Silus said the \vall would be at a 3-1/2 maximum height by the house and be lower closer to the street. The curb is 8 in height. ^ 'v MimiiS]MmliwaiH RIlTfRTOI KtK^J RTnfiliI«llI3S^ wTtre ^mw3 rtRiroi iimii RIT5B1WJ smw [•WllMJ reiiiliffiTOW KTilililt] R;lfrt Kill •ni wirai Riwnraj ^T|«9] MimllN Rnimn^ •itsiiirs Wfli rana BiiiiyiiiititnWilMi] ^tli^ TW?L'liTli Fatw] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#3 - #2316 Mike Hilbelink - Continued) Dressier reported that the application is a proposal for a 3-lot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parcel. Two new 2 acre lots and a 3.97 acre building lot for the existing residence would be created. All lots meet the lot width and area requirements and future building sites will conform to code. Access will be from Golden View Drive. The application was reviewed by the septic inspector and approved. There was rearrangement of one lot line due to an alternate septic site location. Dressier said there are no drainage issues. The park dedication has not been determined. Staff recommended approval. Hilbelink had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2316. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. The application will be reviewed at the January 26, 1998 Council meeting. Lot Line Rearrangement with Variances (Item #4 discussed after Item #5 due to absence of applicants.) Variance Renewals (#5) #2330 ROBERT BEUTl ER, 1331 NORTH ARM DRIVE - Renewal for lot width to construct a new residence - 7:04-7:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported the proposal is for renewal of a lot width variance for construction of a new residence. Pictures were distributed. The existing principal structure would be retained as an accessory structure with plumbing and heating facilities removed upon completion of the new residence. The existing shed does not meet the side setback. The combined footprint of all accessory structures is 1,960 s.f. In this district, 2,000 s.f is the maximum combined footprint allowed for accessory structures. The City Attorney has drafted a restrictive covenant prohibiting the use of the accessory structure as a rental dwelling unit. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#5 - #2330 Robert Beutler - Continued) Bressler said Staff recommends approval of the renewal variance of 65.11 to allow the construction of a new residence on a lot of record. Conditions include removal of the plumbing and heating facilities from tl e current principal structure prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and execution of the restrictive covenant. Mrs. Wendy Beutler said the time period for the new construction had expired. She did not believe removal of the heating facilities was previously stipulated. She would also like to maintain running water for gardening purposes. Mrs. Beutler said the Planning Commission had previously recommended maintaining the heating and plumbing facilities, but the Council required removal. She thought this pertained to the plumbing only. Mr. Beutler said the Council requested the restrictive covenant due to concern that the structure would be used for rental purposes. He would like to have the structure heated. Beutler indicated the structure is in good condition and meets all code requirements. Hawn said the Planning Commission had previously recommended maintaining the toilet facilities. Mrs Beutler said she has no plans to rent the structure but would like to retain it for storage purposes. She noted that it is only 900 s.f and the proposed residence has a 1200 s.f footprint. Mr. Beutler said there is no room in the garage for storage. She is willing to remove the bathtub and water if necessary. Mrs. Beutler said the restrictive covenant would transfer with the property if sold in the future. Lindquist read statements from the November 25, 1997 Council meeting indicating Council's rationale for removing the heating and plumbing facilities. Council Member Goetten referred to Resolution #2196. The conclusions state that prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicants would have to remove all heating and plumbing facilities. Mrs. Beutler asked if heating is allowed in an accessory structure. Lindquist said he did not believe the Council would change their opinion, and he would only approve the variance as previously approved without any further changes. McMillan said the applicant has the right to know what is allowed in an accessory structure. Bressler asked Vang to explain. Vang said unit heaters can be installed. The problem with the current heating system is that it is a complete furnace. Vang said the Council has had discussions on this topic and currently allows a water tap in an accessory structure but prohibited plumbing fixtures. I t ; I i Mrs. Beutler asked what could be done to make the structure usable. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#5 - #2330 Robert Beutler - Continued) Lindquist said the concern is the structure being easily turned back to a residence, and the City is trying to ensure that this does not occur. Vang noted that this has happened in the past. Smith informed Beutler that from a practical standpoint, the structure would be allowed a tap with some simple type of heating unit. Mr. Beutler said he would further discuss the matter with Council. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2330 based on renewal of an elapsed variance. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2315 C. DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1040 AND 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - Lot line rearrangement, and variances for lot area and lot width - 7:22-7:38 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Dressier distributed pictures of the property being proposed for a lot line rearrangement. The rearrangement would eliminate a problem where a portion of the driveway for 1040 Loma Linda is on property owned by 1056 Loma Linda. It would also provide 1056 Loma Linda with more lakeshore. The rearrangement would reduce the lot area and width for 1040 Loma Linda Avenue and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue would increase in size. Neither property meets the lot area and lot width requirements. While hardcover would increase slightly on 1040 Loma Linda, the percentage would actually decrease for 1056 Loma Linda Avenue due to additional lot area. The proposal would result in a more functional lot line. Van Zomeren informed the Planning Commission of a problem in the neighborhood due to differing opinions from surveyors regarding lot lines. This controversy may affect the property. Van Zomeren said the lot line rearrangement is an improvement of the existing situation and recommends approval. Lindquist asked who will decide which surveyor is correct. Gaffron said the six property owners affected will have to join together in a land registration proceeding to come to a conclusion. This is a long and expensive procedure. Lindquist questioned whether approval of this application would affect the problem. Vang said the setbacks may vary ’ by as much as 18". Van Zomeren >aid the lot line rearrangement is internal to both lots so it can be conceptually approved. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#4 - #2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe - Continued) Bill Bockmann, 1090 Loma Linda, informed the Commission that the property line problem begins at 1098 Loma Linda and continue northward. Smith asked if the applicant was willing to work with the neighbors to solve the problem. Holcombe said he would like to see the issue resolved fairly. He does not believe the survey included their end of the block and his request would not have an impact on the problem. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2315. Mr. Bockmann indicated that a revision of his survey would result in his garage encroaching on the adjacent property. Lindquist said the approval is conceptual and would not affect Bockmann. Lindquist suggested the neighbors meet to discuss the issue. Van Zomeren noted that an application would be heard in February for an average lakeshore setback variance. Hawn noted that an application request for a side lot line variance would be affected. McMillan asked that the Council be made aware of the situation. It was indicated that the fire lane is located within the area affected and may be a solution to the problem. Smith asked that a letter be sent to the neighbors advising them of the situation. McMillan informed the applicant that the 1056 Loma Linda property exceeded the maximum limit for structural coverage and hardcover. Holcombe said he had no intention of increasing either structural hardcover or hardcover. The plan is based on what currently exists on the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Conditional Use Permit Amendment (#6) #2328 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Conditional use permit amendment to update current tenant listing and to allow a corporate research center tenant - 7:38-8:16 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants, Mr. Brown and Mr. Burton, were present. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the Freshwater Foundation currently has a condition^ use permit to be a research facility in the B-4 Zoning District. The applicants are asking for permission to sign a lease with a corporate tenant that would enable biological research to continue in the building. Mr Brown said negotiations are underway with an unnamed tenant, who will be leasing the entire lower level of the building, which includes the "boat room". The research the tenant will be conducting is similar to that which was previously done by the University of Minnesota and Freshwater Foundation. This tease will result in the entire building being used for research. The upper level is leased by the Watershed District and two other corporate tenants, along with the Freshwater Foundation and conference center. Brown related the history behind the building and its use. It was built by the Freshwater Foundation in 1972 with private funding for the University of Minnesota in perpetuity. The University decided to discontinue operating the facility several j.ears ago resulting in the building being taken over once again by the Freshwater Foundation, who is primarily a publisher. The 51,000 s.f building is a first rate research facility according to Brown. The proposed lease will allow the Foundation to continue educating people regarding fi-esh water. Van Zomeren asked if the Planning Commissioners would allow the use to continue as a research facility and make a recommendation to the Council to amend the CUP. Smith asked what the research would involve. Brown said the major part of the reseych will be related to processed water. He did not wish to elaborate further on the tenant's research. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked who the tenant would be for the lower level. Brown said the prospective tenant is a major midwestem corporation involved in biological and chemical research. Smith asked if there were safety concerns to consider. Brown said the corporation was highly responsible. Smith asked how the City can verify the conditions. Van Zomeren said the inspector will review it. Brown elaborated that the research is subject to many levels of investigation and agency control. McMillan asked how the lease would affect the LMCD, who currently is leasing an office in the lower level. Brown said the LMCD is willing to move if appropriate accommodations can be found. The space available on the upper level is not large enough for the LMCD use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 {U6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Hawn asked if it is the owner or leasee who obtains the conditional use permit. She said she is uncomfortable with approving an application without an understanding of the tenant’s use of the facilities. Hawn said she would consider approval with appropriate signatures sought of designated agencies involved in overseeing the research. Without that information, Hawn felt she would not know what she would be approving Brown said he thought the CUP w'as for the owner. Van Zomeren said the CUP is for the use and done for both a tenant or an owner. She said the current CUP allows for research facilities in the building. Van Zomeren said the conditional use can be reviewed and subject to conditions. Smith would like staffs involvement in being satisfied that the steps were in place wath the appropriate governmental agencies. Lindquist agreed with Hawn’s concerns but supported the conditional use. He feels the research should be reviewed and would be satisfied with it being conducted by staff. Hawn asked what agencies would be scrutinizing the research. Brown said he was not familiar with it noting approvals require alot of paperwork and many levels of screening. The lease requires the tenant to meet standards of local, state and federal agencies. Brown did not believe the University of Minnesota was required by Orono to have a CUP. Hawn said she was confused in that other research facilities have not been asked for a CUP in the past but a CUP is being requested for this particular use. She asked that more information be provided on which to base a decision. Brown said the CUP has already been granted. He asked staff if the use of the lower level by another research facility would be within the use allowed under the CUP. He felt it was an issue of occupancy. Schroeder referenced Resolution #3561 for the conditional use permit. He did not feel there was any need to obtain approval by the City since research would still be conducted as allowed by the CUP. Van Zomeren said the University of Minnesota did not require City approval but the Freshwater Foundation needs to obtain a CUP. She wanted assurance that what is being conducted within the building by a corporation is consistent with the CUP previously approved. She noted the use is similar but being conducted by a corporation rather than the University. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Van Zomeren noted that the parking is based on square footage and no changes are being made. Brown noted that they have another building site for additional parking if needed. Hawn asked that a list of permitting agencies be sought and agreements stating the tenant has meet conditions. Brown felt a list of agencies might be possible to obtain but the agreements Huctuate. Hawn suggested obtaining a copy of the permit from the agencies. Brown felt this might conflict with confidentiality of the research. He noted that the corporation was leasing the entire lower level to provide a level of security. Discussion was had regarding whether documentation by agencies assuring stafl of requirements being met by the tenant with review in six months would be satisfactoiy. Schroeder informed the applicant that the Commission was concerned that no manufacturing take place in the facility. Hawn said the concern was also for hazardous materials being in place Hawn wanted to see that the applicant was required to do the documentation for the staff. Brown felt this could be worked out. He felt the complexities of the research would be difficult to understand. Schroeder moved to approve the continuation of the conditional use specific to a corporate tenant with the condition that during the first year of occupancy, review be conducted in six month intervals. The applicant is also to provide a written report from governmental agencies identified and involved that the tenant is in compliance. Brown said he felt the agencies might not be aware of all the regulations required. McMillan suggested the concerns be passed on to the Council. Schroeder suggested a statement be signed by the tenant stipulating their understanding of the conditional use and agreement to abide by it as part of the lease. Brown said the lease includes such language. Schroeder felt the use was already included in the resolution as written and felt a motion was unnecessary. Smith questioned whether the resolution needed to be amended. Schroeder felt there was no need to amend the resolution. Van Zomeren said her purpose in bringing the application before the Commission vyas to provide direction to the applicant to determine if the proposal was in compliance with the current pemiit. McMillan said only so much of the use can be discussed. Schroeder noted the meeting was also a public hearing. Hawn said the process allows for potential oversight of the activity that would be forfeited if no motion is made. Schroeder disagreed as staff has the right to oversee the conditional use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 {U6 - #2328 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) Van Zomeren read portions of the resolution, page 2, 3E, referencing the use of the building. She said there was the possibility to add to the statement that the lower level was being rented by a corporate tenant for research facility. Schroeder noted that no tenants were named in the resolution. Lindquist agreed that no action should be taken. Conditional Use Permit (#7) #2318 C.N. OSTROM & SONS FOR JEANNE MITHUN, 755 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - Conditional use permit for a guest apartment in basement - 8:16- 8:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is a proposal to convert basement space into a guest apartment for use by relatives with an e.xterior door added for emergency egress. A second kitchen and bathroom facilitated the need for the conditional use permit for a non rental guest apartment. Bressler reviewed the findings as noted in the packet. An existing staircase in the garage area leads to the lower level. The main access to the basement unit is not through the main living area, which does not meet the intent of the code A construction driveway will be removed once construction is completed. Construction has begun on the basement remodeling. The location of the staircase also lends to a possibility of creating a separate unit if a barrier is constructed in the garage. He noted that the basement would likely continue to be used for storage. Bressler also noted that if the CUP was denied, state law allows for granting of a variance to allow temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This provision has not been used in the City in the past. Ostrom had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Van Zomeren reported that she had visited the site stating the basement had been constructed with no door or window resulting in the inability to have a bedroom located in the basement. She felt it was unlikely that it would used as a separate dwelling with only the north side having two windows and a door. Without remodeling, the space could only be used for storage. Ostrom said the area of the basement where the new construction is located had been a crawl space. The owner has a large extended family and would like to have space for them to stay on another level. The only access would be through the garage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#7 - #2318 C.N. Ostrom & Sons for Jeanne Mithun - Continued) Smith questioned what controls there would be for future owners. Van Zomeren suggested a covenant be attached to the certificate of title. Smith agreed that would be appropriate. Van Zomeren said prevention of the second driveway would be a control mechanism Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2318 with the understanding that a covenant to restrict the use as a rental unit be filed and no driveway be provided to the secondary residence. McMillan noted that no interior staircase gives credence to approving the use. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Conditional Use Permit with Variances (#8) #2312 CLAUS WEILER AND RENEE MEERKINS, 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE - Variances for an oversized accessory structure and located in front of the principal structure, side yard setback, rear yard setback, and bluff setback variance. A Conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure in on a through lot - 8:28-8:49 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w'ere noted. The Applicants were present. Dressier distributed pictures of the property. The proposal is to construct an additional garage and first and second level decks on the rear of the residence. The oversized accessory structure requires variances to be located in front of the principal structure and for side yard setback at 15.96' where 30' is required. A conditional use permit is required for locating an accessory structure on a through lot. The decks require a street setback variance to be set at 19' where 35' is required, and a bluff setback variance. The property meets hardcover and structural coverage requirements. There are significant elevation changes on the property. Dressier indicated there are two portions of property, that area of the building site and lot 6, which is a separate lakeshore lot separated by undeveloped Elmwood Avenue. The proposed decks would be visible from the lake. There is an existing 3-car garage. There are sliding glass doors in place for the decks. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#8 - #2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins - Continued) Bressler reviewed staffs recommendations. Bressler said staff recommends approval of the variance for the additional garage to be located 170' from the front lot line, and Staff also recommends a conditional use permit for a smaller garage. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance and bluft'variance. Staff'recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance. Staff said the non-conforming shed should either be moved or removed. The applicant will remove the shed if the accessory structure is allowed. The applicant had no comments at this time. There were no public comments. Lindquist was informed by the applicant that they did not understand the bluft issues. Meerkins said the decks were in poor condition and were removed when the house was resided. Bressler said staff had not been aware that there were decks previously on the residence. Weiler said the decks ran the length of the house and extended 7-8’. Van Zomeren indicated that the permit for residing did not note the existence of decks. Weiler informed Schroeder that the additional garage was proposed at 25'x45' but would be changed to 22'x45' or 990 s.f to meet the 1000 s.f requirement. The extra garage will be used to store boat, lawn equipment, bicycles, and other storage uses. It was noted that the bluff requirements became law in 1992 after the residence was built, including the decks. Haw n said she would support construction of the decks at the same size as previously e.xisted. Weiler said he could obtain pictures to determine the previous size. Weiler and Meerkins agreed with constructing the decks at the same size as previously existed. Lindquist said he would agree with denial of the variance for the oversized accessory structure as proposed. Weiler said he would agree to the size limitation of less than 1000 s.f Hawn noted that the 15' side setback would then meet the requirement eliminating the need for a side setback variance. The applicants were asked to redesign the accessory structure and gain information on the decking. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2312 subject to a new design plan for the accessory structure and determination of original deck sizes. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998(#8 - #2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins - Continued)Van Zomeren noted that the building permit taken out on 7/2/94 for residing did not include a survey of the decks.Variances (#9) #2320 CHRISTOHiER AND MARY SMITH, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3650 CASCO AVENUE - Variances for an average lakeshore setback to add a bay window over an existing deck This item was tabled at the request of the applicant. (#10) #2322 STE\T:N N. FILIPS, 2570 THOROUGHBRED LANE - Variance for a fence within 50' of a rear lot line on a through lot - 8:49-9:00 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the applicant requests an after-the-fact approval to construct a 6' high privacy fence along the rear of the through lot. Information was incomplete when the applicant was advised that no variance was required. A variance is required for any fence over 3-1/2' in height on a through lot. The Council suggested the applicant submit the request for review by the Planning Commission and to allow a temporary variance. Car headlights create a problem from Truftlila Trail. The fence is located on the rear third of the property and is technically within a non-city protected type 1 wetlands. The covenants require adherence to other agency regulations. Vegetation will be planted that in time will negate the need for the fencing. Gaffron said the City's intention is not to have any 6' fences where there are through lots. A 3-1/2' high fence needs to be 50' in from the lot line. Gaffron reviewed the hardship statement and issues for discussion as found in the information packet. He noted the peculiarity of this property in contrast with other properties due to its location directly across from an intersection. Headlights shine directly into the residence across the rear yard. Gaffron related the conditions of approval necessary if a recommendation is made for a temporary variance. This includes providing a landscaping plan with a time schedule for removal of the fencing, conformity requirements of the fence, and advisement to the applicant with meet any standards established by other government agencies having jurisdiction over the wetlands. _______i\ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998(#10 - #2322 Steven N. Filips - Continued)Smith questioned whether a 3-1/2' high fence could remain in the wetland area. Gaffron said this would have to be discussed with the Corp of Engineers. Filips said he was informed that the issue needed to be resolved with the City first before review by the otheragency.Filips said he would need two growing seasons before removal of the fence. Lindquist noted there were fir trees on the property. Filips said he would need more screening than those trees provide. There were no public comments. Lindquist said he would not want to see fencing placed on other lots and asked that the fence be removed within three years. Schroeder agreed that the fence should not have been constructed but noted the unique headlight problem. Filips also noted that there are numerous tree stumps on the lot indicating trees have been removed. He said other properties in the area have more vegetation. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2322 for an afler-the-fact variance for the 6’ temporary fence to be removed in a time period not to exceed 2-1/2 years from this date to allow the vegetation plan to replace the fencing due to the problem with headlight glare. McMillan questioned whether there was room to plant trees in front of the fence. Lindquist said the vegetation plan could allow trees to be placed on either side of the fence. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - Variance for bluff setback to add a porch and replace an existing deck to an existing residence - 9:00-9:19 p.ni. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. A representative of Lake Country Builders v. ?s present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#11- #2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the applicants propose to remove the existing deck on the lakeside of the residence and replace it with a deck, stairs, and a 18'x22' screened porch to the north side of the residence A bluff setback variance is required. The existing residence straddles the bluff line at the required setback. \^an Zomeren noted that almost any new construction or remodeling would require a variance from the setback due to bluff and location of CoRd 51 Van Zomeren said the porch will be on pylons requiring minimal grading. Other setbacks are met. Regarding the bluff issue, the topography severly impacts this lot, more so than any other adjacent lots. The residence is also closer to the road than the other neighboring homes. Van Zomeren indicat“:d that the existing deck was in poor condition. She questioned whether the applicant should be allowed to expand or add more structure to a lot that today would not be allowed to be considered buildable. The Shoreland Ordinance came into effect into 1992, and the house was built in 1983. The builder said the porch would be 14'xl8’ with the deck continuing around in front of the porch. He leferenced a letter in the packet from the home owners regarding the hardship and their intentions. Interior remodeling is currently underway. The builder indicated the only other location for the deck would be off the master bedroom. He noted the lot is large but the unbuildability of the property creates the hardship. The builder said the owners are ecologically minded and have no plans for any further additions. During public comments, John Erickson asked if the additions would be in front of the 75' setback from the lake Van Zomeren replied to the negative. Lindquist indicated that the construction is basically on top of the bluff. The builder reported that the elevation only drops 4-1/2' from the front to the back of the home resulting in a flat building pad. The bluff drops off from the deck location. He verified the poor condition of the deck. Lindquist and McMillan said they would both deny any new structure on top of the bluff. The builder asked the intention of the bluff ordinance. Lindquist said the intent is to eliminate any impact on the bluff. The builder noted that post footings would be used resulting in no ecological impact or excavation. He asked for consideration of the hardships with the unique land and house setting. He feels the situation when evaluated on a case by case basis would not set a precedent in allowing the deck and porch. The builder said the adjacent homes are closer to the lake and have screened porches and additions MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#11- #2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson - Continued) Smith indicated that the ordinance came into effect after the residence was built. She would allow replacement of existing structure but could not approve the addition of structure. Smith noted there could be an impact on erosion as well, which would have an accumulative effect. McMillan noted the presence of sliding glass doors. The builder said one door is on the lakeside to the deck. The other door is part of the addition and located off of a bathroom. He would have to make the door stationary if no deck is allowed. It was noted that the 8’x8' deck is included in the information but not shown on the survey. This deck would be located in the bluff impact zone. Lindquist informed the builder that he could not approve this deck. The builder said the ordinance allows for no further construction on this home. Lindquist said there are many homes in Orono in a similar situation. The builder asked if a screen porch could be screened in on the existing deck. Lindquist said it was a probability. The builder agreed to table the application in order to redesign the deck. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2325 subject to redesign of the deck. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short break was held.) (#12) #2296 ROBERT BREDESON, 1395 REST POINT ROAD - Variances for lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, structural coverage, rear yard setback, and hardcover to construct a new residence on a vacant lot and a fence forward of the lakeshore setback - 9:28-9:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported the proposal is for the construction of a 1,166 s.f residence with an attached 520 s.f garage on a lot of record not meeting current zoning district requirements. An encroaching fence into the 75' lakeshore setback is also proposed. Variances required for the proposal include lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, rear setback, structural coverage and hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks. Dressier showed the Commissioners what the allowable building pad would be. He referenced a table located on page 4 of the packet showing the lot sizes in the neighborhood, which also do not conform to current zoning. Dressier noted that the property was not assessed for sewer. There is a "Y" service at the sewer main in the street for a possible future sewer stub. He also indicated that the property is at the 932.5' elevation. This low elevation would not allow for a basement. L_ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#12 - #2296 Robert Bredeson - Continued) Another concern is the lift station located on the northeast corner. It was incorrectly installed. The applicant is to be compensated and a utility easement required. It was determined in 1972 that there was no need to reassess the value of the property due to the lift station because it did not decrease its buildability. The zoning requirements have not chani-.'d since that time. The history of the land value indicates a discrepancy with the two adjacent properties, which questions whether the lot was ta.xed as a buildable lot. Bressler reference a letter from City Attorney Barrett, which indicates that if the property was deemed unbuildable, it would not be a taking and would not deprive the propert>' owner of its use. Bressler reviewed the issues I-11 as noted in the information packet. He then reviewed considerations for the Commission to approve or deny and issues regarding the buildability of the lot. (See pages 5-9 of the packet.) Bredeson said he was unaware of the structural coverage limitation of 1500 s.f. until recently. He said he is willing to reduce the size of the residence. He indicated that the change would affect the average lakeshore setback. Regarding the lift station, Bredeson said the City planned on placing it in the comer and adding shrubbery and controls, which was not done. There were no public comments. Schroeder asked if the applicant received any settlement for the lift station. Bredeson said he received $925 to reimburse him for his attorney fees but not for the easement. Lindquist asked if an offer of $2,000 was made for the easement. Bredeson said an attempt was made at that time to reduce the value of the land. Lindquist asked if a sewer charge was made to the property. Bredeson said he did not believe so because the tax rate w as less due to the vacancy of the land. Lindquist questioned, with the small lot and the lack of a sewer charge, whether the lot was ever considered buildable. Bredeson said other lots in the neighborhood are similar in size with the same setback. He feels that no precedent would be set if the lot was deemed buildable as there are no other vacant lots. Hawn said the other homes were built many years ago prior to current zoning regulations. She informed Bredeson that the Commission has never granted variances for a house of this size on such a small lot since zoning regulations were put into effect. Without the sewer assessment, Hawn feels the history of the property indicates that there was no intention for this lot to be buildable. John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood, noted his concerns about prior sewer projects done in the City. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#12 - #2296 Robert Bredeson - Continued) Lindquist indicated that the size of the lot is key to whether the lot is buildable. Bredeson noted that homes have been built on 45* wide lots. Smith referenced information provided regarding variances received for properties in the neighborhood and the pattern of lots approved for building. She questioned how this chart factors into today. Bressler said there were not many changes. Lindquist noted the subject lot is only 7600 s.f. Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the study is from the years 1980-1987, which shows a substantial difterence in the year built. Bredeson said there were lots on the west side with only 60' of frontage. Lindquist agreed but noted that when review is of lots that have been approved for building, some lots \\ ere found too small on which to build a house. Bredeson said homes have been built, but Smith countered that the homes are not being built today. Schroeder referenced the memo from C: y Attorney Barrett regarding this issue. If variances were denied, it would not be considered a "taking" and the property owner would still derive use of the property without building on it. It was explained to the applicant what is a "taking". Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2296 based on the number of variances necessary, the minimal size of the lot, the lack of a sewer assessment, and the City Attorney's memorandum stating that it would not be a taking if denied. Bredeson questioned what would be allowed. Smith suggested that perhaps the adjacent properties would be interested in purchasing the land. Bredeson said he felt the proposal would improve the area. Schroeder noted this presented a difficult situation, and given the size, history, and number of variances needed, he viewed the property as being unbuildable. Schroeder felt the City would take the view that building on the property would not be an improvement because of its small size. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #2319 RON LAUER, 1040 TONKAWA ROAD - Variances for hardcover to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence - 9:58-10:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were represented by Builder, Ron Lauer, and Architect, Bruce Schmidt. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#13 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) Gaffron reported that the proposal is a request for hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback to remove the existing house, swimming pool and garages, and construct a new home on this 1.85 acre lot. The property is in the 1 acre zoning requiring a 140' minimum^ width. The property meets 80% of that requirement at 127' width at the lakeshore and 75 setback with a Rmctional width of 112'. Additions were made to the residence in 1985 and 1986 for a pool and garage Once plastic under landscaping was removed, these additions resulted in a total of 39.4% hardcover in the 75-250' setback. A certificate has been issued for removal of the pool. The proposed new residence will be 199' from the lake meeting the average lakeshore setback. Gaf&on reported that 28% of the 34.5% is structural coverage; the remaining being sidewalk, patio, and driveway. The proposal should improve the grade for drainage. Gaffron reviewed the hardship statement criteria. He noted that the residence could be built without requiring a variance. He feels the resale is always an issue for the applicants and is not unique to this property. Gaffron said economics is the primary factor noted by the applicant. Topography to the rear is a factor. The property is wider than other neighboring lots. Gaffron said the only difference found for hardship is the topography issue. While the Casco Point and Rest Point areas have been granted variances, Gaffron said this has not occurred in other areas and not for properties of 2 acres and 112' widths. Gaffron noted areas to the north where efforts were made to meet the hardcover requirements. There are smaller lots to the south where the shoreline juts out, many of which have not yet been remodeled. Gaffron indicated that the proposed house would be in line with other homes. If the house was pushed back on the lot, the property would come closer to meeting the hardcover requirement. Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion, #I and #2, as noted in the packet. Lauer introduced Mr. & Mrs. Buxton, who propose to build the residence. Lauer indicated the problem with pushing the house back on the lot would bring it into a big hill with trees and would require tall retaining walls and removal of trees. Schmidt noted that the average lakeshore setback would also be affected. Lindquist asked how far back the home would have to be placed. Schmidt said the placement would be past the point of maintaining any views of the lake. Gaffron said the majority of the driveway would be into the 250-500' zone. Lindquist asked if the large turnaround was necessary. Lauer said he believed so. Hawn asked if a circle could be used. Schmidt felt it would require as much area and would affect the hill. Schmidt informed Gaffron that the driveway is proposed at about 12' wide. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#13 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) The house is about 3500 s.f. Schroeder felt the home could be made smaller. In that case, Schmidt said they would prefer to move the driveway back into the hill, which to him would not make sense. Lindquist informed Schmidt that the intent is to build new construction without requiring any variances, which sometimes requires tree removal. There were no public comments. Hawn reported that while visiting the property there did not appear to be major trees within 5-6' of any building area. She did not believe moving the house back would interfere greatly. Lauer presented another proposal for location of the house. Hawn inquired about the hardcover amounts. Lauer said the 75-250' hardcover would be about 30% with parking area being located behind the 250' setback line. Schmidt said the size of the patio and sidewalk would be reduced. It would require cutting of 6-8 trees. Schroeder reiterated that other homes in the area have been built without variances and lots are not substantially different. Gafffon inquired about the relationship this proposal would have to the hill and house location. Lauer said a smaller home is located 56' from the lake to the south and the point recedes back affecting the average lakeshore setback. McMillan asked if 30% hardcover was possible in the 75-250' setback. Lauer said it was possible. Schroeder asked about meeting the 25% requirement Lauer said it would require pushing the home into the hill. Schroeder presented the possibility of decreasing the size of the home noting he would like the hardcover to be at a maximum of 25%. A member of the audience, who is a Realtor, felt the 30% hardcover requirement was consistent with the neighborhood, felt the reduction from 40% to 30% shows an improvement, and requiring less would be irresponsible of the Commission. Schroeder objected to that comment. The Realtor said a 10% reduction would be enviable and did not mean to criticize the Commissioners themselves. Mr. Buxton said the 25% hardcover requirement could be met by pushing the home back into the hillside. He reported that the hill is not large but has a woodland abutting it. Buxton said the change would make the driveway entry awkward and remove some of the value of the woodlands. He feels there needs to be enough room for parking during the winter months. He felt there would be substantial changes to the proposal if the variance was not allowed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#13 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) Robert Edmunds, 1030 Tonkavva, said he was not in favor of requinng the house to be moved back into the hillside. He reported there is a histoiy of sign.fic^t drainage problems, which would increase with retaining walls and cutting into the hillside. He noted the problem with the lakeshore cutting back in that area. Edmunds d'd n°* see the City strictly adhering to the 25% hardcover requirement in building the large homes due to the ^pensive properties He did not feel it would make sense to maintain the footprint and building as it currently exists. Smith acknowledged the public's awareness of the area but fell the residence codd be decreased in size. She noted additional hardcover can also adect drainage and feels it important to maintain the reasonable limit of 25% hardcover. McMillan moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2319 for a hardcover variance of30% in the 75-250’setback. Vote: Ayes 3, Hawn, McMillan, Lindquist, Nays , Smith, Schroeder. The application will be presented to Council at their January 26,1998 meeting. (#14) #2323 TIM NELSON ON BEHALF OF DAVID POMIJE, 3120 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - Variances for hardcover to build an addition to an existing residence - 10:22-10:42 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicant was represented by Tim Nelson. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.9 acre property is located in the LR- IB Zomng Distnct. The applicant filed for a hardcover variance, but the proposal would also require a access to a lower level storage area. The current 75-250’ hardcover is 25.6/o and proposed at 35.2% for an increase of 7.2% for the 9 552 s f. resi^^^^^^^^^^ noted that the architect did prepare an alternative plan, which is not preferred by the applicant. The alternative plan creates an effect of a long facade along the property line. This plan would require driveway and building realignment for hardcover compliance in each setback. Van Zomeren said, along with the lack of lot area for a guest apartment there is the issue of its use. A request for tradeoff of what can be done in the 75-250 setback for trans er into the 250-500’ setback is a consideration. Van Zomeren indicated that the hards p criteria is not met as it is a creation of design. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#14 - #2323 Tim Nelson for David Pomije - Continued) Nelson said the plan was to work with the neighbors and present a sensible plan. The intention was for additions that would be less obtrusive to the neighbors. He said that a solution to the hardcover issue could be to pitch the driveway to drain away from the lake and produce a situation beneficial to all. Nelson said the existing garage enters from the side. Front loading requires more hardcover. He noted that new construction would have enabled the house to be located farther back on the lot. Nelson said the neighbors did not object to the plan and prefers an addition that does not project outward. Lindquist informed the representative of the difficulty in obtaining approval for more than 25% of hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Regarding the theory of trading hardcover zones. Smith informed the representative of the need to meet the guidelines. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if a variance was sought for the remodeling of one wing. Van Zomeren said the small amount of hardcover that exceeds 25% was difficult to detect. McMillan asked if consideration was given for the addition when the remodeling begun. Pomije said the idea for the addition was always there but the timing was a different matter. He is attempting to tie it into the remodeling at this point. McMillan informed him that she would have preferred to see the overall scheme together. Lindquist said he did not support the hardcover variance. Pomije said the designers were attempting to think the whole plan out now. The owner did not see the need to build the entire plan at this time. The intent is to determine what can be done. Hawn asked what the need is for the additions. She was informed that the applicant had a large family. Van Zomeren explained the uses and floor plan. A staircase would be added. Space would be utilized for storage. One level would be a terrace, work shop, yard, and more storage. The second story would link to the main structure with a kitchen area, great room, bathroom, and guest area. The master bedroom on the second floor could not access the guest area, also on second floor. The access would requiring going down a staircase in one wing and across the foyer and up another staircase to the guest house. Van Zomeren said this could result in a duplex-type arrangem'*nt. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#14 - #2323 Tim Nelson for David Po'.nije - Continued) Hawn said she did not believe adding 10% hardcover to accommodate recreational vehicles constitutes a hardship. She felt the 3-4 garage stalls should be adequate. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2323. It was noted that the differentiation from the last improvement proposal to the property was the increase in hardcover. Bill Kranz, construction manager, informed the Commission that the needs of the owner include storage for jet skis, snowmobiles and room for his extended family. He said a separate storage garage for toys could be built atiu meet code. He said they were trying to meet with neighbors to present the best plan The phases do not need to be connected. Kranz said the owner would like to maintain inside storage. The apartment concept was a thought to assist the owner’s family, and there was no intention to make it into rentals. Kranz said the drainage currently runs to the house down to the lake; that would be changed to move drainage away from the lake. It was noted by the representative that the first 100’ from the lakeshore is in complete compliance with code. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the February 9, 1998 Council meeting. Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use (#15) #2331 MARC GILLETT HAVING AN INTEREST IN 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - Request for finding of substantially similar use to allow a go-cait business to locate in the Orono Mall ■ 10:42-1 It 10 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON J.ANUARY 20, 1998 (#15- #2331 Marc Gillett - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application is to find in favor of the applicant that a go- cart business is an appropriate use in this zoning district. The applicant is requesting to lease 800-1200 s.f of commercial space from Bill Wear in the Orono Mall to sell go-carts and accessories. This is currently not a permitted use. Van Zomeren suggested it could be a similar use to that of a hobby or bicycle shop. She referenced the list of permitted and conditional uses as noted in the packet. The question for the Commission is to determine whether this use should be allowed in the B-1 Zoning District or whether appropriate in another zone. The application would be subject to conditions relating to hours of operation, repairs, lighting, etc. Van Zomeren reported that the intent of the B-1 Zoning District is to supply commodities and services to the surrounding neighborhood. This use would ser\’e a larger area. She asked if go-cart sales is compatible with this zoning. Marc Gillett distributed information and pictures relating to go-carts. He said it is a safe sport in a controlled, flin environment. He was asked how he proposes to keep people from operating the go-carts around the building. Gillett said the go-carts would have to be operated on a test track. The local track is found at the Dakota Technical School in Rosemount. The clearance for these vehicles is less than 1" so it is not practical to test drive them off-track. Test driving would not be allowed on site. Hawn asked about the size of the go-cart and delivery. Gillett said the go-cart would fit in the back of a pick-up truck and weighs about 140 lbs. with a child in it. Delivery service could be arranged. The carts are powered by a 5 horsepower Briggs engine. There would be about three on display. McMillan asked about repair work. Gillett said the go-cart comes in as a frame in a box and is assembled with an engine. It would then be taken to the test track. A vacuum system would be used for running the engine. There is the possibility of silencing the sound. Gillett said the sound is similar to that of a vacuum cleaner running. Gillett said he would not have to run the engine in the shop. It was later questioned how any repair work could be tested if the engine was not allowed to run. Schroeder was informed that the go-carts carried a warranty when purchased. Schroeder questioned whether the engine repair would be greasy. Gillett said the shop would not be greasy. Hawn questioned why the applicant wanted the business in Orono when the test track is in Rosemount. Gillett said he lives in nearby Minnetrista. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998(#15 - #2331 Marc Gillett - Continued)Van Zomeren said she had a signed statement from Bill Wear. The retail space is that ol the old library. There were no public comments. McMillan questioned why the use would be different from that of a sport goods store. Van Zomeren said that was a possibility but did not think of engines as being part of that use. Gillett noted there was merchandise being sold as well. Schrceder moved, McMillan, to request that this use be considered substantially similar to a sporting goods store. Hawn felt the involvement with engines showed a substantially different use from sporting goods stores. She felt the request should be treated as a conditional use in order to set controls. Schroeder amended his motion to recommend a text amendment to allow selling of go- carts in the B-1 with performance standards and service. McMillan declined to second the amended motion. The possibility of the conditional use of (A) garages for servicing and repair of automobiles with repair functions taking place in a totally enclosed building was considered. A member of the audience asked if lawnmowers were sold and serviced in Orono. He was informed that this did not occur in Orono. They may be sold in a hardware store, however. Schroeder moved to recommend an amendment to the B-1 to add a conditional use under (A) to add go-carts to the automobiles for servicing and repair. Van Zomeren said this would involve a text hearing and public hearing, and 4/5ths Council approval. The applicant would then have to apply for a conditional use. The motion failed for lack of a second. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #23331 due to the lack of finding substantially similar use under permitted or conditional uses. Schroeder felt if garages for automobile repair and service were allowed, this use should also be allowed. Smith felt the other tenants may not agree. Schroeder said the owner could make that determination. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#15 - #2331 Marc Gillett - Continued) Van Zomeren asked if Mr. Wear wanted a hardware or paint store, whether the store would be allowed to repair snowblowers or lawnmowers She was informed that this could probably happen. Smith added that she would hope a response to neighborhood complaints would happen. Curt Krantz, 2120 Fox Street, received clarification that the use was being considered for the Wear Building. He asked if the use was based on the building or merchandising of the item. Lindquist informed him that it would include both the merchandise and repair of go- carts. iCrantz was informed that the equipment company across the street from the Wear Building is in Long Lake. McMillan informed him that this use was not included as a permitted use at this time. He asked if the concern was over noise or grease. Lindquist said his concern was for noise. Smith concurred. Gillett indicated that the engine noise could be silenced and suggested that be a condition. Smith said it would be difficult to control. Hawn asked if the stipulation can be placed that no engine running could be allowed. Gillett said he would favor that option as his goal is for exposure of the go-carts. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Schroeder. It was suggested the applicant speak with Staff regarding such use in the Navarre area. Zoning Code Amendments (#16) #2332 AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.44 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ADD CAR SALES AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE B-5, LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHERE THEY ARE CURRENTLY NOT ALLOW - 11:10-11:24 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant has withdrawn his request. However, Mr. Katainan, owner of the Bay Furniture Store, submitted a letter asking for ideas for use of the building, especially in regards to display and storage. Katainan is present and asking for guidelines. Katainan said the applicant, Mr. Bury, has renewed his previous lease alleviating the urgency of moving forward with the application. Katainan would like to review the issue, however, regarding display, storage, and aesthetics. Katainan noted the availability of additional parking on the property. 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#16 - #2332 Zoning Code Amendment - Continued) Lindquist informed Katainan that a few display cars was satisfactory. Schroeder said the concern was not with the sale of classic cars but with a used car lot. McMillan added that it also would have required amending the code as the use did not fit in with permitted or conditional uses as written. Schroeder said he would have supported the application if all vehicles would be stored inside. Lindquist noted the applicant did not wish to be limited. Schroeder said i onomics necessitated the need for the applicant to sell late model cars as well. Mr. Katainan asked if Mr. Bury resubmitted his application later in the year, whether the Commission would consider it. Lindquist was informed that Katainan has reviewed the list of permitted uses. Lindquist said the possibility was there to add to that list. He suggested Katainan speak with staff regarding how a use might fit into one of the permitted categories. A public hearing would be required to amend the ordinance. Katainan said he would not want to pursue it if the probability of approval was narrow. He was informed that the process requires at least two-three months. Katainan volunteered to assist in the review of the permitted uses. He was informed that he should allow enough time for the process to be completed if another application is submitted. (#17) #2333 AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECTION 5.40, LICENSLNG OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND SECTION 10.02, DEFINITIONS, AND SECTION 10.20, SUED. 4, ACCESSORY USES, TO DEFINE HOME OCCUPATIONS AND ESTABLISH REGULATIONS - 11:24-11:38 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the draft ordinance regarding home occupations is based on work sessions held by the Planning Commission. She received information from City Attorney Ba»^‘'‘* "egarding firearm dealers for their review. The 1985 legislature removed from munici, .. the ability to govern the sale of firearms. It was reinstated in 1993 and can be addressed in the zoning ordinance limiting the location of firearms dealers, A list of licensees was provided to the Commission. Van Zomeren reviewed the definition of home occupations, the accessory use, employees, exterior alterations, interior alterations, enclosed areas and accessory structures, outdoor storage, noise parking, signage, equipment and machinery, retail sales, visibility, hours of operation, customer traffic, deliveries, hazardous materials, home parties, prohibited occupations, disability provision, and enforcement as noted in the information packet. The amen Iment also eliminates the licensing provision for home occupation. Violations have not yet been addressed by the City Attorney. Included in the information is the text of the ordinance draft and minutes from prior meetings wnere the topic was discussed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTMING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 {P\l - #2333 Home Occupations - Continued) Curtis Krantz, 2120 Fox Street, voiced his approval of Staffs preference regarding eliminating licensing, strengthening the zoning regulations, and handling violations on a complaint basis. He was informed that farming is an agricultural use, not regulated as a home occupation. Krantz supported the draft but questioned the ability of City employees to enter homes and limiting the number of customers. He feels the City is overstepping their bounds by limiting the number of customers, which he feels is a restraint of trade. He asked how it would be policed. Lindquist informed him that the City would respond to complaints. Smith said the boundaries are set to use only when a complaint is received. Krantz was informed that the regulations apply to residences and a more intense business use should be located in a commercial area in order to maintain the character of residential ighborhoods. Schroeder noted the increase in traftV would not benefit a neighborhood.nei Lindquist said the City is attempting to place reasonable limitations on home occupation and to give people an idea on what is acceptable. He informed Krantz that the Commission is happy to hear any suggestions for changes and incorporate rules that benefit the community as a whole. Smith noted that the provisions are for response to complaints on what is reasonable and not necessarily a mandate. Krantz agreed with handling problems on a complaint basis. He does not feel the City has the right to limit the business. Krantz asked if firearm dealers would he able to continue operation in the City. Lindquist asked Krantz to submit his name for notification of any public hearings regarding the issue. Lindquist said the matter will be discussed in the near future. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2333. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) #2327 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - An amendment to Section 10.44 of the Zoning Code to allow coffee shops, bagel and pizza restaurants in the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District - 11:38 p.m.- 12:03 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow as a conditional use, three specific additional uses: 1) coffee retail sales, 2) bagel retail sales, and 3) pizza retail sales. This request is in conjunction with an application for development of the church property by Orono Development. Gaffron agreed with Mr. Krantz of the need to update the list. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffron noted that the B-5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store." The Dairy Queen in the Navarre area does not function as a restaurant and does not include the "Brazier" portion as some Dairy Queens do. Of the 10,000 acres in the City, there is 5.9 acres in the B-5 District. The Navarre area has 3 acres zoned B-5, the church property, the strip mall on Blaine Avenue East to the office building, including Mr. Katainan's furniture store area and auto repair area. Gaffron reviewed the intent of the B-5 District, which w s written in about 1975. Traffic problems are a consideration. Permanent uses are shown in Exhibit E. The conditional uses list was amended in October, 1996, to delete home and garden equipment rental. Gaffron reviewed the nature of the proposed uses. He reviewed the two types of restaurants as defined in the zoning code. The proposed uses are in conjunction with a bank, office and retail businesses. The proposed uses do not fit into these categories. Bagel or coffee sales could be part of Restaurant Class 11. The pizza sales could be generate a fair amount of traffic. Gaffron reviewed questions for the Commission to consider regarding whether the proposed uses are appropriate in the B-5 District as noted on page 3, questions 1-4. He noted that the B-5 District was chosen due to meet the bank's use and not the restaurant use. In the analysis, Gaffron indicated that the B-5 uses should be neighborhood oriented and must provide service to the surrounding neighborhood. He reported that certain restaurant types may create potential problems for the district and reviewed such possibilities. Gaffron indicated that if the proposed uses are allowed, staff should be directed to develop conditional use standards that would limit the operations to a scope and level appropriate to the district. Examples of such limitations were given and are noted in the packet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 • #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon, Orono Development, and Mike Sepena, the General Contractor, were present. Dillon reported that the 11,000 s.f. neighborhood service facility is intended for neighborhood use. He feels the coffee and bagel sales would be similar to that of a tobacco sales business and should be a conditional use as noted by candy, ice cream, etc. shops. Dillon noted the use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to enhance the site and community. He said he has spoken with business owners who agreed with their goals for the property. Dillon felt the coffee and bagel shop could share space. The pizza sales would be take-out only. The hours of operation would be consistent with the neighborhood. He does not feel traffc would increase. Dillon said he agrees with recommendations made by staff for an amendment to allow the use as a conditional use, which he feels is appropriate to the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Tliere were no public comments. Schroeder asked if the applicant was proposing all three uses. Dillon said they needed to know what uses would be allowed in order to approach perspective occupants. Gaftron explained for McMillan the differences between Class I and Class II Restaurants referencing page 2 of the memo. Gaffron noted that the definitions may not apply today. Dillon said he did not feel the use fit either one of these definitions. Lindquist asked if the primary tenant has been secured Dillon said a national bank would be occupying 3100 s.f of the 11,000 s.f total. Schroeder was informed that the consideration for the proposed uses was not based on economics but based on retail use allotment. Lindquist said he would agree with the coffee and bagel sales but could not support pizza sales. Schroeder was informed that there would be a s parate entrance. Hawn noted that when the property was rezoned, the intent was to make it available for commercial and retail use, such as real estate office, lawyers, accountants, etc., uses that do not generate foot traffic as allowed in the B-1 District. It was not her intention to see retail food sales on this site. Dillon said the B-5 resulted in a very ’ limited use for the site. Hawn said that was deliberately done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) John O'Sullivan said his original intent for inclusion in the B-5 District had food in mind. The only food in the area is at the Dairy Queen. He did not want to see fast food, which may be included in the B-1. O’Sullivan said he has spoken with people in the neighborhood, who feel the coffee and bagel sales is consistent with the neighborhood. He sees this use as the candy shop of the 1950’s. Smith asked if the coftee-bagei sales purpose was to primarily serve the neighborhood or to serve area employees. Dillon said the purpose was for the neighbors and customers of the bank. The Commissioners questioned how much traffic would be generated by these uses. It was agreed that the traffic would be more than what is generated by the bank. Dillon felt the use would be subtle with the majority being take-out customers Dillon reported that the tenants themselves determine what traffic needs they must have to generate enough business. Hawn said the B-5 District speaks of the undesirability of high traffic generators and feels the use is not compatible with this zoning district. Gaffron noted that the Dairy Queen is a seasonal business. O'Sullivan added that this particular Dairy Queen is a high volume store for a non-Brazier Dairy Queen. John Erickson suggested taking the property to the north of O'Sullivan and zoning it all commercial. Sepena asked is the uses were substantially different from that of a Dairy Queen. Ha\vn said she felt the Dairy Queen was present due to its historical insertion in the district. Hawn said she is against the restaurant uses. Gaffion noted that the property was changed to B-5 from residential one year ago. Dillon said he felt the coffee-bagel use is similar to the candy, ice cream, etc. use. He will ask the applicant to amend the application to eliminate the pizza sales. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the amendment of the B-5 for allowed conditional uses to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales. Schroeder felt the neighbors would appreciate these businesses. McMillan asked if the uses would be tied into the candy, ice cream, etc. category. Lindquist said the uses would be added to the list of conditional uses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#18 - #2327 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffron said he would recommend that limitations be placed on the use as a separate line. The limitations would need to be developed. He has been given some suggestions from Shardlow, which is currently not reflected in the proposed language. Lindquist and Smith said they would like to review the language when drafted. Schroeder felt satisfied with staff handling the matter. Lindquist agreed to let staff develop the details and send it forward to the Council for review. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 1, Hawn. Council will review the application at their February 24 meeting. Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances (#19) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. retail/service center building - 12:03-1:00 a.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a commercial site plan review and variance approval for the multi-retail building noted in agenda item #18. Variances include 500- 1000' zone hardcover and parking setback from street. The property is 1.86 acre site. Gaffron noted the property as it exists today and with proposed improvements for a bank building and retail sales. A pori'on of Navarre Lane was vacated last year. The site contains stormwater management ponding serving the Culver site. Gaffron reviewed the application with regards to conformity with performance standards of the B-5 District as laid out in the information packet. He noted that the building layout is similar to what has previously been shown. Gaffron reported that the hardcover is less than what is seen elsewhere in Navarre. There wdll be building space for 6-8 tenants. Inside floor plans are not yet available. The permitted and conditional uses are in conformance as are lot area and lot widdi. The front yard setback requirement h 20' minimum and proposed at 5'. The land: cape architect has commented that mo ; space should be provided for plantings. A 20' rear setback is required for the through lot but proposed at 14'. Entrance monumer,s are also being proposed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 GafFron indicated that fencing is not being proposed. Fencing is required, however, where the property abuts the residential district. A arborvitae hedge is being proposed. Landscape Architect Case suggested additional screening in the landscape plan. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether screening should be included along the Olive Avenue frontage. Gaffron reported that the City does not usually get involved with design, but the proposed buildings will be significant to the area. He reviewed the exterior finish. Elevation reviews must be provided to ensure a consistent appearance. In Staffs opinion. Gaffron said the building lacks character and consideration needs to be given to the expanse of uninterrupted roof. The only outbuilding will be a trash enclosure proposed 30' from Olive Avenue, which Gaffron feels may not be the best location. Screening of that enclosure is required an building exterior should also be compatible with the other buildings. A drainage plan has been submitted A grading plan indicates an expansion of the retention pond existing on the site. The City Engineer has made recommendations, including the need to revisit the proposed storm sewer lines in that storm sewer and ponding calculations need to be provided. The entire site will drain to this storm pond via grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. Gaffron said the City Engineer has commented on the grading plan submitted. He noted that design grades, especially down to Olive Avenue, are steep. Grades and slopes need to be examined and erosion control materials used. Plantings should stnve for a 1:5 slope. The proposed retaining wall is over 10 in height. A pedestrian path had been discussed for location along the wall but eliminated due to the safety issue vvith the height of the wall. Concern was also voiced over the starkness of the wall as viewed from Olive Avenue. O'Sullivan had suggested the pedestrian path by the north lot line but felt ^s may be difficult to do. A path through the parking lot would need alot of review Gaffron noted the wall would need to be screened. The building height meets requirements but the broad expanse of roof should be modified. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the general performance standards noted in the application in relation to exterior storage, traffic control and site circulation, signage, lighting, and parking standards. The traffic will move in a counter-clockwise rotation through the bank drive- through window. Both a north and south access is proposed. Exiting traffic may be a problem with the close proximity to the Culver’s Restaurant. There will be two-way traffic on the exit and in front of the building. The City Engineer suggested the use of a right-in, right-out scenario if two accesses are provided; he recommended only one access. Hennepin County will need to review this issue. The City Engineer felt the entrance was too close to the intersection. A condition was placed on the Culver's Development for another review of the access due to this issue. Gaffron said Staff questioned the need for the entrance monuments and indicated they must meet the 10' setback. More detail i** required regarding lighting. The parking standards are met with 62 spaces proposed and 56 required. The code calls for one space for every 200 s.f of office space; the plan has onj space for every 150 s.f. of space. Gaffron said the intensity of the restaurant use can be limited by the parking. No joint parking is planned, but O’Sullivan had previously suggested overflow parking for Culver’s on this site. The setback for parking in the front is an issue for consideration. If the road expands, the parking will disappear. At least a 10* wide green strip for landscaping should be provided. The setback is also important in maintaining the natural character of the City. Gaffron reviewed how the 20’ front yard could be accomplished as cited by 1-4 in the packet. He added that the building could be pushed back on the lot to accomplish #2. Gaffron said it is unclear whether the intent of the code section regarding drive-in standards appliw.; to restaurants or general drive through services. Gaffron felt the canopy area should not impact the neighborhood except for the possibility of headlight glare, which may require screening. Gaffron expressed the need for additional landscaping due to the loss of trees on the property. Gaffron reviewed the variance requests including hardcover. He questioned the granting of the magnitude of hardcover variances considering the lack of detail or hardship statement. The question arose of whether the storm water treatment concludes that the excessive hardcover has a limited impact. Gaffron said the front parking setback should be evaluated in its regard to what is appropriate in Navarre. MiN UTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Gaffron, while acknowledging guidelines, said additional work is required on the plans. Tom Dillon noted that the 11,000 s.f. building is less than what was previously planned. He anticipates a 5-6 month construction period. Dillon feels the two egress locations on CoRd 19, with the southern egress being shared with Culver's, is an improvement for the property. He noted the service window location is toward the rear of the building being the best location for both the building and the neighborhood. Dillon felt the hardcover issue was difficult to solve with the slopes, elevations, and pond. He noted the lack of flexibility with the property being within two lakeshore zones. He indicated the ponding and filtration to marsh areas will aid water quality. Dillon asked for clarification on the 20' setback requirement from Olive Avenue. It was his belief the