The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-18-1997 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY-COUNCIL CHAMBERS ’'I - *1-1 / -3 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE-J. Diann Goetten ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW 1. C'M ^ 2. 7:15 p.m. U22\ 1 Zoning Amendment, Chapter 10, Land Use Regulations (Zoning), Municipal Code of Ordinances, to I'elete "antenna structure" as a conditional use in the Bl, B3, and I Districts-Public Hearing 8:15 p.m. #Saga Hill Access-Public Information Review ACTION ITEMS-Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. ^ #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North-Variances/Conditional A v.n Use Permit-Continuation of Public Hearing ^ '^4.1'* Allen Schefers, 2540 Casco Point Road- Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing -.<r"D. #2206 Elaine & Steve Silus, 3235 Casco Circle-Variance-Public Hearing 3‘-'- #2207 Jonathan &. Theresa Hofer, 3339 Crystal Bay Road-Variances-Public Hearing 7. #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road, Variances/Conditional Use Permits- Public Hearing .\'8. #2210 Kent E. Swanson, 3229 B Casco Circle, Variances-Public Hearing Sketch Plan/Conceptual Reviews 9. #2208 Jyland Development Inc., Hunter Dr. and 6th Avenue North—Subdivision for 4 New Units A PLANNING COMMISION MEETING-TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18,1997,7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Comments 10. Report of Planning Commision representatives attending Council meetings of January 21, 1997 ( Charles Kelley) and February 10,1997 (Charles Schroeder). 11 . Other issues for discussion. 12. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the January 13, 1997 meeting. 13. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of February 24, and March 10,1997. r 4'r.? -■/ ' Public A ttendance Meeting Date □ COIWCIL 3K" Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . i. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. 2. 3. 4. *~^cr T~W^ ^ ,f J-r.VA) \ Qioto(jr7 ^3 iS^r-------^OCijl|.4 it Z. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10., 11.. 12.. 13. K Vi<£afeV k-1 MUt (HeLiT? Cjr'^n (^ \/1,ljh\ ■ .JU^j',j I niiey'L 11 CA ^yO /' A^ ^ atfcS" to.?/ ^*c/ -TfS~ i 14.. 15. 09139S.4 ^rRiTtriifTiTVi -»Ywixyf'p%c«vwiBp««- TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator February' 12, 1997 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Related to Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Background on Personal Communications Services and the Need to Consider Zoning Changes The Federal Communications Commission has awarded two licenses for wireless digital personal communications sendees (PCS) for the north-central region of the U.S., including Minnesota. PCS digital communications services are expected to enhance and compete with current cellular analog phone services. PCS will enable individuals and businesses to use secure accurate over-the-air paging, voice, FAX, video and data transmission with the advantage of a single phone number available at any location to which the transmission is sent. Receiving and transmitting the PCS signals will require an extensive infrastructure with many more sit- 'i required for PCS antennas, towers, and smaller repeaters to provide the flexibility and universality of service necessary for PCS to be fully operational in the metro area. Many more sites will be required for PCS equipment than the type and number of towers required for cellular communications. Because of this, cities need to be prepared to consider local land use and zoning regulations to prepare them to respond to requests for PCS tower and antenna sites. Preventing Proliferation of Towers and Antennas Although in the more densely populated areas PCS antennas may be required eveiy 1/4 mile, in less densely populated areas, the distance between PCS antennas can be 2 to 4 miles. This enables the city of Orono to substantially limit the proliferation of PCS antennas while enabling PCS service to be provided throughout the city. It may be possible for PCS serv'ice to be provided throughout the city w ithout any additional antennas located within Orono. If this is not possible, it may be possible for the city to prohibit any new towers if the city were to make one or both cf its water towers available for PCS antennas. If this plan is followed it is not necessary for tow ers or antennas to be located in the city's industrial or business zones. Current City Zoninti Regulations The current regulations allow' telecommunications towers or antenna structures in three zoning districts-the industrial zone and the Bland B 3 zones. The city ’s industrial zone is located on the south side of Highway 12 between Old Crystal Road and the Long Lake border. The city's B1 and B 3 zoned property is located in the Navarre area. Under the city's current ordinance it would be possible for new telecommunications towers to be constructed in both the Highway 12 area and the Navarre area. Because additional PCS tow'ers are not needed in either the Highway 12 area or the Navarre area, the city's regulations concerning the industrial, B1 and B3 zones arc proposed to be amended to prohibit telecommunications towers and antenna structures. This will prevent the proliferation of towers and antenna structures in those two areas. 4 ''i ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10.40 AND 10.50 OF THE ORONO ZONING CODE BY DELETING "ANTENNA STRUCTURE" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.40, Subdivision 4 (I) is hereby amended by deleting the following use to the list of conditional uses in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District: " I. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure." Section. 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 (B) is hereby amended by deleting the following use to the list of conditional uses in the I Industrial District: "B. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 24th day of February, 1997 by a vote of___ayes and____nays. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk J. Diann Goetten, Acting Mayor TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator jfW/i February 12, 1997 SUBJECT: Tlie Need for and Long Term Use of Garden Lane Right-of-Way Attachments 1 . Map showing private properties needing vehicular access. 2. Letter from Carson & Clelland regarding the Solner-Webb properly access, including a report by RLK Associates analyzing access options. The Garden Lane right-of-way was originally platted to ser\e a substantial residential subdivision that would have involved 20-30 residential units. Since that time, appro.ximately 21 acres of property in the area of the potential residential subdivision have been changed to a public open space use. This has substantially changed the need for and long term use of the Garden Lane right-of-way. Rather than serving as access for 20-30 residential lots, the Garaen Lane right-of-way now may serve as access to the open space area and to 2-6 residential parcf is. The attached map shows that there are 6 undeveloped parcels that could use Garden Lane for ac:ess. At least 3 of these parcels (Parcels 1,2 and 3) do not have any other access alternatives. Wi'nout the Garden Lane right-of-way they would be landlocked. Two parcels to the north (Parcels -t and 5) have the potential of access from the north but this could require involvement by the City both in terms of acquiring additional right- of-way and regrading West Branch Road. From a legal standpoint, the City can vacate unneeded right-of-way or relocate public right-of-way. However, the City cannot vacate right-of-way if it would create landlocked parcels. The southerly portion of Garden Lane could serve Parcels 1 and 2 without affecting public park or open space or natural features. It could also serve as access to the public open space and park land area with minimal impact on the open space area. However, the middle segment of Garden Lane is contiguous to the natural area on one side and to a large ravine on the other side. The northerly segment of Garden Lane cuts through the natural area. If Garden Lane is to ser\ e Parcels 3,4 and 5, the roadway would have an impact on the ravine and the natural area. It may be possible to eliminate the need to construct a roadway or driveway on the Garden Lane right-of-way through the nature area to serve the private parcels. This would require eliminating the need to serve Parcel No. 3 as a buildable lot and providing an alternative method of access for Parcels 4 and 5. The elimination of Parcel No. 3 as a buildable lot could be difficult and potentially e.\pensive. An alternative that would not require the expenditure of City funds would be for the owner of Parcel No. 3 to agree to "trade" Parcel 3 for another buildable parcel (potentially the eastern most parcel of the open space natural area fronting on Wildhurst. Two potential options for eliminating the need to construct a roadway on the current Garden Lane right-of-way through the northern portion of the natural area are as follows: Memo - Garden Lane February 12, 1997 Page 2 1.Relocate Garden Lane right-of-way through the south end of the natural area into the park area, then north along t!:e boundary’ of the park area and the natural area. This would move the right-of-way out of the more passively used natural area and into the potentially more actively used park area. 2.Provide access to Parcels 4 and 5 using the existing access easement to the north which accesses West Branch Road. This option could result in substantial cost to the City. Before the City Council makes a decision regarding whether to pursue options for either relocating or eliminating the Garden Lane right-of-way, the Council has requested the Planning Commission to review the need for and long term use of the Garden Lane right-of- way in relation to the access needs of the area. The Council has asked the Commission to review fness issues within the context of the potential impacts of the Garden Lane right-of-way on the public natural open space area. Please provide a recommendation to the Council as to whether the Garden Lane right-of-way should be maintained to meet the access needs of the area, or whether the impacts of constructing a roadway or driveway in the current Garden Lane right-of-way would be significant enough to merit the City’s efforts to find an alternative that would eliminate the need to develop a road or driveway on Garden Lane. . ] 20^ .iJ. Private Proper Needing Vehicular Acce JCrrRCY A. CARSON WILLIAM C. C lCLLAND ELLEN M. SCHREOER THOMAS R. JOHNSON CARSON AND GLELLAND ATTORNEYS JlT 6300 Shingle CREEK parkway , SUITE 305 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55430-2190 TELEPHONE (6i2) 56I-26CC ••AX <6)2) 56<*I943 December 20, 1996 HAND DELIVERED Orono Planning Conunission and Zoning Administrator P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE; Application of Dr. Barbara Sollner-Webb Dear Cottunission Members: This matter is brought back to you for consideration at your January 21, 1997, meeting. I include a report by RLK Associates, Ltd., planners and engineers, for your consideration. We are asking for the lot line re-arrangement as well as access to the property. Public access from the south would be the most desxrable location, as long as all benefitted properties are assessed their share of the project. As I understand it, the city could initiate such a project or perhaps request a petition be filed. As an alternative, we would be willing to approach the county on a northern access off of County Road #151 if the city would support such an access. I am aware of the county's stated position regarding access for three lots only, however, I would be willing to bring this back to them with city support. Dr. Sollner-Webb should not have to pay the entire cost of either the northern or southern access routes because far more property than hers will benefit. We respectfully request you review this application and make your recommendations to the Orono City Council. If you need additional information as the meeting date approaches, please do not hesitate to call me. 20 December 1996 Page 2 Thank you. Very truly yours, CARSON AND CLELLAND Jeffrey A. Carson JAC:ajp cc: Richard Krier, RLK Associates, Ltd. Dr. Barbara Sollner-Webb ^ John Hasselbach, Realtor RUK CIVIL ENGtNScRING • UR3AN PLANNING • TflANSPORTATlON • ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE architecture • CONSTRUCTION VANAGEWENT . LAND SURVEY (ASSOCIATES LTD) December 19, 1996 Mr. Jefifrey A. Carson Carson and Clelland 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55343 ®e: Dr. SoUner-Webb Property Dear Mr. Carson; Dr. Barbara Sollner-Webb, owner of Lots 95 and 96 in the TONKA VIEW GARDENS Subdivision, has proposed to develop the site for future homes. The problem encountered for this site is that although platted there is no available physical access to either lot. Two options for access have been proposed with one originating from Tonkaview Lar- south of the property along a dedicated 60 foot public right-of way, known as Garden Lane, and the other alternative from an existing driveway off West Branch Road (Co. Rd. 151). This report will look at the two options along with construction costs for each access to the Sollner-Webb propert>'. Access from the south from Tonkaview Lane Street Construction The southern access consists of constructing a road along Garden Lane from Tonkaview Lane. Garden Lane is approximately 1750 feet long and ends at the southeast comer of the Sollner-Webb property. Here, the street would Intersects with Highview Lane (another public 60 foot dedicated street right-of way) and extend west, appro.ximately 280 feet to the center of the southerly boundaiy of the Sollner-Webb property. Existing topography of the area allows for the construction of an accessible road. The southern half of the new road would follow closely to the grade of the existing surface, while the northern access would require some grading due the severity of the e.xisting slopes. A public road and a private road were considered when looking at possible access ways from the south to the Sollner-Webb property. A public road would consist of constructing a 32 foot wide bituminous street section 2125 feet in length with concrete curb and cutter and a 45 foot hammerhead cul-dc-sac at the end of the street. This option requires installation of an underground storm sewer system to direct runoff from the street 4 (612)933-0972 * 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (612) 933-1153 and boulevards to nearby creeks. Estimated cost to construct the public road, including storm sewer would be S142,000. Construction of a private road would consist of a bituminous road with shoulder section and a cul-de-sac and the end of the street. Storm water would be routed by way of graded ditch seaion on both sides of the road. This option would cost app'oxi.mately $71,000 to construct. Grading Construction In either street option, grading of the site will be required. The right-of-way and adjacent properties will need grading for the appropriate street cross-section and to match new grades with the existing. Temporary easements may be required in order to complete this task. If encroachment of adjacent properties is not allow-ed, retaining walls can be used as an alternative. However, this is a costly alternative and not considered. Grading costs of site, which includes tree removal and site preparation, come to approximately $58,000. This cost as'^umes that easements can be obtained and retaining walls will not have to be constructed. Installation of Sanitary Sewer Installation of sanitary sewer was looked at as part of the southerly access to the Sollner-Webb property. Sanitary sewer mains are located south of the property on Tonkaview Lane and east of the property and Wildhurst Trail. A possible route from Tonkaview Lane for a sanitary sewer main to the Sollner-Webb property would follow the streets of Garden Lane and Highview Lane. However, the existing sanitary manhole located at Tonkaview and Garden Lane has an invert elevation of 928 feet. This elevation is higher than the new street at its low point, making installation of sanitary sewer impossible. This option would require installation of a sanitary’ force main, which is too costly and not considered. ^ Access of sanitary sewer to the Sollner-Webb property w'ould be better achieved if the existing sanitary main were extended at the manhole located at Highview Lane and Wildhurst Trail. This manhole location is approximately 700 feet east of Garden Lane. The elevation difference betw'een the two points is adequate enough to install a gravity sanitary main to the center of the south property line of the Sollner-Webb property. The slopes of the existing grade ra.nge from 10% to 12% that would making installation very difficult. The sanitary main would be constructed of several drop manholes to lessen the depth of the main and makes installation easier. Estimated cost to extend sanitary sewer from Wildhurst Trail to the Sollner-Webb property would be $85,000. Access from the North via an existing driveway Street and Grading Construction The northern access consists of utilizing an existing driveway of off West Branch Road (Co. Rd. 151). The existing driveway serves as an access road for three existing lots in this area- Trapp property, Lot 2 West Branch Acres (Van Sloun) and Lot 2, West Branch Hill (Hawldnson). Currently, these lots are served by an existing sixteen foot gravel drive that ends approximately 440 feet south of West Branch Road. If the two Sollner-Webb lots are to obtain access, Improvements must be made to West Branch Road an to the existing driveway Th--. existing driveway is located on the property line berveen the Wes: Branch Acres Subdivision and the West Branch Hill Subdivision. The two subdivisions e; :h have a dedicated 25 foot street and utilitv easement. The easement on the West Branch Hill, subdivision is continuous for 766 feet along the western edge of the propert}', while the West Branch Acres easement ends 495 feet south of the West Branch Road. If a private road is to be constructed, an additional 25 foot easement is required on the West Branch Hills parcel to the Northwest comer of the Sollner-Webb property. The existing topography shows slopes in the order of 12% n-om the end of the e.xistutg driveway to the north edge of the Sollner-Webb property. This grade of slope is generally to steep for driving and make wintertime driving extremely hazardous. Cutting the hill ten feet at the northwest comer of the property, w'ould create a street grade of about 7% and match into the existing gravel driveway. Even though the elevation is lowered by ten feet, the adlacent lots will have accessible driveway grades to their home sites. Grading for the individual driveways will be required at the time the lots are developed. Since cuts in this area are severe, grading will take place outside of the public easement area, to match in with the existing grades. Acquisition of temporary easements will be needed from the propert>' owners to allow for grading onto their property. Grading cost for the private road w’ould be 535,000. This cost Includes removing affected trees, grading and site preparation. The private road would be constructed 24 feet wide bituminous section with a shoulder section and graded ditches for drainage and an exis^ting culvert at the bottom of the hill w'ould be replaced. Cos: for private street construction including the culvert replacement would be 528,000. West Branch Road Reconstruction Hennepin County Public Works has stated they will not approve any increased access to this driveway unless the sight distance is improved to West Branch Road approximately 130 feet of the existing driveway entrance. They have also stated that a good driveway access should be located at the top of a hill. Improvements to the sight distance could be made by cutting the hill, located east of the driveway, down by four feet, By lowering the road, street grades would be fixed to where the driveway would be situated at the top of a hill and give the sight distance required east of the driveway. Lowering the road would disrupt about 1100 feet of the county road. Construction would consist of reconstructing the county road for the new street grades, regrading adjacent driveways and grading the right-of-way to maintain the current drainage patterns. Estin;-Ced cost of this reconstruction including grading would be 585,003. i In summary, two options have been explored for access to the SoUner-Webb property: a southerly route from Tonkaview Lane, along an existing dedicated street right- of-way, and a northerly route by extending an existing driveway from West Branch Road. Both options require extensive grading and the north option requires additional work on West Branch Road. A summary of cost for each option is listed below; Southerly access from Tonkaview Lane Cost Alternative One-Public Street Public Street Construction (Garden Lane) Grading Construction Sanitary Sewer (Highview Lane) Total Cost $142,000 $58,000 S 85.000 $285,000 Alternative Two-Private Street Private Street Co'.struction (Garden Lane)$71,000 Grading Construction Total Cost Northerly access from West Branch Road $58,000 $129,000 Cost Alternative Three Street Construction $28,000 Grading Construction $35,000 Reconstruct West Branch Road(Co. Rd. 151)$85,000 Total Cost $148,000 Recommendation We recommend that the client petition the City for the public street (Alternative One). Cost of the public improvement shall be assessed to all benefited properties If you have any questions concerning this project please give me or Shawn Sanders a call at RLK Associates. Sincerely, Richard Krier Senior Planner enclosures: cc: Shawn Sanders I; I \I •'l! • ///■4'^b// iVi ; \ { \l # /V A N SCALE r = 200’ RLK 1*1- C%T?1 •iV^. 'UiQ Blue Circle Or. Suile #100 Mionelooka. Mu. 0S343 012 612 033-0972 933-1153 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY WEST BRANCH ROAD I •TV ______________^________________ vv^A V \\\\V u \11 I i n in t y.-;;-'a!'/;.:/ : .. i -.y ■;/•.' • *. j* I ’ I ‘ * * • ' r’, :'•,•.••.// i ! ■»•*/• t , \ j!::i //. ' . \Vr/^:i' \ '/''' ' » X f V'v' i ■' I ^ '' .- "^.i\\\ \\ /'V/ I .A / / i•-. A— /I 'Wm NAiJ. •-■ •■r 1 __r'^*\ ■•“ ’•■•/ /''■//I A N SCALE r=200- R3LJC3Tltc5 Him IHiic CircU* Hr. y.ii;:tci<*riV:«. M:*. r*;.n i:» (Ci::) 03a-007;: r«i: (ci;:j 333-nr.:; EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY SOUTH ACCESS . .•.'»•• 1( i 4 *• * *' *»c. m \ • * *4 1 * ^ 1 i.-4 »,♦ WES1• •••. t 0%•• I BRANCH • : ' HILL r- I ’ ri p.. north ACCESS T V • mh«^ , « * ? • « 4* fOlisCH ---------- RD.--(•GO-- fiO-----^ p« «•: >j ’••• 0 ••*•••»••• •!•* > •-44 m* f»t * v» »'r*dinrf/-- oi < t:^* rr- A 1 wT i 4 >• J ^ -j -V. I j i TO: FROM; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Projects Coordinator DATE:January 30,1997 SUBJECT: #2 187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 6th Avenue North - Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/27/97 B - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 1/21/97 C - Memo and Exhibits of 1/15/97 Staff has been advised by Neil Heupel. applicants' architect, that they will be proposing no revisions from the plan you reviewed at the Januar>- meeting, and request that Planning Comr.ission make its recommendation and send this request on to the City Council. Please review the memo and exhibits of Januar>’ 15, 1997 for discussion, staff recommendation and options for action on this item. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2187 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 27, 1997 TO; Don Helgager 3265 Sixth Avenue North Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: Neil Heupel Gluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects 7520 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 01/21/97 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: • Tabled at applicant's request pending possible further revisions. • Enclosed is a listing of approved guest apartment requests in Orono from 1985 to 1996 per Neil's request. • Due to the tabling, the normal 60-day review period is hereby extended to March 11, 1997 in order to allow the request to be heard at requiring scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission, Tuesday, Februar>’ IS, 1997; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. 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. V ^;: v'XiVN \-y^ ' 'U?l GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 MaillRf Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Guest Apartment Approvals 1985-1996 Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 ZFile#Name Address Tvpe Reso # 1917 Bennett 315 Tonkawa Road APT 3421 1866 Jundt 1400 Bracketts Point Road APT 3341 1810 DeNaro 1245 Sixth Avenue North APT 3274 1796 L'Allier 2684 Lydiard Avenue APT 3243 1787 Waade 998 Wildhurst Trail APT 3228 1613 Bennett 315 Tonkawa Road APT 2926 1510 Brown 2685 Shadywood Road APT 2820 1242 Duncanson 690 Brown Road North APT 2379 1068 Nelson 500 Tonkawa Road APT 2061 1065 Martineau 4360 Chippewa Lane APT 2058 1044 Walentini 115 Luce Line Ridge APT 2030 928 Pula 2015 Webber Hills Road APT 1875 924 Scherven 2649 Casco Point Road APT 1774 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1 - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Big Island - Continued) The subdivision includes Lots 4 and 5 as lot line rearrangement and the di\ision of Lot 3 into three new lotsMabusth noted that the existing lot of record includes lots 4 and 5. Lots 1 and 2 would be new bts. There were no public mments Lindquist asked the applicant if he had read Staff reconmiendaticns 1-8 for the subdivision and 1-4 for the guest house CUP and is in concurrence with those findings. The applicant said he was noting the need to work out the details regarding #7 (road improvements). Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2204 with Staff recommendations #1-8, whereby #7 pertaining to width would be reviewed with Staff and Engineer, and with Staff recontmendations 1-4 for the guest house CUP. Mabusth reported that the application would be presented to the Council at their January 27 meeting. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#3) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:02-8:25 P.M. The Applicant was present along with Architect, Neil Heupel. Gaffron reported that the application for a guest apartment was reviewed by the Commission at their November meeting. The applicant was asked to revise the plans to address the concerns brought forward. The street setback was reduced to be consistent with the e.xisting house. The setback was originally proposed at 17* although 50 ’ is required. The setback currently proposed is 24’. The single stall attached garage remains adjacent to the entry to the guest house in the proposed plan. Changes were made to the floor plan to straighten a line where the garage extended The required setback from Lake Classen is 150’ and the proposed is 126'. The east side setback is proposed at 5 ’ and 30’ is required. The east side setback had been discussed in an earlier review which did not include the guest house. The average lakeshore setback was reduced from 90’ to 80' to provide easterly views for the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21. 1997 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) GaffVon reported the issues for discussion include whether or not the single stall garage is necessary- considering the proximity of the large structure to CoRd 6. He suggested the location of the garage may possibly be reconfigured by pivoting the garage and eliminating the staircase. Gaftron stated that the DNR felt the hardship noted for the setback to the lake was self-created. He asked the Commission to consider whether there are suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance given the magnitude of the additions to the west. He asked the Commission to consider whether the guest house design will function as a separate entity or part of the principal residence. Gaftron noted that the guest house does clearly share the main entrance to the house. He did question whether the separate garage stall gives the appearance of two separate dwellings rather than that of a single family residence. He also asked if the Commission had specific concerns regarding the lack of an alternate drainfield site. Heupel reported that the design of the house was pulled back on the lot in response to the suggestion by the Commission. McMillan asked if the site was too steep for a mound system as an alternate for the septic. Gaftron said the concern was over disturbed soils as well as the steep topography. McMillan also inquired if the great room exists as shown on the plan. She was informed that the family room, hall, great room, and kitchen will remain the same. She inquired about landscaping plans Heupel said the landscaping would be the same as that showm in the original plans. Lindquist asked if the single stall garage could be eliminated. Heupel said moving the garage would aftect the well. McMillan inquired about the well. Gaftron noted that the new plans solve the well location problem. McMillan said she would be in favor of the plan with a detailed landscaping plan included. Smith was not in favor of the garage as located. She asked if the garage is of importance that it be pulled back from the roadway. Hawn asked if the well could be relocated The applicant said he does not wish to make any further changes to the well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Helgager said he understands why guest house requirements prohibit more than one main entrance. He noted that prior to remodeling, it had been difficult to know where the primary entrance to the home vvls located. Helgager said the location of the single stall garage is to enable the user of the guest house entry to the interior without having to walk through the entire house. Smith suggested moving the garage location from the front of the house so it would not protrude. Heupel brought the Commission's attention to the steep topography of the property. Hawii inquired if the access from CoRd 6 could be moved further west. Gaftron did not believe this would solve the problem. Helgager also said it would increase hardcover Lindquist reported his problem with the plan had to do with the garage and not location to the lake side. There were no public comments. The applicant was informed tl.at the Planning Commission’s objection to the plan was the garage. Helgager asked if it was the additional garage or the garage location to the road. Hawn said she had a problem with both noting that she would prefer less garage area farther from the road. Smith said she was concerned about the design of two distinct living areas. She felt it would encourage the establishment of two residences in the future. Lindquist indicated his concern about the pro.vimity of the garage to the road. Schroeder was concerned about the future creation of tw o units and the pro.ximity of the garage to the road. McMillan noted there is limited area to resolve the issues and questioned whether some square footage of living space should be eliminated to accommodate the third garage. She does not wish to see any further encroachment to the lake side and sees the lake as a bigger concern than that of CoRd 6. At the applicant’s request. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2187 to allow the applicant to review' the plans. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2195 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, INC, 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN/VARLANCES - CONTLNUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:25-9:29 P.M. The Applicant was represented by Mary McConnell and JefFMelby. The site operator was also present. 8 3. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. GafTron, Projects Coordinator Januar>' 15,1997 SUBJECT: #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, Shoreland (Natural Environment Lake) Application: Request for conditional use permit for guest apartment, and variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and street setback. Applicants have revised the proposal reviewed in November, and have increased the proposed street setback from 18' to 24' where a 50' street setback is normally required. List of Exhibits A - Revised Site Plan/Landscape Plan B - Revised First Floor Plan - Scheme A C - Revised First Floor Plan - Scheme B (Proposed) D - Revised Second Floor Plan - Scheme B E - Old & New Site Plans (Sketch) F - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/25/96 G - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/96 H - DNR Comments 11/19/96 I - Memo and Exhibits of 11/14/96 Discussion At the November 18th meeting. Planning Commission voted 4-0 to table the application to allow the applicants to revise the proposal per the following recommendations: 1.Reduce the street setback encroachment to stay in line with the existing front line of the house. But do not, in so doing, increase the proposed encroacliment of the required lakeshore setback. The easiest way to compare the previous and current proposals is to compare current Exhibit A \rith Exhibit F of the > ovember 14th memo (See Exhibit E). Applicants have not changed the lines or location of the rear (south) side of the proposed additions, but have reduced the total depth of the west end addition by approximately 10'. However, the proposed Scheme B layout (Exhibit C) 1 Zoning File #2187 January 15, 1997 Page 2 includes a stairway apparently providing secondaiy access to the basement, which wasn’t included in the original plan. This adds nearly 4’ to the encroachment of the street setback, i.e. without the stairway the street setback would be approximately 28’. However, that 4' stairway also has a more important purpose and that is to offset the garage from the house so that a car entering or leaving that garage stall will not have to bend around the projecting great room (compare the line of car travel in Exhibits B and C). Without the 4’ extension, ingress/egress for the garage will be diftkult. Recall that the applicants felt strongly that the garage stall is an important facet of this project given the intent to create a guest apartment that may at some point need to be handicapped accessible. Items for Discussion 1.Referring to the November 14th memo. Planning Commission should determine whether the following requested setbacks can be supported by adequate findings of hardship; a. Required east side setback = 30', proposed east side setback = 5'. b. Required lake setback = 150', proposed lake setback = 126'. c. Average setback encroachment (reducing from 90’ to 80 ’). 2.Is the proposed garage stall necessary? Is the proposed street setback of 24' instead of the required 50 ’, justified by hardships? Could the garage stall be reconfigured (for instance, angled outward with the pi\ ot point at its southwest comer) to allow a 28' street setback and still accommodate easy ingress/egress for a \’ehicle? What impact would such an angle ha\ e visually and structurally? Is that concept worth exploring? 3.Reviewing the DNR comments rccei\ ed November 19ih recommending denial of the lakeshore setback variance, does this affect Planning Commission ’s view- of this project? 4.Given the magnitude of the additions to the west, are there still suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance? 5.Under the new plan, can Planning Commission find that all of the code requirements for a non-rental guest apartment have been adequately addressed? Can Planning Commission find that the guest apartment is designed to functionally and visually be a part of the principal residence rather than an entirely separate unit that could become a rental unit? 6.Does Planning Commission have specific concerns about the lack of an alternate drainfield site (see discussion of this in November 18th minutes)? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that adequate findings of hardship can be made in support of the Zoning File #2187 January 15,1997 Page 3 requested side setback, street setback and lakeshore setback variances, then a recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate. It appears to staff ihat the proposed guest apartment meets all the standards of Section 10.20, although it may be arguable whether the separated garage stall creates the appearance a duplex, which the City is intending to avoid. Options for Action 1. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval of the revised proposal, stating findings in support of each variance requested. 2. Recommend approval with specific revisions. Table for further information or revision (give applicants specific direction). Recommend denial. Other.✓r/ fmmwm '4 ------------------V __ i r ------------::v V ----------------"7 \A tAo to HLV?' '1^ i (T^ >|to —**1 y V.. . r w Si m |to *4 I I r ________ \ \-J J v^N n p is 1 )? (to ? n> » >. 1^ v' > • f f 1^ -b » ^ >. lOr* ? Nz t?V fi V,« »fe1 '•^0 * • m!^i ilVfe 2 < 1 *** lA i o . F CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2187 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 25, 1996 TO: Donald and Robin Helgager 3265 Sixth Avenue North Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING:11/18/96 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS; Tabled to allow applicant to revise proposal per the following recommendations: 1. Reduce street setback encroachment to stay in line with existing front line of house. 2.But do not, in so doing, increase the proposed encroachment of the required lakeshore setback. The enclosed letter from the DNR was received prior to the meeting but I believe was not reviewed. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 21, 1996; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. 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. Due to there being no Planning Commission meeting in December, the normal 60-day review period (which would have ended on January 24, 1997) is hereby extended to February 21, 1997 to allow the norma! Planning Commissiori/Council review process to be completed. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NlVTIMBER 18, 1996 (#2 - #2180 Peggy and Frank Pichelman - Continued) Lindquist suggested an outer limit be established for hardcover. He said he is not comfortable setting a precedent of allowing 41% hardcover. Stoddard agreed asking that hardcover be maintained in the 30% range. The Planning Commission set a upper limit of 35-36% hardcover. Pichelman noted that the structural coverage was reduced by the amended plan from 18% to 17.1%. Mabusth noted the different hardcover calculations that exist and that were proposed The Pichelmans indicated with a hardcover range, they could work with their plan to decrease the size while still meeting the setbacks. Berg suggested 38-39%. Mabusth asked that the applicant prepare an amended plan with reduction in hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2180 contingent on receipt of an amended plan received by Stafl'prior to the Council review with hardcover maintained at 38-39% in the 75-250* setback zone. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Planning Commissioner Stoddard left the meeting after agenda items 1 and 2.) (#3) #2187 DONALD AND ROBLN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARLVNCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:32-8:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailiiu’ were noted. The Applicant was present along with Architect, Neil Heupel. Gaffron reported that the applicant received approval in June, 1996, for removal of a garage and construction of an attached garage to the residence within 5* of the side lot line. The addition was not constructed, and the applicant is now requesting approval of another application GaflVon noted that the property in question is located on Lake Classen, a Natural Environment Lake, requi'^-g a 150* setback. 11 \ % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) The current proposal calls for the removal of the garage, one small addition, and another large addition to the west side of the residence. The proposal would result in a 32’ encroachment in the right-of-way, a 24' encroachment of the lakeshore setback, a 5' side setback variance, and encroachment of the average lakeshore setback. The neighboring residence to the east would define the average lakeshore setback. The encroachment of the right-of-way is considered extreme in comparison to any other properties on CoRd 6. The lakeshore setback is similar to what was proposed with the original application but with added bulk. GafFron noted that the east side setback variance was approved in June with the finding that it would be difficult to build to the west. Yet this proposal calls for the addition to be to the west of the residence. Also included in the improvement is a proposed guest apartment to acconi.iiodate a m ther-in-law living at the residence, which requires a CUP. The proposed constructions appears to have addressed the specific issues of being within the principal residence staicture, use for a relative, and a single common entryway serving the entire structure with the e.xception of additional accesses to the decks and garage spaces Parking will be provided by a two-stall garage on the east end of the house replacing the existing garage and a third separate stall at the northwest end of the house to serve the apartment use. The plumbing will share the existing septic system installed in 1988 to serve a 4-bedroom home. The residence will still have 4 bedrooms but will be larger in size. The septic inspector has reported that there is apparently no alternate drainfield site on the property. Borings were taken but no alternate site was found. Helgager reported that their plans were changed after receiving approval for the initial proposal in June due to his mother-in-law's plans to move into their residence. This proposal is an attempt to accommodate her and her needs. Helgager noted that a single level home is desirable as she is getting older. He understands that the home is close to the road and would like to accommodate the concerns for screening. He noted the building envelope to be about 1800 s.f I lelgager indicated that the current home would not meet the setback standards. He said he attempted to balance the distance between the lake and the roadway after hearing the discussions from the previous proposal. Heupel addressed the issue of building to the west of the addition. He noted that the problem was not being able to build to the west but the approach to the garage would have required changing, and it had been their desire to maintain the approach from CoRd 6. Hawn said she felt with sophisticated landscaping and removal of fence and dead trees, evergreens and other screening could be done. She did feel the residence was too close to the well noting a 2' separation where 3' is required. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (^3 - ^^2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Lindquist asked the applicant if the garage on the front side of the house was necessary'. Helgagcr said the intent was to provide a garage for his mother-in-law so she does not have to walk through the entire house to gain access to her accommodations Heupel also added that this garage addition would be at the same level as the slab and would not require stairs as would be the case with the other garage. Lindquist said he understood the need but noted the elimination of the garage would aid the problem of setback. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the conditional use permit for guest house would be reviewed periodically. It was noted that the CUP requires no annual review and stays with the house with restrictions as required. GaflVon reported that if the Commission recommended periodical reviews, it could be written to only apply to this owner, if desired. Lindquist inquired about the lack of alternate septic site GaftVon reported that the property is not close to sewer and the problem would remain the same with the number of bedrooms if there is no alternate site. Lindquist agreed but noted that the house size was doubling with the improvements as proposed. Helgager responded that he understood the septic issue but saw it as a distance in the future with the ability to go to a mound system if necessary Helgager added that he w’as informed the life e.\pcctancy of a mound system is 15 years and could be replaced to an alternate site postponing replacement for 30 years Lindquist was concerned that the potential problem would only be prolonged. GaflVon said it was not the City's experience that a mound system would only last 15 years, but probably twice that time. He noted the pump or rock bed of the system may have to be replaced at some point. GaftVon reported that the vast majority of new systems w ere of the mound type due to the soils and seasonal water tables. A maximum slope cf 6% is required for a mound system which is a problem with the many steep lots in Orono. Lindquist asked if the applicant could make the home smaller in size. Helgager asked for some guideline. Berg asked and received confirmation that there would be a fiill basement under the residence. Noting the 2200 s.f on the main level. Berg said it is an e.xtensive size considering having the main level and basement. Hawn suggested that the home not be extended forward of w'hat currently exists. Lindquist suggested removal of the single garage addition and a reduction in the house size. MINUTES OF THE ORONO Pf \NNTNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 (ff3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Berg suggested moving the garage back to the line of the house. She said she would be in support of the garage if it was moved and saw the garage location as the most logical site. This suggestion would result in a reduction in the footprint and attachment of the garage at the same side as proposed Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2187 for further review. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2188 MARY K. RICE, 1570 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:54-8:59 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth indicated that the property is located along the "S" curve of North Arm Drive and consists of 6,883 s.f The application presents two options involving an attached single stall garage with upper level deck (Option 1) or a detached garage located in the So. th side yard (Option 2). Both options involve street setback variances of 2’ or 3'. ■'."i.ctural coverage would not be e.xceeded by either option. Hardcover within the 250- >00 ’ setback area would increase from 23.9% to either 25.6% for Option I or 30% for DpUo.n 2. A 10'xl6' deck also exists along the south side of the residence. Y WJusth noted that Staff prefers Option I as the topography slopes to the east ■ v, oi.'!d luive the minimal impact on areas of existing plantings. The applicant said Optiun I was also her preference. There were no public comments Hawn inquired as to how the residence was entered. Rice said the residence can be entered from either the deck or the basement. Mabusth noted that the access to the front of the residence was removed. Berg moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2188, Option I, for a 2' street setback variance. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#5) #2189 STONEGATE FARM, INC, 2940 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICANT WITHDRAWN The applicant withdrew this application prior to the meeting. > hr Vlinnesoia Department of Natural Resources METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 (612) 772-7910 - telephone (612) 772-7977 - faximile NovaS^ 15,1996 Mr. Mike Gaf&on City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 •V’- RE: LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Gaffi’on; I have comments on the following land use applications on the Planning Commission agenda for November 18, 1996. #2187, Donald and Robin Helpager. 