setback would be at 23' and meet the requirement. Dillon noted he has not answered all of the concerns but will work with Staff. Mike Sepena reviewed the site plan. He referenced the confining steep elevations, which drop, for a minimum depth. Changes to this and the driveway are being kept to a minimum to reduce the need for fill. He indicated the 10' wall does taper upward. The 5' variance to the front yard setback is necessary, according to Dillon, to maintain lineal integrity. He felt if Shadywood Road was expanded, this site is only one of many that would be affected. Gaffron clarified the setback issue. John Erickson comments that the Shadywood setback is unrealistic as the property falls away to the back. He thought the plan for planters would be an improvement. Erickson feels Olive Avenue is so narrow that it is practically a bike path now. He did not believe the neighbors would object to the parking extending to the back of the building and would most likely be the area where employees would park. Erickson is in support of bushes planted separating the retaining wall from his property, which he says would be a vast improvement to what currently exists. There were no other public comments. Schroedcr agreed that a 20' setback would not be possible. McMillan said she w'ould like to see more green space, however. Dillon said the area in front of the building on the County right-of-way is all green space, along with other areas he pointed out. Sepena also noted the open areas on the comers where landscaping could be located. Dillon said he would work with Staff on a landscaping plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon said he understands the need to change the roof line. He will work with Staff on the lighting plan. Dillon said he spoke with the Watershed District, who were satisfied with the preliminary plan and with the ponding, but required the City hearing prior to their formal review. Dillon indicated that a 5' setback is built in with the sidewalk separating the parking area. He preferred unrestricted ingress and egress for the two access points, especially on the south where it is shared with Culver's. Hawn asked how much more land would be required to gain two lanes of parking in front. Sepena said it would be a tradeoff and impact the rest of the lot noting 64' is at the minimum. Lindquist asked what should be added in front of the building. Schroeder suggested trees planted in pots. Dillon replied that it would create a problem with snowplowing. Smith felt that 5' would not make a difference. Schroeder indicated it would encroach on the Olive Avenue parking. Gaffron suggested bump-outs in order to save trees. Sepena said it would depend on the parking allotment. Dillon informed Schroeder that his intent is to frame the property with trees. Gaffron indicated that further work with the development on the issues is necessary. Schroeder felt the Planning Commission should see the plan again. Commissioners agreed. Lindquist asked Staff to work through the issues and develop a list of topics for discussion. Gaffron said the plan will be reviewed at the Februaiy 17 Planning Commission meeting and the February 23 Council meeting. Smith felt the two locations for access were intensive with the combined use with Culver’s, the sea of concrete that would exist, and the increased traffic. She is worried about the level of activity in the area and asked Staff to review this issue. Schroeder, Lindquist, and McMillan feit that two accesses were necessary. Smith asked to see options. Schroeder indicated the building could be reduced in size but limited depthwise. Smith acknowledged the current plan is an improvement. Smith asked that the ex'terior design be reviewed Schroeder suggested the drive through be located to the side to gain the 20' setback Dillon said that was possible but would present a problem with stacking and gaining access to the back of the building if eliminated. Gaffron said a possibility is to eliminate a portion of the 20' driveway. Schroeder asked that more than 5' be provided in front. He would like to see a landscaping plan such as the 5' plus trees. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2326 for additional review of plan and work on landscaping, roof design, signage, exterior design and issues noted in this discussion. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development > Continued) Dillon asked about the hardcover variance. Schroeder indicated that the building has been reduced in size. Lindquist and Schroeder were in support of the variance request. Sketch Plans (#20) #2321 DAN ANDERSON, OWNER OF 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into 8 lots for residential development The Applicant was present. iV a Gaffron reported that the review is of a sketch plan for the/l7-l/2 acre Carpenter property located on Old Crystal Bay Road. All existing buildings have been removed. The plan calls for 8 lots with two cul-de-sacs, with septic systems and wells. Lot 8 is to be served by an individual driveway. The property also contains woodlands and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline, which will impact lake setbacks and tree preservation. The bluff located on 3 of 4 lots forces the setback to an average 150', where normally the setback is 75'. Gaffron indicated the issues for discussion include access, lot area/width standards, on site sewage treatment, bluff impacts, tree preservation, park dedication, archaeological sites, wetlands, and stormwater drainage. Gaffron said the code would generally limit individual access to major roadways. A change will be necessary for access to Lot 8, possibly by an outlot road. Hennepin County will also need to review access. Gaffron said the best plan would be for all lots to access from one road, but with circumstances being as they are, two roads would make sense. Gaffron reported that the lots meet the 2 acre zoning. Lot 3 does not meet the 200' width requirement. The four lakeshore lots are narrow, and the angle of he existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out the lots. The setbacks are 50' front, 30' side, 50' rear, and 75' setback from the bluff. Septic sites have been tested. There is limited building flexibility, especially for Lot 6. Steve Weekman has reviewed the sites and is concerned that the 6% slope is not being met. More mound systems may be necessary and additional review required. The bluff afl'ects 3 of 4 lakeshore lots. Gaffron indicated that the tree line follows the shoreline presenting pristine views from ; le bay, which should be preserved. He is concerned with building a corridor to the lake , iggests some limitations within the corridor to ensure that trees are not cut down to iiie lake. He suggested a tree conservation easement. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#20 - #2321 Dan Anderson - Continued) Gaffron said a trail corridor is laid out for the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Hennepin Parks has a long term intent for a trail system connecting the Luce Line to Noerenberg. Difficulty in continuing the east side trail is due to topography problems and preference has been shown for the trail continuation on the west side of the road. The subdivision will be subject to park dedication, whether by fee or land. There are no apparent wetlands on the property but confirmation will be required. A site grading plan will also be required when the preliminary plat application is filed. Issues for consideration include access and number of access points. Gaffron said Staff will scrutinize the viability of the building envelopes of specific lots noting the septic system feasibility is key to determining the number and layout of lots. The applicant will be asked for tree or woodland preservation methods as well. The applicant said Ed Otto of Otto Associates did the plan and soil testing. Anderson said he appreciates the beauty of the area and tree preservation is vital to maintaining the value of the property. Anderson said the areas most appropriate for building sites are not in the wooded areas. Smith indicated that the problem with tree and woods preservation would most likely arise once the residences are built and resided in. Lindquist suggested the use of a restrictive covenant. Smith agreed. Anderson felt the property owners will want to maintain the trees. Schroeder asked for a plan regarding this issue. Otto responded to the issue of access. He said consideration was given to a horseshoe type connection, but the property lacked the depth and hardcover would increase. He felt the outlot option would be best for site distance. He suggested an option for Lot 8's driveway. Otto understood that the County would have to review access. Otto did not believe a frontage road would be a good option to serve Lot 8. Gaffron suggested a driveway run across the road. Otto was concerned with being too close to Old Crystal Bay Road. It was indicated that the applicant is not adverse to a bike path or easement. McMillan suggested that the only way to solve the access issue for Lot 8 may be to eliminate a lot altogether, noting Lot 7 would have a difficult building envelope. Gaffron noted that this would decrease the number of lakeshore lots to three. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#20 - #2321 Dan Anderson - Continued) Schroeder stated tlie septic regulations govern the planning of development and no exceptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in obtaining two septic sites for 2 acre lots. Otto said the slopes are also a concern as well as the 6% restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary side on the north side and 8% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic sites must be conforming. Gaffron said sewering would make it easier for building sites, but there is no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the Council is reviewing expansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in the future. There were no public comments. (#21) #2324 JAMES RENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into three lots for residential development Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for a two acre site located across from Maxwell Bay in the 1/2 acre zoning. The 3-lot subdivision will meet the width requirements in the LR-IC Zoning District. Three options are being provided for the development. Option A is the preferred layout. It would include an outlot driveway at a 30' width. A private road is required for the three lots. Lots 1 and 2 require back lot area variances where 3/4 acres is required. Option B is a modified plan with two lots abutting the County road. An outlot would serv'e the back lot and meet the 3/4 acre standard. Lot 3 becomes somewhat limited in its development flexibility in this scenario and would creates the need for an additional driveway access. Option C includes a short cul-de-sac and is the most conforming of the three proposals. No width variance is required but there would be alot of hardcover due to the road. There are also potential changes to the character of the neighborhood in this proposal. Gaffron reviewed the pros and cons for a cul-de-sac. This would be the shortest cul-de- sac developed to date in the City. The mini-mum paved width for a private road is 24' and 20' for a public driveway. The total hard surface for the entire site, including the road, would be 21,000 s.f or 24% of the property. This assumes that all three lots are conforming to the 25% hardcover limitation in the 75-250' zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#21 - #2324 James Render - Continued) Staff sees both good and bad points to having a cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac would meet code and not significant add to hardcover. A road could be developed if made private for maintenance control by the residents. Gronberg was asked what the best solution was, and he said that the owner is concerned with the use of the property by the public. The character of the neighborhood is also a concern. He felt Option A is a simpler plan with the three lots and a County road on one side. He felt there was a need for three lots. A shared driveway, however, is a possibility. McMillan was informed that Lot 1 exceeded hardcover lin irations as drawn. The three lots would be limited and have similar homes. Gronberg said the owner understands that no variances are allowed. The plan is to leave the existing house on the property. Gaffron said if a cul-de-sac was built, it could be made smaller. The fire department would prefer this option for staging purposes. McMillan questioned how it could be made smaller, citing example of an island. An island would make it difficult to plow. Hawn asked what effect a shared driveway would have for the fire department. Gronberg asked whether an approved fire turn, or Y shape, could be used. Gaffron said the hardcover would be about half the amount as a cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked Gaffron to review the fire turn or Y with the fire department. Smith said she would like to see all three driveways from a single driveway and submitted or review or with a variation of a cul-de-sac. (#22) #2329 BOB WAADE, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3280 AND 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - to develop townhoiises in the LR-IC-1 District Robert and Iris Waade were present. Gaffron reported the sketch plan is for development of property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as the Straley property, which was owned for a time by the DNR for a possible access site. The proposal is to divide the property into two lots, each containing a duplex. The property is in the LR-lC-1 Zoning District and is within 200' of commercial zoning. This creates some options for the property with either duplexes or a PRD, attached units with a 3 unit per acre density. The sketch plan presented is for duplexes. This property has gone through several rezonings. The Shoreland regulations affect the property as a PRD requiring a tiering concept regarding the number of units on site, with less development, and located further back on the lot. The plan is for the duplex concept and meeting code. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#22 - #2329 Bob Waade - Continued) A 30' wide outlot is proposed over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. This far exceeds the City's three unit threshold for a driveway, requiring a road. The applicant is asking for an easement to serve the back lot, requiring 3/4 acre with 1/2 acre in front. 100' widths are required. One plans calls for the road to come across the north along the property line of Lot 1 to Lot 2. A 50’ outlot could be a road, and Gaffron questioned whether it would need to be developed without the neighboring properties. Once option according to Gaffron would be a development w’ith 7-8 townhouse units. If a PRD, it would require a 200' setback with shared or private road. If the development is as proposed, a driveway to serve 4 lots could continue to serve the houses in the neighborhood. This is however for the rest of the neighborhood. Gaffron said the duplex credit in the LR-lC-1 District requires a conditional use on a single lot. It meets the sewered requirement, being adjacent to commercial property, and construction within 200’ of the district. The property does not meet the width requirement but does meet the area requirement. Gaffron said the backlot consideration is problematic for hardcover. It would use the full 25% of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' zone but have a minimal driveway and apron. More detail is required. A question of lake access is also a consideration. How many of the units would receive access. Gaffron questioned whether the plan would be approved for access by the LMCD The code stipulates lake access to as many as have title. The ability to have 4 slips on 1 dock is not probable with requirement of having lakeshore. Lindquist asked the applicant what his intentions are for the property. Waade said he would like to have 4 slips and keep the units as rental units with two separate duplex units. Lindquist asked what determinations are needed. Gaffron said the plan would require Council and LMCD review. He said code allows only 4 slips on 1 property only. Hawn acknowledged that this problem is created with the lot ownership and lakeshore as developed. Lindquist suggested for the duplex plan to create the ability for the road to serve all 7 properties with a 50' outlot rather than an easement. A decision has to be made regarding where the road is to be located, who is to build it, whether it be private or public, and if the road will be shared. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON lANUARY 20, 1998 (#22 - #2329 Bob Waade - Continued) A width variance is required for Lot 2. If this cannot be granted, the question is whether the property can become a duplex and may require being a single family residence. The possibility is for a single family on the lakeshore lot with a duplex to the rear. Waade said he could follow that plan but would rather have two duplexes. Lindquist asked about slips. Waade said he would like a slip for each unit. Schroeder said he should discuss this with the LMCD. Gaflfron did not believe the City would allow a corridor outlot. Conditions may also have to be placed on the property where slips could be lost. Mrs. Waade asked about the road. The owner's responsibility for the road would be through Lot 1 and should be at a 28' width and paved. An outlot must be 50'. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#23) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 15,1997 Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 1997. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#24) REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS January 23 - Lindquist February 9 - Hawn ADJOURNMENT Lindquist adjourned the meeting at 1:52 a m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person i V. PRELIMINARY PLAT MAXWELL LANDtNG ' '' f PMCELI. (PIOmm-U7-734U)OU) :rjK5arrsx'Ssirsrir^nr=’^:= f 5.7 (*•! Mn® fou<A«rt7 of »•*<* «'>'>•*’«< of Ifio eounly rood. !rs.T±i‘;rssrrrsEs:i:«s:i “’i^^ nconM (n Sooft 455 of £)M«ff, p. JJ7; tf»m»»o.ilfio«»«f<^^*^^ thmt nmif nf tfM ato¥9 rfttfffttrf pfffilft •o«fA«rfK o# *#>• W»i* c#r»Wf» *f #ngl»i fO III# County Itteofdf. PARCEL I. two #5-ff7-5J 41 00f0> ' s=rS'13HS'SEHSS|:^ MM%Moflfio«Hl5mofMWSMtkin 5 (nttrtoet* Uio noffftwty Wno of <=°y"» M«r5*Wtf> *n<f Mtpta «i(n fto«f , ffiwe. North piratW uttft sM ?f»r^;!i=:‘S.'srs?7^7CS2S;?"5.5>g 724 M MM of tf>. Mclton «o.; tl»nc. "" ^mm«icM«l, EXCEPT tfio WmI 70 IlNl lfi«M, *•' *71 Soutf) of Ml* m*»K#w comor of lf» Mil «n* of mW iicitoo. PARCELS. <fW#05-117-2544 0002; Comnwnc/np ■( a point cflilani 447.5 IMt Mlit of a point In tl(a aail fina of Govowm*nl Lot 1 (fMant 575.55 iMf Soulti from Uiomoomtircomortl ItM norttfaait comar of Lot 1,- Ifianca South B2.0S toot; Ihonco South 11 dogtooo 47 nilnuloi MM 115.55 fNf (o Ifia octuol point of boghmlng; thonco conflnulnp Soulfi 11 dagraat 47 mlnutoo WOtt 105.17 fool; Ihonco South 12 dagraas 57 mAiulas Eail 71 5mI to Ilia nortliarly One of County Poort No. SI; Ihonco wasfarty olong sMrood Hno 47.2 foot to a point distant 525.5 faaf Mtut from Ilia sail lino of Lot 1; Ihonco North porolM with ootd ooot lino loo point ifuo MM truni point olboghmlng: thonco East to beginning, Section 5, Toimohip It7, Rongo 25. PARCELS. fPIO#05-117-2544 0015) Lot 1, Block 1, Moallara 5dd5lon, according to tlie tacotdsd plot thoroof, Hennepin County, Mlnnaaola. Together with oil hoiodllomonis and oppurtononcoo belonging lharalo, aubjoct to Iho following oxcopUona: uaiUy sasatnanfa, road aaianwnli, toning onflnoncot, and mineral rosorvollon of mcord. ■'i r PnpoaodLetAnoo Loll SltTtSqM. 0.7f HCfM tall tf,7Ma«.n M* HciM OuMMA l,M*a«.n. AJHAtm OMMS UltiMM Total Aim t^i71Sq.Ft im AcH# Propoood Hardeovor Lai I V . IS- OK 75' - 250- PropotodHouao OanfanAiM Total 2,024 5g. PL 7,000 Sq. PL itmso.Pt. S,4USq.PL 7e05q.Pt e*MhgAfom7r-700- - 21,#aSg.PL Portonl of Hardcover * 24.71K existing Area 7S0-TOO- > 1,025 Sq. PL Petcoirt el Hardcover ■ 2t.2JW exMngAree7S‘-7SV > 552Sq.PL Parcanl of Mardcovar • OK SouM of 250 ’Sa«#ac5 LMa Pacing itainaa# Bay Propoood Two. Nome Driveway Total ExlaOng Area South of 750‘Solhaek Facing Haxoiell Bay Percent Hardcover South of 7S0'Setback Uoo Facing Crystal Bay Twin Homo Existing Area South of 7SW Setback Hno Facing Crystal Bey 12,245 Sq.Pt. Parcant of Hardcover 5,50eSq.Fi. wai..Pt AOeOSq-Pt • 5,00039. PL a SOK 5OOS9.PL > 12,245 $9. PL 7JK #S340 a-ro^ • *a * 5 -5 « r<« >tpf«MMUIiOf> 0* 0 O' >*•5 «« 01 5bOat «KmW* 0-fl 5'‘fl 0* M»5 ‘OCOLOf* 0* 5" Oo 'a-"* 1 1K9.M.. 5.4 III r,f»e iMCfeocntiwpii • 5f>» «ie<*i «• o» Md ioiki F.N No 97^/PREPARED FOR LANDtUBVCYOM. INC.ih - t>.i _ ZitCh iur »2^Book ^097 mOMWM'LAAtklO »lTfPevt»> WN HMt ROBERT WAADEpnif m >11110101 Md*P Ri, No ,ZZ.^Jr.— PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF RECORD B^nniig «i a point on the East line of Lot 7. Section 9. Township 117. Range 23, 17 u rods South of the Nonhewt comer of said Lot 7. thence West ptnUd with the North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods, thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East PRELIMINARY PLAT LITTLE ORCHARD line of said l.ot 7 to shore of Lake, thence Southeasterly along s^ lake shore to East North on said East line of Lot 7line of said Lot 7. thence North on said East line of Lot 7 to point of banning; except that part thereof described as follows Beginning at a point on East line of said Lot 7. 17 14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; tbotce West parallel with North line of said Lot 7,28 rods, thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East tine of said Lot 7. 20 feet; thence East at right angles to said last mentioned lifte 28 rods to East tine of said Lot; thence North 20 feet to point ofbeginning AND Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Northwest Quaner of the NofthcaM Quarter of Section 9, Township 117, Range 23. thence North 6 57 chains to the center line of the Crystal Bay Road (so called), thence Southeasterly along the center line of said road 11 89 chains to the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Nonheasi Quarter of said Section 9. thence West along said South line 10 chains to the place of b^irming, all according to the United Stales G AND AO that part of Government Lot Seven (7), Section Nine (9). Township One Hundred Seventeen (117) North, Range Twenty-three (23) West, of the Fifth Principal as follows Beginning as a point on a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line ofsaid Govenunent Lot Seven (7). which said poiM is three hundred two and eighty-orte hundreds (302 81) feet South of (he North Kne ofsaid Govemmeni Lot Seven (7). thence Southwesterly along a line which makes an angta of twelve d^rees. fifty-four minutes, and forty seconds with said line which is parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Governinem Lot Seven (7). a distance of seven hurxired sixty-six and seventy-six hundreds (766 76) foci, thence Southerly parallel with ilte East line of said Govemmeni Lot Seven (7) to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, thence Southeasterly along said shore of Lake Minnetonka to a poim in a line drawn psralld wuh and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line ofsaid Lot Seven(7). thence North along s^ line parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant ftocn the East line of said Lot Seven (7) to the poim of beginning NOTES: V OUTLOT A WLL BE A PRIVATE STREET. 2. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HORIZONS AERIAL SURVEYS INC. 3. EXISTING HOUSE ON LOT 1 TO REMAIN. ALL OTHER BUILDINGS SHALL BE REMOVED. 4. DRAINFIELO SITES STAKED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO AREAS SHOlftN ON PLAN AND SHALL NOT DISTURB DRAINFlELD SITES. L- 1 1/2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE (MNDOT 2331 TYPE 41) -2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE IMNDOT 2351 TYPE 31) --------10*' CLASS S AGGREGATE BASE (MNDOT 2211) TYPICAL STREET SECTION Scale 1 100’ REQUESTED BY; ANCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. INC. 3540 MONTGOMERIE AVENUE DEEPHAVEN. MN 55391 TELEPONE NO. (612)476-9662 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ORONO. MN EXISTING ZONING: LR-1A MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 2.0 AC. P.1.0. #0911723-210008 #2341 DENOTES AREAS MTH 6X SLOPE OR LESS DENOTES BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT - 50' REAR - 50* ‘ SIDE - 30* FROM TOP OF BLUFF - 30* FROM LAKE - 75' FROM OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - 50* --------------------DENOTES DRAINAGE k UTIUTY EASEMENTS 10* FROM EXTERIOR LOT LINES 5‘ FROM INTERIORS LOT UNES L_1_J /----- DENOTES SO'xlOO* AREA FOR PRIMARY SEPTIC TREATMENT PT PRIMARY SITE WTH TRENCH SYSTEM , DENOTES 50*»100* AREA FOR I A ; alternate SEPTIC TREATMENT AT alternate SITE WTH TRENCH SYSTEM NOTE: IF A MOUND SYSTEM. THE BED ABSORPTION AREA IS LOCATED ON A SLOPE Of 6X OR LESS. *Th -5 denotes PFPCOlATiON ^ST HOLE DENOTES SOIL BORING PIT 6i3B-a DENOTES S-OIL BORING DESiCNiO DRAnN E J.O. C.5.0. CHECKED E J,0 w:f mn oivuioA li/ffalo m. Mill ••4727 ^ noctarcj £fmvmrt K UW $ur^ ANCO CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. ORONO, MN PRELIMINARY PLAT SHLt; ‘,0. 1 C-f' 2 SHEETS PROJECT NO 97503 OATt 1/23/98