3265 County Road 6 (Lake Classen 27-162P). The applicants arc proposing to increase the footprint of the existing house significantly (essentially double), with most of the addition extending into either the 150 foot minimum lakeshore setback or the 50 foot minimum road setback. An existing garage that does not currently meet the lakeshore setback would be replaced by an attached garage that would meet the lakeshore setback except for a small portion of the comer. We recommend that the citv' deny the application as currentK ’ proposed. There is reasonable use of the lot without the e.xtensiye encroachment into the lakeshore and road setback areas. However, we would not object to the replacement of the garage as currently proposed. #2196. GenmarfMirmetonkaBoatworksV 1449 Shoreline Drive (TanagerLake27-141PV The applicant requests to remov e the top 18 feet (appro.ximatley 5,000 cubic yards of material) of a hill in order to construct a parldng lot for a marina facilit)’ on Tanager Lake. The “hill” meets the definition of a bluff in the city ’s shoreland management ordinance. We reoomment that the cit>* deny the request to significantly alter a natural bluff area in order to build a parking lot. The need for parking on the Tanager Lake side of County' Road 15 was created when the Tanager marina facility expanded by 42 slips in 1990. We feel this is a self-created hardship. If the parking on the Brown ’s Bay side of County Road 15 was inadequate to serve the Tanager Lake facility, the Tanager Lake facility should not have been expanded by 42 slips. Please contact me at 772-7914 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c;Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Tanager Lake File (27-141P; Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Lake Classen File (27-162P) Minnetonka Boatworks File D.NR Informaiion: 612-296-6157. l-S(H»-7b6-6OU0 • TTY; 612-296-5484. I-S00-657-.V929 -An EqujI Opportumtx Emploxer Who Valuer DiverMtv 0% Printed on Recxclcd Pjper Conuinin| j Minimum of lO*# PoM-Convumcr Waxie f L j m. X i TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:November 14,1996 SUBJECT: #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, Shoreland (Natural Environment Lake). Application: Request for conditional use permit for guest apartment, and variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and street setback. Lbt of Exhibits A - Applications B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey, Existing F - Architect’s Drawings Al-1 Site Plan A1-2 Grading Plan A1-3 Landscape Plan A2-1 Basement Floor Plan A2-2 First Floor Plan A2-3 Second Floor Plan A3-(l-4) Exterior Elevation and Perspective G - Hardcover Calculations H - Code Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G) - Guest Houses and Non-rental Guest Apartments I - Resolution # 3737: June 1996 Variance Approval J - On-Site System Manager ’s Comments and Septic System Inventory Card Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.22, Subd. I (B)/l 0.56, Subd. 16(C-6) - No encroachment of average lakeshore setback allowed. 2. Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B) - Required front (street) yard = 50', side yard = 30’. Zoning File #2187 November 14, 1996 Page 2 3. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-1) - Required structure setback from Natural Environment Lake is 150’. 4. Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G) - Guest Apartment Standards Summary of Request The applicants were granted variances in June, 1996 for side setback, average setback, and lakeshore setback to allow construction of additions to the east side of the existing residence. However, those additions have not been commenced, and applicants' family situation has prompted them to request approval of a CUP for a guest apartment to be used by Robin Helgager's mother. This involves major construction on the west end of the existing house, with a slight scaling down of the additions proposed to the east end. Variances requested to accommodate these additions are as follows: 1. Required east side setback = 30'. Proposed east side setback = 5’. 2. Street setback required = 50'. Proposed street setback is 18*. 3. Required lake setback = 150'. Proposed lake setback = 126'. 4. Existing average setback encroachment of approximately 90' will be reduced to approximately 80'. East Side Setback Variance As per the June 1996 approval, applicants propose a 5' east side setback. Resolution No. 3737 included five findings in support of this variance, some of which may no longer have validity if the new plan is approved. Specifically: A finding that "additions of the same magnitude as those proposed (on the east end of the house) could not be located elsewhere on the property without encroaching the 50' required street setback or the 150' required lakeshore setback", is still true but the magnitude has now changed. The legal buildable envelope due to required setbacks is still only 1,800 s.f. '^:ie additions now proposed are generally to the west and southwest of the house, with the intent of maintaining the flat back yard area south of the house. It is still true that the close proximity of County Road 6 makes it appropriate to retain a usable yard on the south side of the house. !• Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 3 The new proposal reduces the depth of the garage adjacent to the east lot line from 44' to 38’, resulting in less of an impact on neighboring properties' views of the lake. The drainage impacts of the east side setback variance are probably less than with the proposal improved in June. Perhaps the question to be asked about this east side setback encroachment under the new proposal, is whether the magnitude and scale of the proposed house has increased to a degree where a 5' side setback might not be appropriate. Street Setback Applicants' earlier plan proposed no new encroachments into the 50' required setback from the front (street) lot line. The existing house encroaches approximately 5' into the street setback. The proposed additions will encroach as much as 32' into the required street setback, placing portions of the house 18' from the street lot line. The proposed additions are approximately equally balanced between encroaching the street setback and encroaching the required lake setback. A review of the street setbacks for existing houses on County Road 6 between Highway 12 and Orono's eastern boundary, indicates that no other existing houses are closer to the County Road than applicants' existing house, and the proposed encroachments would make it by far the greatest encroachment in that five mile stretch of road. This also holds true heading west of Highway 12 on County Road 6. It can certainly be argued that approval of a street setback variance could be considered as out of character with the current "open" feel of County Road 6. The question then is whether the addition can be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation to eliminate the visual impact of the encroachment. Lakeshore Setback When the existing residence was constructed, there were no required setbacks from Lake Classen. The City adopted a 75' lake setback in the early 1970s, and this was increased to 150' for Natural Environment lakes in 1992 when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted. The existing house does not encroach the 150' lake setback, but the existing detached garage encroaches approximately 27' into the 150’ setback. The proposal approved in June included the removal of that garage,with new additions encroaching only 10'. The current proposal eliminates a majority of the lake setback encroachment at the east half of the house, but proposes a 24' encroachment at the west end. The square footage of structure encroaching the lake setback appears to be significantly more than was approved in June. Hardship findings in the June approval resolution in support of the lake setback variance, suggest Zoning File #2187 November 14, 1996 Page 4 the removal of the detached garage located 123' from the lake and the construction of new additions located 140' from the lake is a positive improvement to the conformity of the property. It may be more difficult to make the finding that removal of that garage and construction of new additions involving greater square footage than the garage and located 126' from the lake, is a positive improvement in conformity. Perhaps it is at best an equivalent tradeoff. Average Lakeshore Setback As with the June application, since there is no adjacent lakeshore reai^t* ''•c directiy to the west, the encroachment is reasonably defined by the lake setback of the house to the east. Resolution No. 3737 found that removal of the existing garage and construction of a new attached garage and room as proposed would result in a reduction of the existing average lakeshore setback encroachment fix)m 90' to approximately 75'. The current plan similarly proN'ides potential additional views of the lake to the neighboring property, and does not provide any additional view encroachments. The proposal, therefore, has a positive impact on the neighboring property based on the intent of the average lakeshore setback ordinance. Guest Apartment Conditional Use Permit Please review Exhibit H, the standards for a non-rental guest apartment. As a guest apartment which is within the principal residence structure, there is no "double lot area" requirement. However, the requirements for a guest apartment conditional use permit were developed by the Planning Commission and Council in 1987 to make sure that guest apartments do not become rental units, and that such apartments are constructed so as not to be construed as duplex units either visually or functionally. The guest apartment standards in Section 10.20 include the following: 1. 2. The apartment must be within the principal residence structure on the lot. It is for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. 3.There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. 4.Application for a guest apartment CUP shall address parking, sewage treatment, entrywa> and interior access methods. 5.Apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence and shall not have a separate street address. Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 5 The proposed construction appears to have addressed each of these specific issues: The apartment will be within the principal residence structure. The intended use is for a relative of the applicants (who presumably will not be paying rent). The floor plans indicate a single common entryway serving the entire structure, with additional accesses to decks and garage spaces. Parking is pro\ ided by tw o stalls at the east end of the house to replace the existing garage, and a third separated stall at the northwest end of the house to serve the apartment use. The existing septic system is conforming, and was installed in 1988 to serve a four bedroom home. The proposed residence will include one bedroom in the apartment and three bedrooms in the second level, for a total of four bedrooms. Like most other homes being constructed in Orono, the total square footage includes areas that could possibly be converted to bedrooms at some time in the future if the septic system was expandable. A concern, however, is that there is apparently no alternate drainfield site on the property (See additional discussion below). The entire residence will continue to be known as 3265 Sixth Avenue North, and it is intended that the utilities be metered as part of the principal residence. Septic System & Well Concerns The area proposed for the new addition could not be used as an alternate septic site due to its close proximity to the existing well, and because this area has been cut/filled. Per Exhibit J, Steve Weekman has concluded this propertj' has no apparent alternate drainfield site. While the existing system should adequately ser\'e the proposed new construction, the City must consider whetherit is appropriate to allow the proposed additions and expanded use of the property absent a future septic site. An unknown factor is whether separate living quaners will result in redundant water use (2 loads of dishes instead of 1,2 loads of laundry insted of 1, etc.) which could overlord the system... The well is shown approximately 2' from the proposed foundation, and would either have to be moved, or the house slightly redesigned, or a variance obtained from the Minnesota Health Department, due to the requirement for a 3' setback from any portion of a building including overhangs. This likely can be easily resolved. Zoning File #2187 November 14,1996 Page 6 Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Given the magnitude of the additions to the west, are there still suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance? Have sufficient hardships been demonstrated to support the granting of a street setback of 18' where 50' is normally required? Will this street setback encroachment be in keeping with the surrounding area? Should additional screening be required? Does sufficient hardship and justification exist for the granting of the requested lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances? Can Planning Commission make a finding that all of the code requirements for a non-rental guest apartment have been adequately addressed? Is the guest apartment designed to functionally and visually be a part of the principal residence rather than an entirely separate unit that could become a rental unit? Does Planning Commission have specific concerns about the lack of an alternate drainfield site? Staff Recommendation In order to recommend approval, Planning Commission must make findings in support of the requested variances and conditional use permit. If the degree or magnitude of certain requested variances is considered excessive, Planning Commission may wish to offer the applicant a chance to redesign. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed, stating findings in support of each variance requested. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval with specific revisions. Table for further information or revisions (give applicants parameters, if possible). Recommend denial. YM-iJe H-l. / i'- .../ Other. - /)Of/ .•/ .v-r )r rn S'^ - fjr ’ '■J • •' Application # Date Received a - ;i V-^<s Amount Paid :rC'. a CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 120.00 * / (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S22C.^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) “trttriA, 7^ -3? 7/ 3 % N •f ^ f ?• •» i- PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address "A I Property Identification Number fP-liO.’) >>^-//- ro<: A. 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 ___other (specify) Zoning District:_----------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Name ^ * Address:r / -■' —O * ^City: >. Phone (home) M’z. - (Z.L-____ Phone (work ) _____ Zip:/?» / j OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______ • ^ f>"_______ Phone (home). Phone 'work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ r a Estimated Construction Cost $/ fO oCi ^ A ( I (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcoyer X' Setback: \' Front Side Rear \' nrh<.r r«;necifv) / Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing _vvTfh 7nninp Code reouirements:---------------------- 4— ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N ( ATTMLi^ ) • (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Fcrni Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suneyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, pro/ide one (1) copy SVi” x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vQm: vnriance application is not complete if the above information has not been included, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature "" "A . Date Jc ~ ^ ----- OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes (^nvestigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature' A Date (C? ~ ------ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled re>iew meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 f bj Application # _____ Date Received ^ ^ Amount Paid ^ iK.cl CITY OF ORoiNO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Z(^Site Address _______________ Type of Application to be Filed ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) P, applicant Name Phone fhomel ^ - ir Z I Address ^ ZC Gr _k. Phone fwork^ Citv rW'^i'~*'r Ir**____(V ff ^ Zip 'c. 'c. o tl/ <o OWNER (if difterent than applicant) Name______^ Address Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Citv Zip. Date Propejt>LAcquired C Z‘TC,Z^i/------1 ----- I (do^<do noO^also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERVOTS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application • ^ x tcS 7 S 175.00 Residential Accessory Use S250 00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5225.00 Guest House.'Guest Apartments 5200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg 5300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use 5250.00 Land Alteration ^ . _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplam Grading and filling ■ 101 cu. yd. or .... , ' Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ................. ^ 51 50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ' After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee Z' OTHER APPLICATIONS 5250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) __S300.00 Vacation 5200.00 Easement Vacation ” SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision^ " S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ” S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ~ SI00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District---------------------- Present Use of Property . Residential Other (specify). PJEQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 v*. 1. 1 J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Ov^ners List ot owners within j50, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal de’^cription to appl’cation if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing oiid proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicrblo (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please anacn 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, Initials of Clerical Staff:^____________________________ ----------------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide information required or requested by the onmg Administrator, agrees to ’oay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual’expense. >.icurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied i' joie and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date <■ OWNER’S SIGNATURE . , u • ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzed reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members. and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date /« /C ADDlicanc mmt have all eubmihaU into the City oHices 25 days before the Plying Cotntmsston Meeting. PlaS Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be P««"' “ all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to at: scheduled meeting, please mahe arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and ao- se th. Building & Zoning Office of this change pnor to the meeting. X 1 baii^ RUN DATE 05/23/96 BATCH 503 HEM4CPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935601 PAGE 7 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 29-118-23 41 0005 03240 SIXTH AVE N K A P ALLISON KENNETH A PHYLLIS ALLISON 3240 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 29-118-23 42 0006 03460 SIXTH AVE N HEhMEPIN CO PARK OIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE ATTN CHUCK BELLINGHAM 3800 CO RO NO 24 MAPLE PLAIN ttl 55359 38 29-118-23 44 0001 03225 SIXTH AVE N N C HEUPEL ADR HEUPEL NEIL C A DENISE R HEUPEL 3225 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 29-116-23 44 0002 03265 SIXTH AVE N D R A R A HELGAGER DONALD R HALGAGER 3265 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 29-118-23 44 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO P R A M M CRADDOCK THOMAS 3 NANCY SAHYER 3405 67.4 AVE N LONG LAKE 55356 TOTAL BATCH 503 00005 i 9^ *•% V li I CERTIFY THAT THF FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF Iw'^kISIlEOGE AN^^BELIEF***™^^ PROPERTY TAXATION, TO. THE BEST i. ‘ '-xh DATE-m&f Qi .. 0 .......... • • • • # # October 22, 1996 Orono Planning Commission CITY OF ORONO PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Helgager Residential Remodeling Dear Commissioners, Gluts Obrien 6lrother ADCHITEa* The proposed residential additions to th.e Helgager home at 3265 6th Avenue North is being considered for several reasons. First a guest apartment is being proposed on the west end of the existing house. This guest apartment is for use by Robin Helgager's mother. She recently retired and is planning on living with Don and Robin. She would like to have approximately 1,000 s.f. of living area. It is important that the living area be as accessible as possible. The addition is designed so that her living area is all on one level, and on the same level as the living area of the existing house. The single stall garage is also on the same level as the floor to accommodate wheelchair accessibility if it should become necessarv in the future. The guest apartment addition will extend into both the 50 foot road setback and the 150 foot lake setback. The distance that the addition extends into the road setback is 32 feet. The addition e,\tends into the lake setback a distance of 24 feet. Extensions into the setback were kept to a minimum as much as possible yet retain the square footage desired. The double stall garage and addition on the east end of the house has been revised since being reviewed and approved by the planning commission and city council in June. The three season porch has been deleted from the addition. It has been incorporated into the guest apartment addition. Also the separate work shop area has been reduced and incorporated into the garage. A small entry area has been added, which includes a half bathroom and a coat hanging area. This area is called the mud room. The e.xtensions into the lake setback has been eliminated for this addition. The east side yard setback encroachment of 25' is the same as before. If you have any questions, please contact Neil Heupel of Gluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects, Inc. The office phone number is 941-4822. Respectfully, CLUTS, O'BRIEN, STROTHER ARCHITECTS Minnesota 55344 Phone: 612/941-4822 # - • • -• 7m>IY ■ y CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DONALD AND ROBIN HELQAGER IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 29-118-23 I HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA if aeon®?'" gi-a-te County--^ Mi^hu^ay No. 6 Av« 7*122, :'L 'C * r **"Y |/c^***i 4*S5J2 ' 1.* ■. • • • ••^477- «»Tr-rf^ OmA {ksf #/ ter -Xl ' .£.m« p^rmtUl i44 rte |«f tetf te/l. if iWIJ I Jf <(^4- llv "'5Sfs-ol/\ S . .‘■Jf* tte fit# tef•r^7 u#/^ s^.if-H§^is LEGAL DESCWIPnOW OF PREMISES SURVEYgD? The West 327 feet of the East 542 feet of that part of Govern«ent Lot I. lying South of the road. Section 29. Township 118 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. •* denotes Iron marker found Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, shed, and all existing hardcover* thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. 0 RCVRIOK'cun CHSClUfTlOK 1 COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. 4''J r*im.u.kk /\\rnuo • Iodj; I .>ko, M\ 3535() SCAU 1 hrrrH fcrtilv ihji ihr\ \ur\TV h prfpjrisJ by ne ur under m\ Jiffd sufvr- \i^u*n. and Iha! 1 am a duly rfxnlf rad Civil En^inetr and Land Stirvrym under the law V i4 Ihr SLiIc oI Minncw»la lun 0-0-?4» XWIMl Maik 5. Cu»nlvfi: Mmnewaa I.Ai*nva NumNrr 12753 CX 1/ 8" 6“ =1 I m8i! p a ■n si i % «!! in O NORTH 46 ± “7 Oz «2| ht Ilf / / / # ‘' I ■ / • • y / ■••■ •> ..i / 7 / /-_ /- -— » 0 m 54 ± / 0 0 0 0 =1 i(r^y r ■ % ■ i O “I 4 m .1 ■ ( i ■; —r. t* ■ ■|: i \ I ' B • 1 I • •< i-/ ; 1 i\ *' M ,T»li JiL r i *. ••► * j* B (H I f. \ o !/ > ■\& ■r-; - ■ V' V ^"'• \\ o ~\ V' t #2187 00 ci / •> ‘ *V'/“ Vi.' y>) • ‘ / A tr--'.' /'rf c. • “ 1 • »«•Jl. i>'^y y t s ■i ;v^ ■ s 14 -HI J L m 0 11 1 1 1 U I'l a.f1' <i bsll—1 — ^ 1 L -=lr X XT U 9 b L Gi.n 'g liiimUEisiiimiiii \ \ \ \ \ ".v»» ^ / /) / r / N : I’ /,?®v ■'' 1 fc»ViM; i > r v*' / / 'Wy/M f/'.V ^>'X1 1 !•• • / :• 1 • ^@1 \\ f ^ ^V>.' VTOVv . N 'l- \ v w‘,mm ■ • «» ■■% HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length O-TS* (JS-2S0^ 250-500’ 500-1000’ f ♦ JA/^- / / g p Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE V/T. S g - B Sf pROPOSEn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ 6tursr Af>r- Length </3. ^ /ZU. /ftuo Acc>‘'^ ^ B. Garage . C. Driveway _______ X X X Width fU-L ■e-7. ~7S D. Sidewalk E. Patto/Deck ^ $ F. Landscape A— Underlain & By Plastic G. Other ------------- lUim- riNvi •7 ^ X X X X X X X X X X 100 ,? i i.^ 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. S.F. % S.F. S.F. _J S.F. siT if’ S.F. jLUL B e<sr^ ar's •/S.F. /2. S.F. S.F. n S.F. «S.F. A .5»V S.F. /V a / / 2-S.F. m 7 / 2 S.F. a S.F. a S.F. /77 S.F. ■tt m -?</&!. y S.F. W0 .*4 / /24?. ^S.F. imv/I V A/. fZZ?X 100 -% ‘^.v I. v'>, 1 " ('uvw rv.- ^ A B B ’***»•>. ** / ♦••\ ••• -•/ •'....-,.*k•*#• •* •«*V-• • • . f HeLOAiieR i« tor f, $&r 2^-//0 :. J i: ■■ HARDCOVER CALCUIATIOH HORKSHE SETBACK ZONE! ^CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' • • * • * Existing Hardcover IN Zone . .. .» V.'• • • *• V , * .J* . t,.. k A. ' House . ji • *-.r,. ’d* •i.I \*r L.. 'N •: * iv* -r r|';;-r^v*gB0o 9$^ '7*; •• < r •;; fcj.'-; ft _ ^neo ... 'B. Garage « i .;■> < . “v:.-. ;• ; DrIVEWAY . » ■ • 1 ... t'. - :*• ^ -■" i • •;C onc .Sc A^ n : * ; V' • -• •Uv- -J-•.* .r*’ <^^,5n?e!p 1 i.-;- i.-4 !•:'•• .•• I* E. Patio/ . Deck •" v V-r • V' ••Jr ~. •■<■.•••.• •• ’ • .. *• • F.L andscape AREAS * underuin BY • , . FUSTIC SHEETING • - * 0 i .*!. • 0' v:- %••• CoNC^ fi^O WHC v^MJL. 6. Other , LENGTH s J2 . / D.. Sidewalk * 14 43 - X . X X X - X 250-500' 500-1000 WIDTH ■7 %! .1.5" ■•; T otal Hardcover * in Zone . - . • 4 . • . • • * . •• Total Property Area in Zone l'2S2^ S6 no 525* 2139 /4/ 35^ /S' U6 34 Z76 24 65 S.F. S.F. S.F. SIF • S.F. S.F.Rc'''.ov»-’J6 S.F. S • F • S.F. S,F. S.F. S.F • I •• S.F. S.F. S.F..1 S.F.k £ ,r»o viaJ5 w • r • ^ 4038 S.F • •$\ • « «s-rti 3uzoi u! X 100 -'JS=S£_%' • V *• ' • •. • . / V •i . ^ •>.: •• .s; -*’ •• •*. • * . * - ;: ' • .#•^ V •. • r. ' • ?: c ' ■•>• % .-r •v r.v, • 4 •• r ; •./' • **i '*•»*■*•*'• *•* ,*• . • •• . };<y 1 • .••t J • ^ * J • •? I. **f ft * « ■ • • • .’l ' • • • . M ' *•. *.JT>- •. • T•; r*, • • •i •* . "I I* “ ^ ** ft•»* ft • « • • • •— Sr. # •■ • • Ml .:*• I •I ** J ■; ;..V-; .- ,*. '* • •. •• 1 • % 0 v:i ••%• .* *' * t • • *•. • • •- • . V! * ’ •V! • • *4 • • y •• / • • •/ ' i- •• • . • ••» • .♦• •* • .M-'.* • • •• IW ^v'r U>T I, S^. Z^'‘He HARDCOVER CALCULATIOH HORKSHEET oeiBAi.K £uiiKi (ciuctb one)^-75*^ 75-250* 250-500* 500-1000* E xisting llAnocovER in Zone A. ‘ House . v B• Garage . c. D riveway E. Patio / D eck F.Landscape' AREAS UNDERLAINBY plastic' SHEETING 6. Other LENGTH D.. Sidewalk ' - X X‘. X • WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in. Zone V • S.F. *S.F. S.F. .F. |»=— S. — S.F. lll.F. ‘ oc <1 S.F. S.F. _ S.F. - S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. ft S.F. ft S.F. •i ft.F.m -rH 2733^1 .... rr . . O %X 100 - V Adopted: 2-23-87 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. 2) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series 2-23-87Adopted H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as 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 building. J. Apiaries. K. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. H m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 S ? A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIOISS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, 10.28; SUBDIVISION 5(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) FILE #2145 WHEREAS, Donald Helgager and Robin Helgager, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3265 6th Avenue North within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The west 327 feet of the east 542 feet of that part of Government Lot 1, lying south of the road, Section 29, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a 5' side setback for construction of a new attached garage and room additions, where the required side setback is 30', and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C-6) to allow said additions to encroach the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) to allow new structure to be located 140' from Lake Classen, a Natural Environment Lake, where a 150' structure setback is normally required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2145. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 6 im CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^7 ______ 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17. 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances on a vote of 7 to 0 based upon the following findings: B Since all proposed additions meet the 50' street setback, no street setback variance is required. Tlie location of the proposed additions to the east of the existing house and as near as 5’ to the east side lot line is appropriate based on the following unique findings: 1. Additions of the same magnitude as those proposed could not be located elsewhere on the property without encroaching the 50’ required street setback or the 150' required lakesliore setback. 2.While the property is approximately 1.5 acres in dr>' buildable area above of the OHWL of Lake Classen, the buildable envelope due to the required setbacks is only 1,800 s.f. J.If additions were constructed to the southwest or south of the house, they would eliminate the existing flat back yard area, resulting in a steep slope directly behind the house. Given the proximity of County Road 6, it would be appropriate to retain a usable yard on the south side of the house. 4.Topography is generally sloping towards the applicants' property, hence any additional drainage near the lot line caused by the proposed additions will only impact the applicants, not the neighboring property owner. 5.The proposed proximity to the lot line may have a negative impact on existing screening between applicants’ house and the neighboring house to the east, however the neighboring property owner has indicated this is not a concern. Page 2 of 6 CITYof ORONO «V'^RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 S 7 4. 5. C.The average lakeshore setback for this application has been defined as the lake setback of the neighboring house to the east, since the rieighboring property to the west is nearly one-quarter mile distant. The proposed removal of the existing garage and subsequent construction of a new attached garage and room additio-.: will result in less encroachment of the average lakeshore .<= ^back than currently exists. The existing encroachment is approxin. ely 90’, and this will reduce to 75'. The neighboring property will :tave no additional views encroached by the proposed construction, and may have additional views of the lake opened up by the proposal. D.The existing garage encroaches within 123' of the OHWL of Lake Classen. The proposal to remove that garage and construct new additions which will encroach only as near as 140’ trom Lake Classen, is a positive improvement to the conformity of the property in relation to setback from Lake Classen. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of tlie Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Cit>- Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely seiA'e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 m CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 3 7 __ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a 5' side setback where a 30' side setback is normally required, and grants variances to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C*6) to allow a 75' encroachment of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is normally allowed, and grants a variance to Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) to allow a 140’ setback from the OHWT of Lake Classen where a 150’ setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall adhere to the proposed plans submitted with Application #2145 2. The existing detached garage staicture shall be remosed prior to final inspection of the new additions. n J Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 24, 1997). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 3 7 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of June, 1996. /r Edward J. CaUdhan, Jr., Mavor O'' ' ^ I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of June, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. JAMIE L. BOSMA NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Conimission Expires JvL 31 •■n. V /LC Notary Public Page 5 of 6 1 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R ______ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) _ On this / day of i U , 199^’ before me a Notary Public within /•I and for said county, personally appearedTic.-(.^.6k .Hf/i t C-hco Ua.-6^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed me*foregoing instrument,and acknowledaed that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. % B>SSS2SS TtasBszezzB^see! JAMIE L. 60SMA NOTASYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY /7Z..J My Commission Expires Jin. 31.20M NOTARY PUBLIC y STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ___, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who e.xecuted the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 I ■'^1 T-l TO:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:November 14,1996 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application U2187, Donald & Robin Helgager - Variances/Conditional Use Permit The applicants propose the addition of a guest apartment to the existing three bedroom residence. The purpose of this review is to determine if the existing septic system is of adequate capacity for the proposed one bedroom addition and evaluate the potential for a future drainfield site when the existing system fails. The existing septic system is a filled trench system which was installed as an "alternative system" in 1988 since no other "standard system" was viable on the property. Due to steep slopes a mound system could not be used, but the seasonal water table was within 36" of the surface and the . andy loam fill was used to gain a separation from the water table. The septic system appears to be functioning properly at this time. The system is sized for a four bedroom residence, but no area is available for future expansion if the system fails. All areas of sufficient size for the installation of a future drainfield are filled or excavated and are unacceptable for constructing a "standard system". The proposed expansion will not destroy any potential drainfield sites, however, expanding a residence with no future septic system options but the use of holding tanks seems short sighted. On one hand, the existing septic system should be adequate for the additional bedroom; on the other hand, should the system fail holding tanks are liie only apparent option. No sewer mains are near the property so municipal sewer could be a long time in coming. Orono's municipal code does not require that a future site be available before such an addition be made, however. In summary, although the addition is allowable per the septic code requirements, the City must carefully consider the ramifications of allowing such an expansion when no alternate site is available. SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY Addr: 3265 Sixth Ave. N. PID: 29-118-23 44 0002 Building Type: residence # BRs/GPD: 4 # Syotems/units: 1/1 Permit No: 1557 Date of Permit: 12/19/88 Installer: E. J. Peterson Co. System Type: gravelless fill trench Appliances: Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 1 Failure Pot: low Tank Condition:8 DF condition: SEPTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 20 Capacity: 1000, 1000 DRAINFIELD Length of Lines: 390 No. Lines: 5 Trench Width: 3 Treatment Area: 1200 Type of Filter: fabric Tile Size: 10 Under Tile: 30 Perc Rate mn/in: 11.1 Setback DF-Bldg: 35 DF Ht above WT: 0 Soil Type: loam, clay loam Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 100 Well-DF: 110 Report in File?: y Pump Type: subm. Depth: 149 Diameter: 4 Method: drilled INSPECTION RECORD Date 12/19/88 installation 8/13/91 no surfacing 10/26/93 no surfacing-pump tanks 7/22/96 no surfacing-need risers,pump tanks Compliance 1 1 1 1 PUMPOUT RECORD Date Gallons 12/18/92 1000 1 4. To: From: Date: Subject: Zoning District: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator February 6,1997 #2205, Allen Schefers, 2540 Casco Point Road-Conditional Use Permit- Public Hearing LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for excavation of a pond in a floodplain area to remain. The applicant obtained a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to excavate to allow a wildlife pond, however, a conditional use permit for the excavation was not obtained from the City. The applicant has previously obtained a conditional use permit for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. Lut of Exhibits A. Application B. Plat Map C. Property Owner's List D. Site Plan E. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit F. Survey G. Excerpts from Minutes from Previous City Council and Planning Commission Meetings regarding the Conditional Use Permit for fill importation H. Resolution #3762 granting a conditional use permit for fill importation Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.55, Subdivision (A)Definition of Floodway District The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka below elevation 929.4 MSL, the surface and shoreline of other lakes, ponds and wetlands below the ordinary highwater elevation, and the designated floodway of all streams and M2205, 2540 Ccaco Point Road Atten Scheffers—C. U.P. for excavation page-1 February 7, 1997 flowage areas. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision (B)Definition of Flood Fringe District The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevation 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands containing soil types classified as wetland soils, whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision (8) Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary 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 affecung said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. 4. Section 10.55, Subdivision (9)(B)(2) Floodway District Conditional Uses All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. 5. Section 10.55, Subdivision nO)(B)(l) Flood Fringe District All conditional uses as listed in the Floodway district. 6. Section 10.55, Subdivision (12) Conditional Use Permit Review. Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the same manner as other zoning conditional use permit applications. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of his application, shall submit certified engineering data, suiv'eys, site plans, flowage calculations, and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. M2205, 2540 Casco Point Road Allen Schejfers-C. U. P. for excavation page-2 February 7, 1997 Description of Request The applicants obtained the site at 2540 Casco Point Road in October of 1995. In 1996, they began construction of a new house on a previously vacant lot. The new residence required a conditional use permit for fill importation to raise the lot to a suitable elevation to prevent basement flooding. The applicant has removed debris from the lot, including the pond area and has received a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to excavate the pond area. The applicant has stated that he did not realize that he also need a conditional use permit for excavating the pond, however, Resolution #3762 set forth the conclusions and conditions for granting the original conditional use permit for fill importation. The site plan that was submitted for the fill importation did not show that a pond would be excavated on the site. The proposed wildlife pond may be located in a floodway or flood fringe area. The applicant ’s drawing shows the lowest elevation of the pond at 826.0 feet. Any excavation in either a floodway or flood fringe area requires a conditional use permit. Issues for Consideration Although the applicant has received a permit from the Watershed District to excavate the pond, a conditional use permit from the City of Orono is also required. The information as submitted is deficient to determine the potential impact. Further, the existing ponding area appears to be located in the 100’ right-of-way for Casco Point Road. The applicant has flagged the two monuments that determine the property line along the road easement, but with the current snow cover it is not possible to accurately determine the elevations or the proximity to the road. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that this application be tabled until the weather allowrs for the applicant's surveyor to prepare a survey with the following information; 1. Depth of pond 2. Cross section of pond indicating slope ratio of no greater than 3 to 1 3. Spot elevations showing the floodplain contour in relation to pond Further, the applicant must submit a letter for the public record indicating the purpose of the pond and the rationale for excavating it. M2205, 2540 Casco Point Road Allen Scheffers-C. U P. for excavation page-3 February 7. 199^ // 3 jT ^ •-. .1fjr»*.-• r V v> 5 .• .1 ■f P * y Application ff Date Received ihu/f ? Amount Paid ^S"^. ro A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ i ^ Site Address tlaSCo f Oi nT KcsClc L W^yxaT(X. Type of Application to be Filed A^hrL A I TtL?*(X.'fTory ProperU' Identification Number (P.I.D.) t 00/^3 Phone (home) ______________ ______________^ Phone (work) V AddressQCsi\! Cr/kl tA Ai/g . ^0 . City ^/oiS/yii^c^tbA Zip SS9^0i Phone (home)_______________ ___________ Phone (work)_______________ APPLICANT / r Name /}De.h X OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Address City Zip Date Property Acquired Oc^cih^d/^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S200.00 Duplex CrediL^ldg ______S300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use 5250.00 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 5150.00 Renew'al Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____S250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____S300.00 Vacation _____S200.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____SI00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property' .V Residential 6 Other (specify). HV 7 . V-* ..,u i'■r..* . 1 V i • • 4 *• •*. •> I.-:.***' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I. ^ Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Oumers 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). j. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. vX Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 1/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^ Topographic sun-ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). t/ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. \his would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). v/ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 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 >our application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Depanment that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;____________________________Date------------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE j u u 7 The applicant herebv 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 ^plication, and certifies that the information supplied^iTTrite, and corre^to t^^o^s/her knowledge. Applicant's signatui^ ----- Date — OWTS’ER ’S SIGN.ATURE j f 1, .U ^ The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry into the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members. and Council members for purposes of investigali^ and verification of this request. Ovvner's signature Date 6-?7 Aoplicanl must hav« all submiaals into th. Clly ofccts 25 days b.fa« .he Plaan.ag Commission M«.mg. PlannioTCommission Meetings are held on the third Monday of eaeh month. Appheants must be present a. all seheduled review meetings o'the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a sehedukd meeting^ please make arrangements to have «i aulhoriaed agent attend in your place mid adv.se the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN OATS 07/26/96BATCH 503 PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR a#CR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OKNER NAHE TAXPAYER MAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OILIER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR HCNNEPiri COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 21 0012 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED A J I J B SCMEFERS ALLEN J A JUDY B SCIIEFERS 2511 112TH ST H DLOOIlIMGTOrJ :iN 55>»3I 38 20-117-23 21 0015 02520 CASCO POINT RO MARIE A SVANG MARIE A SVAN5 2528 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA I1N 55391 30 20-117-23 21 002<^ 02500 OUNWOOOY AVE JAG NAFUS JOHN A NAFUS 2500 OUFFSOOOY AVE HAYZATA m 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00009 REPORT NO. PIA35^01 PAGE 9 30 20-117-23 21 0013 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J A J B SCHEFERS ALLEN J A JUDY D SCHEFERS 2511 112TH ST N BLOOMINGTON ffi 55^31 30 20-117-23 21 001^ 02530 CASCO POINT RO T CHALUPSKY A D Y CHALUPSKY T CHALUPSICY A D Y CHALUPSKY 2530 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55399 30 20-117-23 21 0017 02520 CASCO POINT RD THO:iAS H FRAHM ETAL THOMAS H FRAHM 2520 CASCO POiriT ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 30 20-117-23 21 0022 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55359 •• ^ 30 20-117-23 21 0039 02590 CASCO POINT RD J0III4 T REOM.ONO JOHN T REOrtONO 2695 CASCO POINT RD ORONO FW 55391 30 20-117-23 29 0093 02600 CASCO POINT RD PAUL J A MARY E RASTER PAUL J A MARY E RASTER 2600 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENI4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ DATE 7-29-% 4I i a t / ' •; jkL^*rm^h,:i^m uiftii. rr-rtT^iBMi U 7> / PV* -I? ■■>'! VLV ^ ri^'xW ^ 7Ta 1 Sii O) Sii a < — r+ IS c::^pond \^ourcpo06d dnv5 ^n Note: information ueed for thio drawing baoed on original ourvoy by Cof f in and Gronborg Inc. 5-10-96 1785 West County Road 42 jLV^t^Xj, Shakopee, Mn. 55364 LiincLscapinij 612 / 496-3105 Ifit. Allen Schafero residence 2540 Caoco Point Road Orono, Mn. Scale: r--40 ’0"d Minnehaha Creek r- ^ ^Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys 15 & 19. Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax; (612) 471-0682 Email: adminOmnwatershed.org Web Site: www.mnwatershed.org Board ol Managers: John E. Thomas President Pamela G. Blixt Vice President Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Treasurer C. Woodrow Love Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Olfice: Eugene R. Strommen District Director Suzanne M. Weedman Asst District Director 0 Prtftttd on rtcydtd pap« coAtaMiQ ai inst 30*« post com«ncf wtstt. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, correspondence, plans, maps, and all other supporting data submitted by the applicant, all of which are made a part hereof by reference. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Issued to Allen Scheffers Permit No: 96-211 Location 2540 Casco Point Road. Orono Puroose: Excavation of a wetland for a wildlife pond. Date of Issuance; 10/21/96 Date of Expiration: 10/21/97 By Order of the Board of Managers Suzame M. Weedman Assistant District Director This permit is not transferable, and is valid to the date of expiration. No activity is authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to complete the project, an application for renewal of the permit is required. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives, contractors, and employees. (Statement concerning fees for inspections, violations, etc... on reverse) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ALLEN SCHEFERS OF lot, 2, block G, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ’••(9400) 4.0 ft—A cmr legal description of premises : Lot 2. Block 6. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK o : denotes iron marker (937.9): denotes existing spot elevotion, mean sea level datum denotes proposed spot elevation, meon sea level datum Beorihgs shown are based upon on assumed datum. This survey intevls to show the boundories of the obove described property, ond the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It docs not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. i) //;✓/ ^ i) (rAtrmft Z 9^f.S V Cams'& GRONBERCrlNU;acs:I hereby crrli^y iKif survey w.u prepariM by mr or under my cfiritl Miper* vision, anil IImI I,»h d*ifv regiv'err-f Ci*. i| Ei»r*»UTf .ottl l.and Surveyor under the i«I !.liniH*M'la OATK 5-16-95 SCAU |**»40* Mn:>4m 1- I f Kbrk S r.fool>Tf|; Minm^nla l.icrnu* Niimlvr I27SS K>iiNi> 96*170 IF" 170 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 (*#10) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, 2540 CASCO POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3762 Jabbour moved, Goelten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3762 granting approval of a conditional use permit for fill importation of approximately 426 cubic yards for construction of a new residence at 2540 Casco Point Road for Allen and Judy Schefers and Water Street Builders, Inc. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Callahan reponed his dissatisfaction with the disregard of the motion made in May, 1996, for condemnation proceedings to begin on properties affecting the bike trail. The purpose was to enable the bike trail to be completed in 1996. Moorse said the Wills and Bruning pcopenies require Council resolutions to authorize moving ahead on the condemnation proceedings. Callahan. Jabbour, and Goetten each said it was their understanding that the previous Council action included proceedings against all affected properties. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to direct the City Administrator to have the City Attorney commence condemnation proceedings on September 10, 1996, towards any property in need of condemnation in order for the bike trail completion to be accomplished and to adopt the resolutions required to accomplish this. A report in writing is required from the City .Administrator by Wednesday, September 18, 1996 stating that the condemnation proceedings have begun and a time table in writing by the City Attorney regarding accomplishment of the condemnation. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Goetten noted the receipt of a letter and petition by the Hassan Township requesting support for their incorporation as a city. Goetten asked the Council members of their opinion. Goetten and Jabbour both noted their support. Moorse cautioned of impact on adjoining cities. Goetten moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3763 voicing no objection from the Council to the petition for incorporation as a city by Hassan Township. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Kelley made note of an upcoming Staff picnic Kelley inquired about further review of the easements for internal trails on the Dickey property. It was noted that a letter of credit is on file for the developer in regards to the internal trails. ClT 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNDSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#10 - #2166 Janet IGeman - Continued) Stoddard asked where the City was regarding the County’s planned improvements to CoRd 15. Callahan said it was in a state of active consideration noting the different viewpoints taken amongst Council members. Lindquist asked for the size of the patio to be considered. Kieman asked that it be large enough to accommodate a table and chairs. Stratton said it is currently proposed at 24 across and 18’ out from the house. Gaffron reviewed the hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback and suggested cutting the size of the patio in half. Kieman and Stratton agreed to limit the size of the patio to 240 s.f. Smith asked about the plan for the gazebo. Kieman said she would like to do it in the future. The placement was unknown, but Kieman was informed that it should not encroach the septic system drainfield. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2166 with the following changes and conditions; The garage will be offset with a minimum of 15 setback from CoRd 15. The patio will be reduced in size to 240 s.f The property will not be allowed to have more^than 4 bedrooms until such time as sewering is complete. The Planning Commission advised that no more structural coverage would be allowed in the 0-75 setback zone as the property has reached its maximum limit. Gaffron noted that the change in hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback would result in a 3.9% variance. He also informed the applicant that the drainage and grading plans and location of the sewer would be required before the application would go before the Council. Gaffron said he would provide what information they had in-house, and this request should not hold back the proposal. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, principle of average lakeshore setback, concern with trading a fireplace and minor landscaping for major structure in the 0-75 setback, and noted the property was at the point of no additional stmctural coverage. (#11) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, "2540" CASCO POINT ROAD - VAKLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w-ere noted. The Applicant was represented by Loren Brueggemann. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#11 - #2167 Allen and Judy Schefers - Continued) Gafiron noted the elusiveness of the application with the steady stream of changes made from the original proposal. He reported that the original house was planned within the flood plain and with the lowest floor level below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). The 75-250' hardcover was also proposed at about 32% where only 25% is allowed. The lot is vacant, and a new house is now proposed for which there is no justification for hardcover variances. The house has now been raised to the required 935.5' elevation and out of the flood plain. With the changes to the location, the size of the house, and the driveway, the house now will meet the 25% hardcover. The only request remaining is for a CUP for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. It would require 300-400 cubic yards of fill for this proposal. Gaflfron noted there is also no defined average lakeshore setback to meet as there is no house to the south. The house will be located some distance back from the 0-75 ’ setback. The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback is proposed at 24.97%. Gaffron said the plan is realistic. He said the fill would require around 30 truck loads. Documentation by a surv-ey showing hardcover calculations will be required. Peterson noted that the normal precautions w'ould be required regarding fill such as road clean up. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the request for a CUP for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards with the inclusion of a survey. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was absent from the vote. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COiNEVDSSION REPRESENl ATI\T ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12,1996 No report was given. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1996 MEETING Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1996. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was not present for the vote. (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9,1996 Stoddard will attend the September 9, 1996 meeting of the Council, i »H CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 6^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MLTSTCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 20 AND 21 FILE #2167 WHEREAS, Allen Schefers and Judy Schefers, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2540 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 6. Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and W'HEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence, where a maximum importation of 100 cubic yards of fill is normally allowed per .Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 20 and 21. Minnesota: NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2167. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996 and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 L_ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 8 762 'NO. The need for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is directly related to the required minimum floor elevations associated with adjacency to a floodplain, which eliminated the possibility of excavating the necessary material from the site. The proposed grading plan will allow the construction of a driveway and garage located at the main floor level of the proposed residence structure. The proposed grading plan will allow for proper drainage away from the proposed residence. The proposed fill and grading will not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but will provide a transition between the higher lot to the south and the lower lot to the north. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 5.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the importation of 426 cubic yards of fill will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivisions 20 and 21 to permit the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on the property, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 8 7 62 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ATTEST: Applicants and their agents shall adhere to the land alteration provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J), and such work shall adhere to the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. Applicants and applicants ’ agents shall be responsible for immediate cleanup of all materials spilled on City roads. Applicants shall adhere to the site plan and grading plan by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated 5/16/96 revised 8/14/96 revised 8/19/96. Any revisions of that grading plan and site plan will require further review by the City. No other conditional use permit or variance approvals are granted with this resolution of approval. Applicant shall obtain a land alteration permit from the City prior to commencing importation of fill. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. ^ * orothy M. Haffiri-'City Q6rk 4-/ /a Property Owrier(s)/ Inward J. CallaharvnJr. / '4 // .. B- Page 3 of 5 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator 5. From: Date: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator Februar>’ 11, 1997 Subject:#2206 Elaine and Steve Silus, 3235 Casco Circle-Variances Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Application: Request for hardcover variances in the 75'-250' and 250'-500' setback areas and average lakeshore setback variance List of Exhibits: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Application Applicant’s statement Property Owner's list Plat map Existing Survey Proposed Survey Elevations Hardcover Calculations Floor Plans Pertinent Ordinances: HARDCOVER ANALYSIS 1. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration 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. »2206, 3235 Casco Circle Elaine and Slew Silus— Variances page-l, February 18. 1997 Distance from shoreline 0-75' 75 ’-250’ 250’-500 ’ TOTAL; Total Area in Setback 6,117sq. ft. 12/36 sq. ft. 3,867 sq. ft. 22,420 sq. ft. Hardcover Allowed 25% (3,109 sq. ft) 30% (1,160 sq. ft.) 4,269 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover 13 sq. ft. 28.64% (3.562 sq. ft.) 36.95% (1.429) sq. ft. 5,004 sq. ft. Proposed Haidcover 29.64% (3,685) sq. ft. 31.23% (1,208) sq. ft. 4,893 sq. ft. Variance Request None 4.64% 1.23% The applicants' proposal eliminates hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback, increases hardcover in the 75 ’- 250' setback by adding 123 sq. ft., and decreases the amount of hardcover in the 250’-500' setback by eliminating 221 sq. ft. of hardcover. Overall, the hardcover would be reduced by 111 sq. ft. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 3. Section 10.56, Subd. C. 6., 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, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The deck of the proposed residence will be forward of the average lakeshore setback approximately 8’. The existing house is located foru ard of the average lakeshore setback by 13’-20’. Description of Request Applicants seek approval of multiple variances to permit construction of a new residence. The existing residence does not meet the average lakeshore setback or hardcover requirements. The proposed residence would require hardcover variances, but have less hardcover than the existing residence. The applicants want to save a 26" hackbenv ’ tree in the rear or their property which restricts new construction in the 250' setback area. U2206, 3235 Casco Circle Elaine and Steve Silits—Variances page-2, February 18, 1997 Statement of Hardship The subject site is more than 300 teet in depth from Lake Minnetonka to Casco Circle. The site however, is 55' wide. The minimum lot width for this zoning district is 100'. The buildable lot width ranges from 38' to 45'. A large specimen shade tree (26" hackberry) is located in the rear of the property. The applicants have proposed a design that preserves the tree. Tlie applicants also state that the narrow lot requires a longer driveway which increases the hardcover needed. The average lakeshore setback far exceeds the 75' shoreline requirement due to the homes on Casco Circle being set back farther than 75'. Issues for Consideration 1.The proposed design for the new residence does not require variances for side or rear yards. Note the tree on the site that the applicants want to retain. 3.Note that the proposed design locates the garage doors so that they are not facing the roadway. 4.Note that the average lakeshore setback for this property restricts new construction on the subject property to the rear portion of the property. 5.Note that the proposed design is a 1 -story home with a basement. The proposed design of the home is limiting the vertical intrusion for the adjacent properties which is a consideration on a narrow lot. 6. The minimum lot size for this zoning district is 100'. This lot is only 55' wide. Options of Action 1. To approve as proposed or amended. 2.Request that the applicants tiy to further reduce hardcover by redesigning their proposed driveways and/or lakeside deck. I r Application if “7 C (s> Date Received - 2 H 9 [7 Amount Paid ^7. ]c'- c -o CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S120.00 ^ . . (no change from original application) tji f,.. Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f • H ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3255 Casco Circle Propertv- Identification Number fP.I.D.^ #2011 7254 300 14 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 9/93 ---------------------------(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>” x residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: LRIC______________________________ applicant ' - _Phone (home) 47l-97_81 Address: 3235 Casco Circle City': Orono Zip:_5;5iai OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same as above________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv”Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost 3450,000,. Describe request in detail: fSee attachment!_________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) V.ARI.ANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Y Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear X 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:. ------------------- fSffp attachments (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 ’I I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic :urvey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are pro}*osed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYz" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or pilans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYz' x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propert>' Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above informaHon has not been included. 5. 6. 7. 8. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The 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 consultant expenses incurred in review' of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Sisnature Date ‘f-i Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 1/22/97 .•- ./ si 4. • .»• B Attachment to City of Orono > Variance Application For: Average Lakeshore and Hardcover Owner: Address Elaine and Steve Silus Home 3235 Casco Circle Orono, Mn 55391 Contractor: Bruce Bren Homes, Inc. Architect: Sharratt Design Company 471-9781 475-0918 470-9750 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The average lakeshore request is to be able to build the proposed structure in the same location as the present structure relative to the setback from the lake. The proposed most lakeside part of the new sb’ucture is a 1 story wood deck with the main body of the house setback about 10 feet from the deck edge. Therefore, relative to the existing 1 story home, the proposed main body of the home is 10 feet further back away from the lake. Only the proposed deck would be In the location of the existing structure. Due to the adjacent structure/straight line approach to the lakeside setback, this request is for a lakeside setback variance of 8 feet forward of the straight line setback created by the closest to the lake structure projections of the two adjacent lakeshore homes, but no further forward than the existing/heated home's enclosed area. The hardcover request is to exceed the maximum hardcover permitted for new construction, however the total proposed hardcover is less than the existing total hardcover. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: Site The site is over 300 feet deep from the Minnetonka lakeshore to Casco Cirde road. However, the site is very narrow. The bulldable lot width at the proposed building location varies from only 38 to 45 feet. Homes along this area are typically built well back from the normal setback of 75 feet. The existing home is setback about 135 feet from the normal high water mark. The closest part of the home to the north is about 120 feet to the water even though it appears to be slightly behind the subject structure. This is due to an irregular lakeshore line. Reasonable use In order to put the site to reasonable use, any home design will maximize lake view in the narrow dimension. Correspondingly, the remainder of any space without a lake view will extend back away from the lake toward the street. These spaces normally include service spaces,laundry, mud room and a garage. Given the Owner's reasonable program of space and function, a reasonable building length results. Specimen Tree in Rear Yard The proposed design is specifically designed custom for this Owner's requirements and for this particular site. A large specimen shade tree, a 26 ” trunk diameter Hackberry, exists in the rear yard that the Owners very much want to preserve. If the proposed home is required to setback from the existing structure's location, it is nearly certain that the trauma caused by excavation and construction would destroy the tree. VARIANCE APPLICATION (cont) Hardcover Hardship for hardcover is simply due to a very small lot size behind the buildabie lake setback and a deep lot requiring a long driveway. In the proposed design, an overall hardcover reduction in zones 0 ’ - 75', 75 ’ - 250 ’, and 250 ’ • 500 ’ has been made as follows: Zone Existing % of Zone Proposed %of Zone 0-75 13 .21%0 sq.ft 0% 75 - 250 3562 28.64%3685 sq. ft.29.63% 250 - 500 1429 36.95%1208 sq. ft.31.24% Totals 5004 4893 sq. ft. Total lot area =22,420 sq. ft Hardcover % of total lot 22.3%21.8% Summary The project ’s hardships requiring the variance: • Very narrow lot width and small allowable buildabie area. • Long lot depth requiring a longer than normal driveway. • Setback from the lakeshore of the present existing home structure is not unreasonable and is nearly double that which is normally required of 75 feet. If the existing home was adequate to remain, it’s position would not be required to change. • Protect and preserve large 26" diameter specimen shade tree in the rear yard. If further information or clarification is required, please contact Bruce Bren or Michael Sharratt. Thank you for your time. 1 RUN DATE lE/lE/96 BATCH 501 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST PROP ADDR OHHEU NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 36 20*117-23 A3 OOOA 03229 CASCO CIR 6 R TRIPP i S K TRIPP GREGORY R i SHAR0I4 K TRIPP 3229. CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 20-117-23 A3 OOIA 03235 CASCO CIR S D SILUS SEC SILUS STEPHEN SILUS I ELAINE SILUS 3235 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 20-117-23 A3 0031 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 c !: 5vv;*'* ••• • • •• : •, Ii. X REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 138 20-117-23 A3 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARY SUSAN SNANSON MARY SUSAN SNANSON 3229 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN £5391 36 20-117-23 A3 0013 03237 CASCO CIR G NASIEOLAR A M NASIEDLAX G NASIEDLAR I M NASIEOLAK 3237 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 A3 0015 03233 CASCO CIR D M SPILSCTH t P D SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 A3 0016 03231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 A3 0050 032A1 CASCO CIR S A BULLOCK A E L BULLOCK SANDRA A A ERNIN LEO BULLOCK 32A1 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00006 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEfA4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. IM5-54 .DATE r- 0 .'in t 0 m $ m Iwt *H. »•»« . «t»W 411,1^41 l»4«»,«l «4t4lftl «#«*•«* ««4 •.» l»*t l*4Cl vf l4»»*l fc4l»l #4k4l*^ 444M44 0»4 |4»* mH.I«l*»Mk4 ll** • «• l*»* nwi l^*i I f ^4*|< ll«4% W* \4MI I«»< I** ir:-lr\ .............. **l * . .. • 'HWIPM • %»«••. 4t» W|.».M.4<« 4%%ir.»a M.I . I.lf .• '■' • »••• «»«»4W*4* Ir* *»• l*«r 4»y*r r iivA* • Mj#-i it*u \ li »..I .H |4l4 f **•! •.»♦• . ••• ' •t'4.«l» wt*» It ‘Iw* . ' • * ' *'• ■'•‘I » If/* *MVt •l4%l • • M4>tf .- ••••• 0 COFnN & GRONBnRG. IN ’C. t I I'v*'*.*** •-*'« '* • »*•'•• l.ini.ifjik \mihh • I I .til i.i: i:\ It II '».f, n n'.fc I Mn'vTt I !»«•»• *H*. *«!».• -.•••• «««Ak4*a« >*»«f ..§«• I (M.' W •• **^IaI^b******m. 1^..«.« • - X •- ••••• ^ • • • • f^lft I .I* .tifc. ... • • ff-n ' • .• *• *• • • f 1 •.« ••*t* ♦ **M 0> 1 • p fX. ^ P ^ ' i '4 •• •• * f ‘ "♦ ^ t tKJU VJPiM IHTO PcM A>r - tv* wo4.vwe WKMB «woawn«jcTo»<»n« SILUS HOME mCtfOOMOMTCfCU GNONa IMMttOTA M»l IMUCf MNHKMIMC l«nm«IMQMMAV NAVIArA IM M3tl *t%mt »ofmAnoiaiQM ttMWQQOMMuMi aMQi«waaaMHM»i «i»«iw •9 % 4 * • v% .' • • i' •• • i .• .*‘ s' ^ 0 /*. i^iKOnac >*r INIS'-I?!>4IW^ . —r*''Trr‘•.'47J!5iUaaH^^ ^ - W*' ;:ic;74i‘-e.'.siDe. fe.L-e.-v-f^TIC’fcl--. _-.i/e»"- l'-<?" •• ••'• MOQMO HlWGOMmuCTKXO^TVt STLUS HOME s» CAMS «o»fr cacti omoho m—c «ota iiaai WCCfMMtOMlMC *«aKWT>4af«(M0IMr WMVZATA. MM lOM •oMun afsoM ja««oooaocuwi< »«3MOMQao.MN MiM [SiAStM^ JS * ? r ^ r 01/09/1997 12:59 473-4435 .*■. •• V •N ( «• I ii’ • « .1 % ■' ft 4 :1 COFFIN S OPONBERO f/4/A>r HARDCOVE^ALCULAI'IOM VVOKK:»HliL» PAGE 02 SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE)75.250»25.500’500.1000' pyiSTlNC HAffPCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____ — * Ltngth Wkiih X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X >• * » £. Paiio/Deck X X Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X C^OftPOC O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A /J'_ _ _ _ + B . X 100 »■ PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House__________ Length Wtdih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X s r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .S F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .5 F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. ___S.F. I % S S.F. _S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. E. Paiid/Oeck' *• X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabtie X X X S.7 S F. S F. S.F. O. Other total hardcover in zone total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^-------- <ul 4. B fi n'? X100 •• S.F. " S F. ' « A I) A D 01/09/1997 12:5?9 ‘<73-4435 CCFFIN S GRONBER'3 fi ? .Ll-.'V'' ^ V . ; ? T/L*y*S hardcover CALCULAlMlWUKKaiitbi PAGE 03 'JC ' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* QS-250^ 25-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARnCQVER IN ZONE A, Houit_______- 8AZK. \cu^ aoac ^TfPS Unfih Width TL % X X B. Oarage C. Driveway ^PiUifJAY • * « * % E. Patio/Deck r X X • I X X • • I • ; } •t X X F. Landscape ___ Underlain _ By Plaiiic. ___ Or Fabric • pAdT G. Other fPr*«C X X X • ■ •* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4- B /2.43€X too •. t m t %-mr • . . • •• PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN .ZONE A. House _______ * -•« t • • • • Length WMth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk nto^ofra ny.^s E. Patio/Deck ___ X X X X *frk F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B /2. 43 C X 100 - s£-10<W-S.F. S.F. 66 S.F. jlI"S.F. S F. 11S7 S.F. S.F. l<?S^S.F. 03 S.F. »•S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . • 19 S.F. 356Z S.F. |HiF9C9^7^Vi S.F. % •• • • .2 702. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 30 0 S.F. S.F. SF. /J2. S.F. 3<o S.F. J2S S F. S.F. iwBi r ^S.F. S.F. . S-.P* 3itS .S.F. A B A B 1 01/09/1997 12:59 473t4435 COFFltJ & i5Ra<BERG -rs. • . ; . harbcov ^ c^cuLAno.N *1^ i'^iSETlIACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) #-7S' RxigriNC haBT?^*?VF" PAGE 04 /i-n-H S00«!000' S.F. A. House Len|ih Width <r X X X _S.F. S.F. f' h B. OiTige __3g-^Z2.4 “• oSo S.F. I C. Driveway wooOitCPS 06a RA6^ X X :ZLQL 11. S.F. S.F. i>' ;• ♦i { D. Sidewalk X X S.F. .« F. • t W %• • •»* •#-••• E. Patio/Deck •• m- X X . • •• • • •«• . «•>•». «» • . • »«■—<>S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain . .By Plastic, Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. «• » G. Other S.F. TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE , ^ .n« A B 3SS7 _ X 100 S.F. S.F. u.is^ PRO** A. Lin|tii WIdih X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Car?ge ___ S.F. C. Driveway X X 9^S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPemAREA IN ZONE ^ , /ZOf ~SPi5. S.F. S.F. % A B A B i 1 & ? 1r > I X t •» 8 'isiisir* G ill i!i U2l G |i wg 1 & ? 1r > I X t •» 8 'isiisir* G ill i!i U2l G |i wg v: ' •• 1 i i 1 c f ilB'* ' (f #2206, Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Structural Coverage Variance Lot size requirement (1/2 acre): 21,780 sq. ft. Lot size:22,480 sq. ft. 15% structural coverage:3,372 sq. ft. Existing structural coverage:11.16% (2,510 sq.ft.) Proposed structural coverage:15.28% (3,435 sq. ft.) i To: From: Date: Subject: Zoni ig Distr'ct: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator February 11,1997 #2207 Jonathan & Theresa Hofer, 3339 Ciy stal Bay Road-Variance- Public Hearing LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Applhation: Request for 0-75' hardcover variance, average lakeshore setback variance, and lakeshore setback variance to allow for improvements to an existing structure which include the addition of a great room above the garage. List of Exhibits: A. B. C. D. E. F. Application & Letter Plat Map Property Owner's List Survey Hardcover Calculations Floor Plans & Elevations Pertinent Ordinances: LAKESHORE SETBACK I. Section 10.22, Subd. 1. B.. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: 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. The existing structure is approximately 45 feet from the 929.4 contour for Lake Minnetonka. A 30' setback variance is required to allow for a second-floor addtion to the existing structure. #2207. Jonathan & Theresa Hofer 3339 Crystal Bay Road-Variances Page I February 10, 1997 HARDCOVER ANALYSIS 2. Section 10.22. Subd. 2, Lake shore Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structores 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. Distance from shoreline 0-75' 75'-250 ’ Total Area in Setback 4,727 sq. ft. 1,701 sq.ft. Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover NONE 25% or 425.25 2,050 sq. ft. 811 sq. ft or 47.67% Proposed Hardcover 2,050 sq. ft. 811 sq.ft, or 47.67% Variance Request 43.37% 385.75 sq. ft. or 22.67% AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETB.ACK 3. Section 10.56, Subd. C, 6., Average Lake shore 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, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Distance from Shoreline (approx.)Address of Property 45 feet 3339 Crystal Bay Road (APPLICANT) 65 feet 3335 Crystal Bay Road (east of applicant) 56 feet 3345 Crystal Bay Road (west of applicant) The existing structure is approximately 15 feet forward of the average lakeshore setback line. (See Exhibit D.) #2207, Jonathan & Theresa Hofer 3339 Cr> slal Bay Road-Variances Page 2 FcbruarN 10, 1997 Description of Request The applicants are new owners of the property at 3339 Crystal Bay Road. The existing structu- ' " a single family home with one bedroom and one bathroom. The applicants are requesting v ariances for hardcover, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback in order to construct a great room above the existing garage. (See Exhibit F) The proposed design for the new great room would not increase hardcover nor further encroach into the lakeshore setback or average lakeshore setback. The addition above the garage will add 340 sq. ft. of living space. Statement of Hardship The applicants have indicated tha» they desire more space than the current one bedroom, one bathroom configuration. Possible improvements to the structure are limited by the following considerations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Most (72.11%) of the subject property is located on the lakeside of the 75' shoreline setback. The rear of the structure is only 7.6' off of the easement for the Dakota rail line which prohibits additions to the rear of the structure. The southwest comer of the house is on the west property line. Additions to the west could not meet side and rear yard requirements. The house to the east is ver> close to the east property line. Additions to the east could not meet side and rear yard setback requirements. A substantial portion of the lot is blacktopped for Crystal Bay Road and the drivewav. The applicant cannot build over the Hillside Place easement on the west of the property. The minimum lot size foi the LR-IC district is 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.). The subject property is 6,500 sq. ft. or 29% of the minimum lot size. Issues for Consideration 1 . Staff has visited the site and notes that the exterior of the house is in need of repair. #2207. Jonathan & Theresa Hofer 3339 Cr>'sial Bay Road-Varianccs Page 3 February 10. 1997 2.The applicants are not proposing any increase in hardcover, lakeshore setback or average lakeshore setback. 3.The second floor addition above the existing garage will not impact views of the lake for either of the adjacent property owners. 4.The applicant is unable to add any living space to the east, west, or south side of the structure because of the 75 ’ shoreline setback requirement, side and rear yard requirements, the proximity of the adjacent house to the east and the internal floor plan of the building. 5.The proposal to add living space above the existing garage is the only known option at this time available to the applicants to increase space without increasing hardcover. Options of Action To approve as proposed. #2207. Jonathan & Theresa Hofer 3339 Cr>stal Bay Road-Variances Page 4 February 10. 1997 1 Application # -^^0 7 Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 » g ($50.00 per each additional variance) ^ ^ • ' Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ' (no change from original application) ^ I . ' Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ' v>. ” •4/ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 33^^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.).l-I-in- tZ-Hl ooz-i Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey, Date Property Acquired 1 - 3 - ^ I .(month/year) I (do) ^ItTn^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>’: K residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_____________________________________ APPLICANT Name ^ Phone (home) Phone (work) *\3S'i>it3 Address: iotli City: »tAiA Zip:_£S52i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ~) 5~, &oo. <=>cs Describe request in detail: $ -------------------------------------- (attach additional s|ieets if necessar>') 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 compliance with Zoning Code requirements: --------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) fi REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 2. All of the following information must be subir Uted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: fio n-111-13^11 ooai Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\l Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/:' x 11" for reproduction. — H <uj) 3. 4.rTdei^c 5. 6. Topographic suney (ex ’:.ting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. U' Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8 ‘/i" x 11"). 4^ 7. 8. 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons yoi. wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. AVS^Fand^o»le AppTicdnt and Property Owner must sign this application.” Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ADDlicant’s Sicnaturc AAf.r1 V OWNER’S SIGNA' Date The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entr>’ onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and/verification of this request. Owner's Signatur'd^ -----Date /• 2. I- Applicant must'Jjave all submittal.' into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ,tnd Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 6 V jr'lv i- .* A * •r ■» f* VAC 12-4-60 A NOTE \ w A \^v ( REARRANGEMENT OF LOTS 42, 43. 37, 5ci, 59 , 69 , 70 '^1 WALLACE /_ . , VILLMINMETONKA^^^CH. ' ' /A 4 ... X ^ X o5o>/* ^X%?> ■ " (20) \ r,'j s , V-' A . ,.A A,, '0mmmy' v)i\ \* '1^'n h io y' \ y. X X'3\(25)\. f.A( 17)\( \6)\r^ !8)\ . \ <}>'" )Va .pV-' 1) vO \-^ /' \ ^ p A\^, A? , n Vv ?iv -^ \ - ?)p-, ■ / 56 ( I04) Tfi 3«r ( 83:<,A ' ' AX. AA 1 1 0 /A.-•eA.'- -C^Vb" /A/ / ,Xv“X" ^ ■ X''47 ‘vAvLA. 3 ,xX5^ / A>a ^ / / AS:CA-\ a./ >K'- / <•_ /^' • • ^* / ' •'■ '-^v / • - A'TA V <-.•/ \/AO rW X/ 4u . W / / \ r\0\ / ^ \,4 Vi:'^>- *> My name is Theresa Hofer. My husband’s name is Jonathan Hofer anci'we are waiting for the arrival of our new baby in March. Jon and I have been looking for the perfect house for almost a year. During that time we have looked at more than 125 houses. Finally we found the perfect one located at 3339 Crystal Bay Road. Although it’s currently run-down, we felt that with some tender loving care, this home would be the perfect place for our new family. The improvements that we have planned are designed to improve the appearance and livability of the house while maintaining the same atmosphere and feel of the area. For this house to function even for a small family, we feel that it needs to have at least three bedrooms and one bathroom. Existing, it has one bedroo.u and one bathroom. We’ve toiled over many options to gain more space. Going up one level, adding on to the back or adding on to the side. Going up would create an eyesore and create a structure too tall. Going out any direction would create more hard cover and encroach on the set backs. Also, the lot contains five very old and very large oak trees. To lose even one of these beautiful trees would be a loss for everyone. After much thought, what we are proposing is to add 340 square feet above the existing attached garage. This space would be the living room. The current living room could then be divided into two small bedrooms. All the rest of the work would be for moving internal walls, new siding, cabinets, carpeting, etc. This entire project requires no additional excavation or block work that would increase the foundation size of this house. The issue of hard cover has been raised. The only addition we would request would be for a small deck on the right (west) side of the house. No more hard cover w’ould be needed for the house. Because of the way surveying was done in 1910, these lots are ver>' small and many homes were built right on the property line. The house to our east is on our property line. The easement given to the city to nin a paved street across all the properties has taken away a large ponion of what r tt _«r V * otherwise would have been “soft cover.” Currently, we care for the 25 feet to the west, and also about 40 feet to the south. Both work as part of our lawn but are actually owned by the city and the railroad. Even though not actually owned, both sides are a working part of our land and create drainage. The improvements that we propose are in line with what other neighbors have already done. VVe would not be blocking any views, and would be no closer to the lake than others. Currently there are other neighbors who have living space above garages and decks. We love the area and are excited to live in Orono. We would like to raise our family here in Orono, but as any other family would, we need more than 900 square feet and one bedroom. We are afraid of being pushed out of a home that we haven’t even yet moved into. We are currently in temporary housing while we wait for the variance and are terribly anxious to get going. We would greatly appreciate your flexibility and help with these issues. We have put much thought into this house and feel that it would enhance the neighborhood, renovate an old home which is currently nin down and would stay inside its current foundation. We thank you all for your consideration. r * • . V January 23,1997 To the City Council of Orono: This letter is to request that the proposed variance be put on the agenda for the city council meeting scheduled for February 24th, 1997. We request this for several reasons. 1) We are currently in temporary housing, 2) are expecting our first child in March, 3) are currently paying for two residences every month. We greatly appreciate your help in this matter and will do everything possible to be well organized and available to you all. Thank you, RUN DATE 01/21/97 BATCH 504 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME taxpayer NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 58 17-117-23 41 0018 03325 CRYSTAL BAY RD D M STANTON 2 B L STANTON DENNIS M A BECKY L STANTON 5325 CRYSTAL DAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0021 03339 CRYSTAL BAY RD J D A T J HOFER JONATHAN A THERESA HOFER 3339 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 58 17-117-23 41 0024 03355 CRYSTAL BAY RD JOHN E KUST JOHN KUST 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 504 00009 38 17-117-23 41 0019 03329 CRYSTAL BAY RD MICHAEL J FINLEY MICHAEL J/PATRICK M FINLEY 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0022 03345 CRYSTAL BAY RD JAMES N OGLANO JAMES N OGLAMO 3345 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0104 03240 NAVARRE LA CLAIR T S LYm D ROOD CLAIR & LYNN ROOD 2215 KENWOOD WAY NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 12 38 17-117-23 41 0020 03335 CRYSTAL BAY RH LARRY H NELSON LARRY H NELSON 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0023 03349 CRYSTAL BAY RD m N L A L D PASCHKE ^ WARREN L & LUCILLE D PASCHKE^* * ^ 14441 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 i ‘55^ 38 17-117-23 44 0109 03286 NAVARRE LA GRACE MARIE DAHL GRACE MARIE DAHL 3286 NAVARRE LA NAYZATA MN 55391 » * / * i V . s • I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEW^EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. HZ-")!DATE P OF r. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KLINGELHUTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LOT 8, WALLACE' S ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA % iMm i:0' • rttaWhj o LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 8, WALLACE' S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH V s‘* o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, and the location of all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport* to show any other improvements or encroachments. NOTE : Due to snow cover, it is possible that all hardcover was not located. ; • I .u > m K un ^cm </72 CoH!^r, HAIU)COVERi:ALCULA'nON WUKKbllhiiL j ' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 25-500* EXISTTNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000' A. House #• LatgA Width r/^ B. Cange C. Driveway e • • • e D. Sidewalk fPS f tAHO/Adr E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X 94d X X X X X X X X X a. l7t.F.©(p.f #— 7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 7.0S^ + B 2CJO •<727 X100 - 47X7 <9. T7 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House L*n|th Width B. Cange C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . A ‘ ^ B . 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. S.F. S.F. % •• • • X100 •* .S.F. S.F. S.F. ]S.F. SJ. S..'. ’S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.• S.F. S.F. y. E rr V • A B A B V ' ■ . • *•• • w* w • Ht/trz HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Existing hardcover in rhNg 0-75'75-250 250-500*500-1000* A. House Length Width jCjL4__s.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway b. Sidewalk X X “ E. Pali X X F. Lan^ape Underlain By Plastic X X X l^OOO /(T. 4<X/U/ G. Other 1*7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B /7<7/X 100 PROPOSED HARDTOVER IN 7.0MP. A. House ____________ X Length Width •X . X X B. Garage 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 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /(€S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /7C>/ S.F. S.F. 47. KS % 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. i.p. S.F.- S.F. S.F. % A B V. :h A B (nSTv«C PATK) DA % i.r- * '1 t>. »' run OUT tnsTwc WAU. TO UATCM NCW 2i6 rRAMCD WAOS •i CnST»fC SM«R NCW VAHIlt OPTiONAI rCAt. 7640 MNOOW WITH tCACSr ATCAUCU / I s» ■ ^KC-PtuMS rop LAON AS SHOWN %• •V. .* 6 (’■ ■ ' \ / ' 1 .. ■’•- I- 3*2 ruRRMC AS STAMS 5/r TYPC S»€CTROCA ON C0WUd«4 wall ANO aiiNC CANT nw jsf 2-0 ASOVt roR r-|>L CMASC piAa custmc wnoow WlM rCA2.20J0 Notts AU OOCVS A •HOO«S liMtO ARC Nl« Au DwpNSiONS ARf 10 ac »CiO vfiwrcoAIIO BAUD orr or COlCXtiONS Ifi V r\ f> I X 0)"m? Q“ 5 3 o ♦ % JM r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 3,1997 Item No.:7 Department Approval: Name: Michael P.Gaflfron Title: Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Spring Hill Golf Club: Approve Wording of Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Distribution List of Exhibits A - "An Introductoiy Overv iew of the Program" -Excerpt from Guide to the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program B - "The EAW Process" - Excerpt from "EAW Guidelines - Guidance and Information for the Preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets" C - EAW Mandatoiy' Category excerpt - Agriculture and Forestry D - Spring Hill Golf Club Project Schedule E - Resolution #3831 Designating Orono as RGU F - Draft EAW and Appendices Overview The Minnesota Environmental Review Program requires governmental agencies to go through a standardized, public process designed to disclose information about the environmental effects and ways to avoid or minimize them for certain types and magnitudes of projects. The two levels of review are the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and the less rigorous Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which is intended to screen projects which "may have the potential for significant environmental effects" to determine if they actually do; if the answer turns out to be 'yes', then an EIS is required. If the answer is 'no', then the City's and other agencies' normal review and permitting processes may continue. The EAW process uses a standardized list of questions in a worksheet format to disclose the necessary information to screen the project for significant environmental effects. The Spring Hill Golf Club project falls under a mandatory EAW category because it involves the "permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural, forest, or naturally vegetated land to a more intensive, developed land use". February 3,1997 Spring Hill EAW Page 2 Process The City of Orono is the Responsible Go\ emment Unit (RGU) for this EAW. The process involves the following steps: 1. Project proposer supplies RGU with data necessar>* for completion of the EAW. 2. RGU prepares the EAW (for the Spring Hill project, the City has requested that the proposer ’s consultant prepare drafts of the EAW documents for City review, revision and approval). 3. RGU distributes EAW to the En’ ironmental Quality Board (EQB) and to a list of EQB-specified reviewers. EQB publishes a summary of the EAW in the EQB Monitor . RGU sends a press release to local newspaper announcing availability of the EAW, and makes copies available to any enquirers. 4. 30-day comment period commences on date of EQB Monitor publication. The City can also be a commenter during this period. 5. RGU responds to comments received and makes a decision on the need for an EIS based on the information presented in the EAW, comments received and responses. RGU and other regulatory bodies mav require modifibations to the project to mitigate environmental impacts disclosed through the EAW proce ‘s. Exhibits A and B provide a more thorough overview of this process. Exhibit D, Spring Hill Golf Club's proposed schedule, suggests the following timeframe for this process: February 10 February (14) February 24 March 26 April 25 May 2 - Orono Council approves EAW for distribution - Deadline for next EQB submittal - EAW published in EQB, start of 30-day comment period - EAW comment period ends - 'Worst case' response completion by RGU - Formal Notice of Decision If Council concludes on February 10 that the EAW as drafted is complete and accurate, the EAW should be approved by Council for distribution. If Council concludes the EAWmust be revised prior to distribution, Council may either table this until the February 24 meeting for review and approval of the revisions, or may approve it subject to specific revisions being completed prior to forwarding to the EQB. February 3, 1997 Spring Hill EAW Page 3 Staff Review of EAW Copies of the draft EAW and appendices were submitted to staff the week of Januar>^ 21-24. Staffs first chance to review this was at a meeting with Marshal Braman of Schoell and Madson, Inc, (Spring Hill’s consultants) on Monday, January- 27. Loren Kohnen, Medina's staff representati^'e, was also in attendance. We reviewed the 18-page EAW line by line, with staff providing an initial reaction to the wording and conclusions suggested by Braman. Note that the EAW document included in your packet rather massive because it contains many appendices; the EAW itself is only 18 pages in lel.;^l^. As of this writing staff has had a chance to further review the EAW document and would make the following comments or suggestions: Items 1 thru 8: These are factual statements about the nature and magnitude of the project. Item 9: Staff agrees with the description of current and recent land use as well as the statement that the use is m. accordance with the Orono Comprehensive Plan, specifically with CMP Rural Land Use Policy 2 which states "Orono’s rural service area provides the opportunity for quasi-agricultural land uses. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reser\ es are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties." Item 10: These are facts regarding 'before' and 'after' acreages of cover types. Item 11: The fisheries information was supplied by the DNR for Long Lake. It should be noted that the Spring Hill site ultimately drains to Long Lake and though it is near Lydiard Lake, does not drain to Lydiard. Item 11 also lists wildlife types found near the site, and and notes the anticipated impacts on wildlife. This item also identifies the site's proximity to the two Big Woods Scientific and Natural Areas (Wolsfeld and Wood-Rill). The comment that indicates 'The golf course design avoids big woods impacts to the degree practical" makes a factual statement based on the proposed use, and should not be construed as a conclusion that the City accepts the impacts. Item 12: This item makes factual statements about the e.xtent of proposed physical impacts on water resources, and includes data about Long Lake. Item 13: This item makes factual statements about the expected water use related to the golf course construction and operation. Item 14: This item makes factual statements regarding water-related regulatory districts affecting the project site. February 3, 1997 Spring Hill EAW Page 4 Item 15; This item confirms there are no impacts to numbers of watercraft on any waterbody as a result of the project. Item 16: This item provides soils infomiation from the Hennepin County Soil Survey. Item 17: This item details the extent and magnitude of excavation on the site, notes the steep slope areas, and indicates Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be in effect. Council should note that all soil exca\ated on the site will stay on the site, hence there should be minimal impact from truck traffic on area roads during construction. Item 18: This section on surface water quality provides factual information about the watersheds impacting and potentially impacted by the project. The text reflects the significant amount of stormwater modelling, nutrient budget analysis and design detail that has gone into this project in order to meet City and MCWD standards for stormwater runoff quality. Item 19: This item provides information about the intended use of septic systems for the clubhouse, maintenance facility and rest station. Item 20: This item discusses potential sources for groundwater contamination at the site. Item 21: This item provides infomiation about solid wastes, hazardous wastes and storage tanks associated with the project. % Item 22: This item provides an analysis of traffic impacts based on the intended level of use of the golf course. Staff has discussed with applicants representatives on a number of occasions the City's concerns regarding the proposed access to Spring Hill Road and discontinuation of the County Road 6 access. Staff concurs that the traffic volumes generated by the proposed relatively low level of use as a private exclusive golf club, will not require the creation of new road corridors outside the site, nor will it require the expansion of existing road corridors. The City has. however, identified related roadwav concerns as follows; - The condition of the existing road surface of Spring Hill Road is poor, and upgrading that road may involve a total reconstmction of portions of it. The impact of construction traffic and the long term impact of golf course traffic on the condition of Spring Hill Road are as vet unknown. - The City has a long-standing concern about the safety of the Tamarack/County Road 6 intersection, and addition of a golf course maintenance facility near that intersection will not only generate additional traffic at that location but may have an impact on the future ability to reconstruct the intersection if, for instance, additional right of way is needed in the future for turn lanes; likewise, if the vertical alignment of County Road 6 must be lowered in the February 3,1997 Spring Hill EAW Page 5 future, the elevation of the proposed tunnel under County Road 6 may be a factor in accomplishing that. While these two concerns may be significant in the City's variance/CUP review process, it may be arguable whether they are 'environmental concerns' in the context of the EAW. Staff feels the wording of the EAW is acceptable as-is, but if Council feels otherwise, the above concerns could be added to the EAW. Item 23: This item indicates that impacts on overall air quality are expected to be minimal. Item 24: This item confirms there will be no stationary' source emissions. Item 25: This item defines the anticipated impact of noise, dust and odors during construction and after construction is completed. Item 26: This item identifies and details the two areas of archaeological importance which were identified through the Phase I Archaeological sur\ey conducted at the site. It also notes that there are no prime or unique farmlands on the site. This item further states that there are no designated parks, recreation areas or trails on or inclose proximity to the site. It should be noted that the Orono Park Commission in 1990 adopted a proposed Bike/Hike Trail Plan which includes a trail corridor along Spring Hill Road from East Long Lake Road northwestward to County Road 6 and westward. Further, the City of Medina has indicated they may request a trail easement on the east side of Tamarack as part of this project. The Park Commission’s Plan has not been formally adopted as an amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan but may be in the near future. Council should discuss whether disclosure of the proposed trail route should be added to the EAW. This may also be an appropriate section to again note the proximity of the site to Wolsfeld and Wood-Rill SNA's, although that is already noted in Item 11. Item 26 also indicates there are no "scenic views and vistas" at the site. The EAW Guidelines describe such features as including "spectacular viewing points along lakes, rivers or bluffs; virgin timber tracts; prairie remnants; geologic features; waterfalls; specimen trees; plots of wildflowers; etc." Staff is unaware of any such features of local or statewide interest at this site. Item 27: This item indicates no adverse visual impacts will be created by this project. Although the proposed location of maintenance facilities will place a rather large pole building type structure at a location that is very visible from neighboring roadways and properties, and although the character of portions of the site will likely change slightly from 'woods and fields’ to a more manicured February 3, 1997 Spring Hill EAW Page 6 appearance, these are not the degree of impacts envisioned by the EQB. The EAW guidelines for 'Visual Impacts’ state: "Describe any non-routine impacts which may be due to the emission of light from the project or due to a 'visual nuisance' caused by the project. An example of a light emission project would be especially intense lights creating a glare problem for posing motorists. Examples of'. visual nuisance' would be lights on tall communications towers intruding on the visual integrity ofa scenic vista, or a very large water vapor plume from an exhaust stack or cooling tower." Item 28: This item indicates that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans and zoning of the Cities of Orono and Medina. Item 29: This item indicates that no new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services will be required off-site to sen'e the project. The EAW guidelines lead staff to the conclusion that the connection between Spring Hill’s additional use of Spring Hill Road and the potential need to reconstruct that road due to its poor condition, is not necessarily an impact that is required to be noted in the EAW. However, as noted previously. Council may wish to discuss whether a notation regarding this infrastructural improvement should be included in the EAW. Item 30: This item discusses the potential cumulative impacts of the golf course project related to the anticipated development of the surrounding area. Item 31: This item notes there are no other environmental impacts which have not been adtfressed. Item 32: This item summarizes the issues. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends acceptance of the text of the EAW for publication. Council should give special attention to Items 22,26 and 29, and determine whether additional text should be added to the EAW. Proposed motion: Moved by ___, seconded by ___to accept the text of the Spring Hill Golf Club EAW and direct staff to forward the EAW to the Environmental Quality Board for publication and proceed with the EAW process. Vote:___ayes,___nays. imii 2 A An Introductoiy Overview of the Program The Minnesota Enviiaimemal Review Program is authorized by Minn. SoL, section 116D.04 and 1 16D.04S. and jpcififyl in detail in the administrative rules adopted by the EQB found at Mina Rules, pans 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. The function of this program is to avoid and minimize damage to Minnesota’s environmental resources ctmswi by public and private development The program does this by requiring that prc^nsed actions wl^h have or may have the potential for significant environmental effects undergo qo^cial review procedures in aldition to whatcva approvals and perrruts they otherwise need; these special procedures are intended to rii«rVw infonnation so that the potential environmental impacts of a proposal can be assessed and ways to minimize or avoid any significant impacts can be identified The program rules assign a particular unit of government to prepare the review. Usually, this unit is the one with the greatest re^ronsibility for sipervising or approving the projecL This unit is termed the RGU * the "Responsible Governmental UniL" Persons unfamiliar with the program are often surprised that the RGU is the same unit most re^xsnsible for the approval or carrying out of the project. This is because they misunderstand the nature of tire program • they expect that the program is intended to give some “impartial” unit of government the authority to rcNiew and overturn decisions by other units which may have environmental effects. In fact, the ptogra.m does not give any unit any review authority over the decisions of another unit, and funhetmote, the program does not involve any sort of approval or disajproval of the development itself. Environmental review simply requires the RGU to go through a standardized, public pocess designed to^ disclose infatmation about environmental effects and ways to avoid or minimize them. The program has no authority of its own to require that anything be done about any environmental effects disclosed, no matter how significant It is left to other regulatory authorities of local, state, arvl federal agencies to imjdement the protection measures identified in the environmental review. In short, environmental review is a source of infoanation ard must be integrated with odier permitting and {pptoval processes in oda to acocdly protect the environment Two different review procedures are used in this program: the Envoronmental Impact Statement, or EfS and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, a EAW. The EIS is a ihorou^ study of the environmental impacts of the project along with a comparative analysis of the environmental, economic, and sociological impacts of the project and reasonable alternatives to the project, including the “no-build ” alternative; the EIS must also thoroughly analyze mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts. When completed, the EIS gives units of government the information they need to detemnine whether the project is environmentally acceptable and what mitigation measures need to be imposed. The EIS is reserved for projects with “the potential for significant environental effects.” Usually, about 10 to IS am required each year. The second level of review is the EAW. Tltis review procedure is intended to screen projects which “may have the potential for significant environmental effects” to determine if they actually do; if the answer turns out to be “yes,” then an EIS must also be prepared. As the “worksheet” part of the name inplies, the EAW -1 ri» >«sv uses a standanlized list of questions in wodesheet formal lo disclose the necessary information to screen die pn^t for significant environmental effects. The EAW is always subject to a 30-day puUic review period before a decision is made by the RGU about whether the impacts warrant an EIS. UaiaDy, about 150 EAWs are required each year. What Projects Require EISs or EAWs? Rerymements for mandatory preparation of an EIS or EAW on certain types and sizes of projects are set fiarth in the EQB’s niles. These requirements are reprinted in the final chapter of this guide. AnHSisalso necessary when ordaed as a result of an EAW review on a project An EAW can also be initiaied at the discretion of a unit of government and requested by a group of a least 25 citizens, as described in the chapter on discretionaiy EAWs and petitions. Limitations on the Applicability of the Environmental Review Program Envnonmental review ^lc., preparation of an EAW or EIS) can ^ly to any action a aedviy that meets three conditi^ 1. The action or activity must take place in the future - ie.. actions or acth/itUs which have alrecdy taken place are not subject to this progrtmi 2. The action or activity must involve the physical manipulation efthe environment, dSreedy or indirectly; actions and activities which do so are termed "project^' under this program (as defined at 4410J0200, subp.65). 3. The action or activity must involve at least one governmental approval or one form cf governmental financial assistance, or be a project conducted by a unit of government; such actions and activities are termed “governmental actionf' under this program (as d^ined at part 4410D200. subp. 33). The d^inuion cf “permit' at 4410D200, subp. 58 lists exan^es of the various types rfopprmals and financial assistance which qualify a project for inclusion under this program. Approvals or asdstance by, and projects qf, federal agencies are included under this program Further details on the limitadons of the applicability of this program to certain actions are set forth in the rules a part 4410.4600, subp. 2. the "standard exemptions;” these are also presented in the final chapter of tfiis guide. Once review has been completed on a project, no further review is necessary on that project unless the cimmstances ^ified a either part 4410.1000, subp. 5 or 441OJO00 occur in the future. Unless the ^Kdfied dicumstances occur, the project is exempt fiom further review even if implementation of the pojeci is delayed for many years. The Effect of Environmental Review Requirements on the Approval and Construction of a Project Whenever environmental review is required, whetfier because of a mandatory EAW a EIS requitement or of a disciedonary decision by a unit of government iha review is needed, a whenever a valid citizens petition is filed witfi the EQB, a moratorium is automatically placed on approNal of Die project and MMM 3 •HIM 4 aiso on tte ininatkii c£ consttuction on the projea This tnocaiorium is set forth in the statutes, at NQnn. StaL, section 116Dj04,subd 2b (1988). Tbe chtpter of this gukle titfcd‘Prohibitions on Govcmrncntal Approvals aid Constroction Until After Review is Con^detecT explains this moratorium in decuL After review has been con^deted, the infamation disclosed in the EAW a EIS process is to be used in guiding the approval and permitting processes. At What Stage in a Project's Planning Should Environmeiual Review be Initiated? As a general rule, environmental review should be initiated as soon as practicable. This usually depends upon when the proposer is certain enough about the baw features of the project so that a thorough project description can be written doi^u The EQB advises project proposers to inform the RGU of the impending project as soon as the project coneqx and proposed location are knov,-n. Eady consultation can help clarify wliat information will be needed 10 initiaiB environmental review and in some cases may suggest modiScations in the project or location that can avoid potential difBculdes and streamline the review. 'When review is disoetionaiy. it must be initialed prior to the granting of all necessary qiprovals, a the project is exempt Who Is Responsible for What in Environmental Review? Rut 4410.0400 speciSes the general re^nnsibllities of the various parties in environmental review. Baacaily, these can be sununarized as fdUows: 1. Project proposers: must supply reasonably mailable information needed for preparation of EAWs and ElSs a/d must pay the reasonable costs of the RGU for preparing an EIS (required by pix 4410.6O(X3). 2. RGUs: must prepare EAWs and EISs when required by EQB rules; must verify accuracy of EAWs and EISs; and must comply with the tim^ames cf the EQB rules. 3. EQB: must adopt the rules for the program, monitor their effeedveness, and revise as appropriate; and must provide technical assistance in the interpretation and application of the rules. Appeals of RGU Decisions Pursuant to Minn. StaL, section 116D.04, subd. 10 (1988), an appeal of any decisions of an RGU about the need fa an EAW a EIS a the adequacy of an EIS must be made in the district court of the county in which the project would take place. The EQB is NOT an appeal body and cannot review a decision of an RGU. (Note, howeva, that under part 4410J2800, the EQB can take over the EIS adequacy decision for an EIS under certain circumstances. In addition, the EQB may initiate judicial review of environmental decisions by RGUs a may intervene in any proceeding brought under Minn. Scat, section 116D.04, subd. 10 (1988).) I Notes on Timeframes in &e Rules TT» Meanino of “DAY". RGUs must be aware that the word “da/* can mean either calendar day or woddng dtqr depending on the number of “days" listed. If the text lists IS a fewer "days,” the meaning is working days. If the text lists 16 or more “days." the meaning is calendar days. This is based on the definition of "day" at part 4410.0200, subpL 12. Thus, if die text gives a timefiame of 5,10, or 15 days for a '^ipc event, it means woddng days, whereas dmefiames of 20.25.30. or more days mean calendar days. Working days exclude Saturdays. Sundays, and legal state holidays. How to Oort a Period ofTlme. The definition of‘‘day” at part 4410.0200. subpc 12 indicates thatihe day any period of time b^ins is not counted but that the final day of the period is counted. For instance, if a notice of a review period appears in the EOB Monitor on a Monday, the first day ends on Tuesday, the second on Wednesdriy, etc. The time period ends at the erxl of normal business hours (generally taken to be 4:30) on the final day of the period. The definition of **day" also indicates that no time period c^ end on a .Saturday. Sunday, cr legal state hdSday. Ihus, if a period of time would end on a weekend, it actually runs to the end of the following Monday (unless, of course, this is a Monday holiday). The most fiequent time period which occurs in the program is die 30 (calendar) day EAW comment period. These fi^gin on the date of publication of the EQB Monitor, which is always a Monday. Thirty days fiom a Monday always foils on a Wednesday, so EAW comment periods end on Wednesda>s (unless this day should be a legal holiday). • Mill 5 The EAW Process This chapter provides an overview of the complete EAW { EQB rules themselves, and should not be used as such. • |«It is not intended as a substitute for the The EAW is deSned by st^ statute to be a “brief document whidi is designed to set out the hw tacts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed acdoa” The purpose of the EAW process is to disclose information about potential environmental impacts of the project The EAW process is not an iqrptDval process. The infannaiion disclosed in the EAW process has two finctions; (I) it is used lo determine whether an EIS is needed; and (2) it indicaies how the projea can be modiSed to lessen its environmental impacts — such modifications may be imposed as permit conditions by regulatory agencies. The infionnatkn disclosed comes fiom three sources: (1) the EAW itself; (2) comments received on the EAW; and (3) le^mses made to comments received on the EAW. However, the EAW itself is generally the most imponant source of infotmatioa The EAW ptwess invohes four m^jor steps: Step 1 - The proposer of the projea supplies data necessary for the completion of the EAW to the Re^xirsiWe Governmental Unit (RGU). Step 2 * The RGU prepares the EAW. Step 3 - 30-day public comment period Step 4 • The RGU te^xxrds to the comments received and makes a decisicn on the need for an EIS based on the EAW, comments received, and the responses to foe comments. The RGU and other units of government may require modifications to the projea to midgaie environmental impacts as disclosed through the EAW process. A flow' chart of the EAW process is shown in an accompanying figure. When is an EAW Required? An EAW is required for any projea listed in foe “mandatory EAW categories ” of the EQB rules, at parts 4410.4300. (Tfiese mandaiorv cateiories are also found in the EOB's booUet Guide trt iha Rules. 1 An EAW is also requited whenever a unit of government with approval authority over foe project determines that an EAW should be prqxited because available evidence indicaies that the projea “may have foe potential lor significant environmental efTeos.” Usually, such a disoetionaty decision to require an EAW is made in reqxxise to a citizens* peddon filed under EQB rule part 4410.1100. An EAW is also prepared as the first stq> in the review process when an EIS is required for a project. In these cases, the EAW serves to describe foe projea and its environmental setting for purposes of soofdng the EIS. MMM 3 mm 4 Prohibition on Governmental Approvals and Project Construction imtil the Environmental Review Process is Completed Whenever an EAW is tnandaoy or has been onlered, the project may not be started and no final govemmencal decision to grant a permit, approve the project, v begin the projea may be made until either the RGU determines that no EIS is necessary a the EIS has been detennined adequate (Minn. Slat., sec. 116DD4, subd. 2b (19S8)). In this usage, the wqrI “fiinar’ has the meaning ‘'not lo be altered or undone ” rather than the meaning 'last in time;’* therefore, the piohibiiion on final governmental decision covers any step in a multi-step approval process if that step conveys rights lo the proposer and is not subject to funher review or change by the governmental uniL Examples include preliminary approvals (these pant certain rights under Minnesota bw), final {to approvals, conditional use pennits. and may include zoning decisions if associated with a specific project and oonoqx plan approval if development rights ate conveyed by the tpproval mder the ^Ikabie zoning ordinances. Additional information r^atding this prohibition, including conditional approvals condngent on environmental review, is presented in the booklet Guide to the Rules, available fiom the EQB. How is it Detennined What Governmental Unit is the RGU? EQB rules assign responsibility for preparing the EAW and determining the need for an EIS to a sprdfic unit of government called the ‘Ticsponsible Governmental Unif ’ or “RGU." The RGU is generally the unit with the greatest responsibility for appoving or sqxrvising the project Rv mandatay EAWs, the mandatory category in the EQB rules assigns the RGU. For citizen petitions, die EQB Chair designates the RGU. If a unit of government orders an EAW on its own initiative, it becomes the RGU. A state agency is always tte RGU for projects it will conduct itself. ^ Who Prepares the EAW and Who Pays for Its Costs? Pteparadon of the EAW is coveted in mote detail in the following chapter, but briefly, the project pripwf is required to supply any data a information requested by the RGU which is in his or her possession or to which he or she has reasonable access, while it is the duly of the RGU to complete the fona The environmental review .statutes and rules ate silent on the question of costs, ho'vever, local units of government fitequently have enacted ordinances which allow them to charge poposers for at least some of their EAW cost^ In the majori^ of cases, these costs are relatively small Tlie 3C-Day Comment Period The public comment period begins on the date that the EQB staff publishes notice of the availability of the EAW in Ae EQB Monitor, a biweekly publication of the EQB. The EQB staff places a notice in the Monitor iqxDn rece^ of the completed EAW fiom the RGU. ' 1 EAW Process RGU detBtniines HAW is necessaiy RGU prqares HAW (proposer sqii^es ^secessaiy daA) RGU approves EAW for distnbution RGU sends EAW to disaibdion list RGU issues press release Notice published in EQB Mdniior 7 to 21 days after leoe^ of EAW 30 day ootnmem period (starts at EQB Monitor publicadondaie) 30 day comment period ends RGU decides if project needs EIS and responds to comments RGU distributes notice of decision Notice publi^ied in EQB 7 to 21 days after recaptof deason vanes Oqr ban bidoit a ptM cT tea bi alikk anacteimay 110 5 woridng di^ 1 to 5 woddng dt^ 7 to 21 rat»ivtar 30 calendar days 3 woddng ds^^ to 30 days* 1 to S woddng days 7 to 21 calendar days iiim •can vary depending on RGU 5 IIMM 6 At tie same dme that EAW is disoribidBd K> the EQB staff, cxipies must also be sent by the RGU to the points on the official distributiGn list establi^ied by EQB. (Because the names and add-esses on this list change quite frequendy, this list is published separately from the EAW Guidelines.) Ihe RGU must send a press release (not a paid legal notice—that is optional) to at least one newspaper of general diculaiiaa in the area of the projea announcing the a\'ailability of the EAW. The RGU must make copies a\ailable for public review at tq^propriaie locadons. Upon wrioen request, any person must be fomi^Nd with a copy of the EAW; the RGU may charge the person for copying costs, however. During the comment period, anyone who wishes lo may review and commertt on the EAW. Comments must be submitted to the RGU within the 30-day period. The RGU may hold puUic meetings, at its discretion, to obtain verbal comments. Comments on an EAW may address the accuracy and completeness of the material; iXXendal impacts that warrant fonher investigation before the project is commenced; and the need for an EIS. Typically, only some of the agencies drat receive copies of the EAW will comment on the EAW, dqrending on v^duch agencies have jurisdiction and expertise related lo the potential impacts of the project and on the magnitude of the impacts. Response to Comments and the Decision on the Need for an EIS. The RGU is to make a decision on the need for an EIS between 3 wxxking days and 30 calendar days after the close of the 30-day comment period, unless the decision will be made by a single individual rather than by a board or ooundL (Decisions by single individuals must be made vnthin 15 worUng days, unless the EQB Char authorizes up to a IS woiidng day eaension.) Howeva, if the RGU detennines that certain infotmation cridcal to the EIS decision is lacking, it may postpone the decision for up to 30 days to allow for the gathering of that informaiioa « The decision on dre need for an EIS must be made in conformance with part 4410.1700 of the EQB's rules. The standard to be ap(^ is as follows: ‘An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for signiftcant environmental effects.” (Subpan 1) *Tn deciding whether a project has the potential ftr signiftcant environmental effects the RGU diall compare the impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur ftom the projea with the criteria ”: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or andcipated fooire projects; C. The extent to which environmental effects are subjea to midgadon by otigoing public regulatory authority, and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the projea proposer, or of ElSs previoudy i" (Subparts 6 and 7) The RGU must apply the standard and criteria to the factual infotmation contained in the EAW, the comments received on the EAW, and responses to the comments. The informadon and reasoning relied upon in reachiitg the decision must be documented in a written record sipporting the decision containing “specific findings of ( Ikt Aspart of ihispcc'xss the RGU must make specific written responses 10 all subsiandve and timely comments received on the EAW (and provide the responses to those who submitted the comments). There is no qaecific fomriat that must be used for the record of dedsioa It may be a ^jecially pepaied document a a section of the minutes a other dcxtiment routinely prqiared by the RGU. The important thing is that there be evidence that the RGU look a “hard k»k" at each reasarably likely cnviionrnental tffea as disclosed by the EAW and oomments, drew a reasonable conclusion sijout the significance of e^ effect based on the fects disclosed and the four criteria cited above, and made a reasonable overall cortlusion about the potential of the project for significant environmental effects. One way to organize the findings of &ct in the record of decision would be to follow the Oder in which the various environmental effects are tinted in the EAW form. Doiay of dsdstonsj IlSUfRciSfll infofmslion. Subpart 2a of4410.1700 provides that the RGU may delay the EI*5 need decisior> in the event that it determines that “information necessary to a reasorred decision ab out the potenda! fa, a significance of, one a more possible environmental impacts is laddng, but could be leasonaUy obtained.” It is intended that the decision be dela>ed onfy if the missing informadon is Imponant to the EIS need decision. In other words, the lest fa deIa>Tng the decision requires more than just missing information the missing inforr^on must liave the potential to sway the EIS need decisioa If, in the RGlTs judgemenu the lacking informadon is na cridcal tc the FIS need dccHon, the EIS need decision should na be delayed to gather the informadon; rather, the informadai should be obtained later as part of some appropriate permitting process. U watld be appropriate fa the record of decision on the need fa ite EIS to indicate what the lacking information is and how it will be obtained and used. The rules allow that the EIS need ck cision be delayed la ip to 30 dajs to allow fa gathering rK adcfidonal informadoa Appeal of the RGU'S Decision The decision of the RGU lodoanatodoanElScanbe appealed by filing an appeal in die District Court fa the county where the project would take place. According to the EQB rules, this qipeal must be filed within 30 days of the notice of the decision in the EQB Monimr howwi, according to the qatutc (U6DD4, subd. 10), it mu'* be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision. There is no administrative appeal process fa an RGU s decistoi (e.g„ the EQB has no jurisdiction over an RGUs decision). IMMI 7 lIMM 52 Mandatory EAW Category Mandatory BS Category Wetlands and Protected Waters (continued) * C' Exemption wauriUUs, or spaiurdocki may occur. Theu dttp manhts may almost compliUly fill shallow lakg basins, potholds, lirmstons sinks, and sloughs, or thsy may bordsr open waUr in such dcprusions. U% *p frtsh marshes constituli the best breeding habitats in the country, and they are also important feeding places. Tjpt 5-lnUnd Open Frtsh Witer. Shallow ponds and reseryoirs are included in this type. Water is usually less than JO feet deep and is fnnged by a border of emergent vegetation. Vegetation (mainly at water depths less than 6 feel) includes pondweeds, naiads, wildcelery, cooniail, waterrmlfoils, muskgrasses, waterlilies, and spatterdocks. Type 5 areas are used extensively as brood areas when, in midsummer and late summer, the less permanent marches begin to dry out. The borders of such areas are used for nesting. Where vegetation is plentiful, they are used as feeding and resting areas by ducks, geese, and coots, especially during the migration period. ^^•Ur-rtlaCtd land use management district" is defined in the notes for the Indusoial / Commercial / Institutional categories. Agriojfture'and Forestry'^Pro/eefs whichyvould change land use) 4410.4600, subp. 18 A. Harvesting of dmber for maimeninoe pur* poses. B. Public and pcivate forest manafement pric* tioes, ocher than ciearcunin| or the application of pesticides, that involve less than 20 acres of land. 4410.4300, subp. 28 None A. Harveidng of timber for oommerdal pur poses on public lands within a state park, hisorical area, wfldemess area, sdentific and narunl area, wild and scenic rivers distiict, the Miimesou River Project Riverbend area, the Missiuippi beadwaten area, or critical area that 6m not hive an approved pUn under Mirmesou Sucuies. section 86A.09 or 116G.07. (DNR) B. A dearcuning of 80 or more contiguous acres of forest, any part of which is located within a shoreland area and within 100 feet * of the ordinary high w iter mark of the lake or river. (DNR) C Pkojecu resulting in the conversion of 640 or more acres of forest or nitunlly vegeuted land to a differing open space land use. (Local) D.Projecu resulting in the permanent conver sion of 80 or more acres of agricultural, forest, or narunlly vegeiaied land to a more tnieofive, devdo^ land use, except that ihii item Oues not apply to agricultural land inside the boundary of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area esublished by the Metropohiia Coundl (Lcx:al) ■ MM m "Open qpace land use" means a use particularly oriented to and using the outdoor character of an area including agriculture, campgrounds, parks, and recreation areas. "Permanent conversion" means o change in use of agricultural, naturally vegetated, or forest lands that impairs the ability to convert the land back to Us agricultural, ratu-^al, or forest capacity in the future. It does not include changes in management practices such as conversion to parklands, open space, cr natural areas. Decs, 1996 Dec 12 Dec 20 Jan 3,1997 Jan 6 Jan 10 Jan 15 Jan 24.12:00 Feb 4 Feb 6 Feb 10 Feb 11 Feb % H Feb 18 Feb 24 Feb 27 SPRING HILL GOLF COURSE PROJECT SCHEDULE DECEMBER 13.1996 SMI provides aerial topography with wetland boundaries to Fazio, Fazio starts concept grading plan. Neighborhood meeting to present concept plan. Fazio provides site plan and concept grading and drainage plan to SMI. Meetings with Medina and Orono city staffs and engineers to present plan and obtain comments SMI provides earthwork analysis and review comments to Fazio. Schedule project team meeting if required. Preliminary plan submittal deadline - Medina. Submit EAW to Medina and Orono Preliminary submittal to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Preliminary plan submittal deadline - Orono. Submit wetland permit applications to agencies. - Medina City Council Meeting - Approval of EAW Formal submittal deadline - MCWD. Neighborhood meeting to present preliminary plan Orono City Council Meeting - Approval of EAW Medina Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing Submit City-approved EAW to EQB for publication Orono Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. EAW publication date, start of 30-day comment period. MCWD meeting. t Mar 4 Mario Mar 11 Mar 26 Apr 15 Apr 25 May 2 May 16 Jun 1 Medina City Council Meeting - project approval (based on Feb. 11th Planning Commission approval). Orono City Council Meeting - project approval (based on Feb. 18th Planning Commission approval). - Start preparation of construction plans and bid documents. EAW comment period ends. Start response to comments - 3 to 30 days. Receive wetland alteration permit approval (approximate date). Begin bid soliciting for site grading. Complete response to EAW comments - worst case. Notice of decision on EAW. Grading permit can be issued. Receive bids for golf course grading. Start site grading. 1 • a* . CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _38S 1 __ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DESIGNATION AS •RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT UNIT' FOR PURPOSES OF THE SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET WHEREAS, the proposed development of the Spring Hill Golf Club requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and WHEREAS, the property involved in the Spring Hill Golf Club project is located in the cities of Orono and Medina; and WHEREAS, most of the property and all of the buildings will be located in the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, in situations in which more than one governmental unit is involved, one governmental unit must be designated as the 'Responsible Government Unit’ (RGU) for the purposes of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet; and W'HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Medina has agreed to the designation of the City of Orono as the 'Responsible Government Unit' for purposes of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet with respect to the Spring Hill Golf Club. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby agrees to the designation of the City of Orono as the 'Responsible Government Unit' for puiposes of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet with respect to the Spring Hill Golf Club. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that ail correspondence and communications with respect to the Environmental As.scssment Worksheet for Spring Hill Golf Club involving the Cit) of Medina shall be directed to Loren Koehnen, and Orono shall keep the City of Medina informed as to the review process. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 13th day of January, 1997. ATTEST: D^ihy M. ^lli^, City Clerk To:Planning Commission Chair Lindquist Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Februar>' 5, 1997 Subject:#2209 Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road - Conditional Use PermitsAi^ariances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District, 2-acre RR-lB-1 One Family Rural Residential Subdistrict, 2-acre Application Summaiy: Spring Hill Golf Club requests conditional use permits for construction of a golf course, club house and maintenance facility on 160 acres of land within the City of Orono located south of County Road 6 and north of Spring Hill Road, and east of Tamarack Drive north of County Road 6. The property is zoned RR-IB and RR-lB-1 Single Family Rural Residential, in which golf courses are allowed via conditional use permit. A conditional use permit is concurrently requested for land alteration involving the movement of approximately 340,000 cubic yards of earth. The application includes variances for alteration of wetlands and bluff impact zones. An additional 48 acres of the golf course will be developed on adjacent property in the City of Medina. All of the proposed buildings are within the City of Orono. An 'oversize accessory structure' variance is also required. The project is subject to a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet review process which is currently underway. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List (Revd. 1-30-97) D - Certificate of Survey (Has Not Been Submitted) E - Existing Site Layout (Provided By Staft) F - Project Narrative G - Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Calculations Narrative/Tables H - Preliminaiy' Construction Plans: Title Sheet & Plan Index Sheet..............................Sheets 1-2 of 11 Grading and Drainage Plan ...................................Sheets 3-5 of 11 Clearing Disturbance and Wetland Mitigation .......Sheets 6-8 of 11 Detail Sheets........................................................Sheets 9-10 of 11 I - Clubhouse Area Site Plan J - Clubhouse Floor Plans K - Clubhouse Elevation Views L - Maintenance Area Site Plan (Excerpt from Sheet 10 of 11) M - Maintenance Building Floor Plans, Elevation Views, Landscape/Screening Plans (Have Not Been Submitted, Partially Discussed in Exhibit F, Page 3) r r Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 2 N - Maint. Building Septic System Design Report (Has Not Been Submitted) O - Zoning Code Excerpts: -Sec. 10.28/29 - RR-IB, RR-IB-1 Zoning District Standards - Sec. 10.20 Subd. 3 - R-1A Golf Course CUP Standards - Sec. 10.09 - Conditional Uses: General Requirements - Orono 1974 Wetland Maps P - City Engineer Comments 2/2/97 Q - Building Official Comments 2/4/97 R - City Administrator Letter 2/3/97 S - Resolution #3822 - Preser\'ation of Natural Vistas T - Letter from E. W. Spencer 1/27/97 U - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Appendices Note: For ease of review, this memo will deal separately with these four related topics: I. Zoning Issues II. Conditional Use Permit Review: Golf Course Use / Long Term Impacts III. CUP & Variances Review: Oversize Accessory Structure; Land Alteration Issues IV. Building Code & Fire Code Issues Note: In many respects this application is incomplete, and some of the information provided is presented in a manner that is difficult to decipher, partly because there is so much detail overlaid onto drawings at a small scale. Missing or unclear items will be noted below in the appropriate review section, typically in bold italics. I.ZONING ISSUES Site Zoning History The site of the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club was first zoned in 1950 for single family residential (SFR) use as part of the North Orono Zoning District. In 1955 this was superceded by establishment of the Northeast Orono District, an SFR district requiring 1-acre minimum lot area. This area was rezoned in 1967 to R-1 A SFR requiring 2-acre minimum lot area. In 1975 the 2-acre zoning district designation was revised to RR-IB Rural Residential and the portion of this site in Section 25 was rezoned RR-lB-1, an RR-IB subdistrict that allows non-profit "study and research centers" as an additional permitted use. Zoning Conformity' Golf courses have been allowed as a conditional use in Orono's single family residential zones since 1967 or earlier. The only specific standard defined in Sec. 10.20, Subd. 3 for the golf course use is f I Zoning File #2209 February 5. 1997 Page 3 a structural setback requirement: Principal structure: Accessor>’ structures: 100’ from any abutting lot in an 'R' district 50' from any lot line The RR-lB-1 allowance for "study and research centers" was established specifically to accommodate the Spring Hill Conference Center which operated from the 1970's thru the early 1990's. Major additions to the buildings on the site were completed in 1984-85. The use of the site as a conference center diminished somew hat in the 1990’s, and in recent years use of the site has included offices of the Freshwater Foundation and regular religious services held by Woodridge Church (which operates under a CUP granted by the City in 1991). While both the RR-IB and RR-lB-1 zoning districts allow golf courses as a conditional use. the City should consider whether zoning of the entire site as RR-IB would be appropriate once the golf course use has been established. Elimination of the possibility of a future "study and research center" use at this site may be prudent given the surrounding low-density residential uses and lack of municipal sewer. The applicants have been advised by staff that such a rezoning is not strictly required by code in order to establish the golf course use, but that such a rezoning may ultimately be in the best long term interests of the City. Issue for Discussion: Should the portions of the Spring Hill site currently zoned RR-lB-1 be rezoned to RR-IB? Legal Combination Required The Spring Hill Golf Course site is comprised of 10 separate tax parcels in Orono and an additional parcel in Medina. Without legal combination, portions of the property could be sold off without the need for City subdivision approval. While the clubhouse appears to be located well within the boundaries of its tax parcel, the maintenance facility just meets the required 50' east side setback from the adjacent golf course parcel, and the proposed maintenance area septic system appears to be in two tax parcels. Combination is also critical in terms of the maintenance facility being accessor\' to the golf course principal use, and applicants choice of a maintenance facility location meeting 50' lot line setbacks, but not meeting the required 100' setback from any other lot in the "R" district (as required for the Coif Course CUP) suggests that applicants clearly consider the maintenance facility as an accessory structure. Staff recommends that the entire golf course property within Orono be legally combined for tax and zoning purposes, or if Henepin County will not allow this, a Special Lot Combination should be executed. Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 4 II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW: GOLF COURSE USE / LONG TERM IMPACTS Zoning Code Section 10.09 indicates that "Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require consideration so they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the Comprehensive Plan and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes, the Council is empowered to grant and to deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of these permits." Establishment of a golf course use on this property has a number of possible long-term impacts which are outlined below. Each of these topics should be considered at least from a conceptual standpoint at the February 17 meeting: 1. Environmental Impacts a. Alteration in character of a bluff (variance required). It is unclear from the plans submitted just what the bluff impacts will be. but there will be some regrading and apparently some tree removal within the bluff impact zones of the bluffs surrounding the old gravel pit at the south center of the property. Plans need to be submitted that provide clarity to the actual bluff impacts that will occur. b. Alteration in size and nature of wetlands ( variance required). Applicant's narrative indicates that 7 of the 17 delineated wetlands in Orono appear on the City's 1974 inventor}' maps, and two of these will be partially filled. Wetland delineations were completed late in 1996 by Schoell & Madson, Inc. and are reported in the EAW appendix C. The plans submitted are difficult to decipher as to the exact location of proposed wetland filling. For instance, proposed NURP basin No. 2 will be created from the southerly portion of delineated wetland #5 which is a City-protcctcd wetland. The NURP detail on Sheet 10 does not define the existing wetland boundary, but from Sheet 4 at a 1"=100' scale it appears that the entire north end of this wetland will be filled to create Fairway #5. This apparently is confirmed on Sheet 7 which shows in a black blob the area of wetland fill. A second area of wetland filling in Orono will occur north of County Road 6 in two strips adjacent to Fairway #7. More filling of wetlands will occur in Medina. The narrative indicates a total of 1.45 acres of wetland will be filled in both Cities. The area of each of the Orono wetlands being filled is not indicated. iMore clarity should be provided as to the actual impact on each wetland. c. Rig Woods alteration, and conversion of woodlots into linear strips (City does not have a tree/woodlot preservation ordinance at this time). The Big Woods impacts are detailed to some extent in the project narrative and in Appendix B of the EAW doeument. The City has adopted a resolution to preserve natural and rural vistas (See Exhibit S). r- Zoning File #2209 Februar>' 5, 1997 Page 5 d. Alteration of wildlife habitat and movement corridors . This is only minimally addressed in the EAW and not addressed to any extent in the submitted information. Applicant has indicated the proposed use will have less impact on wildlife movement than if this property was subdivided into two-acre lots... e. Possible impacts on surface water runoff qualitv/quantitv. especially as it relates to Long Lake. This is addressed in some detail in both the project narrative and the stormwater narrative, and summarized by stalTSection 111 below under Stomiwater Management and Drainage, applicants contend that with proper management practices and the proposed stormwater and irrigation recycling systems in place, the golf course will have less impact than the undeveloped land does currently. Portions of the property are w ithin the defined Shoreland District w ithin 1000' of Long Lake or Lydiard Lake, and therefore are subjeet to Shoreland zoning regulations including hardcover limitations. While it is unlikely that hardcover excesses will occur, applicant should define the various hardcover zones on a certificate of survey and submit hardcover calculation worksheets for the site. f. On-site sentic system usatie. Applicants intend to continue using the existing septic system to serve the new clubhouse use. This system was constructed in 1984 under current code standards, designed to treat a volume of 8.000 gallons per day, w hich is far in excess of the volume e.xpected from the proposed level of golf course use. The maintenance facility is likewise intended to be served by an on-site sewage tratment system. While the site plan indicates a proposed site for a drainfield. no site evaluation report has been submitted, and staff is advised that no soil testing or design work has been done. Absent a complete site evaluation and design, the City has no assurance that the drainfield location as proposed is suitable, and if a dilTercnt location is necessary, this could have impacts on tree removal, the grading plan, etc. Applicants must submit a complete site evaluation before the City can approve the maintenance facility area site plan. g. Groundwater usage . Water supply is not anticipated to be a problem for this site. Applicant will make use of two existing wells for irrigation and clubhouse use, and a new well will be needed for the maintenance facility. h. Storage of fuels and aericultiiral chemicals on site. Fuel storage on the site will apparently occur only at the maintenance facility. An above-ground fuel storage system is proposed, which is in conformance with City requirements for the RR-IB zone. Fuel storage is subject to a number of State regulations as well as City Code Section 9.34 which adopts by reference the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. Applicant has not specifically addressed chemical storage in the materials submitted. Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 6 2. Comprehensive Planning Impacts a. Infrastructure requirements: - Clubhouse access location: Applicants propose to eliminate the current access to County Rd. 6 and establish a new access driveway leading to the clubhouse from Spring Hill Road, about 1/4 mile east of the Spring Hill/East Long Lake Road intersection, just west of North Stream Road. - Maintenance Facility access location: A new access location will be established on Tamarack Drive about 250' north of the County Road 6 intersection. The City Engineer will be reviewing sight distance to determine if tnis is a feasible access location. - Traffic volumes: Applicants project narrative suggests the low level of expected use of the course will yield minimal traffic volumes on local roads. The EAW addresses traffic counts in Appendix D. The nature of traffic at the maintenance site will be 12-15 employees and occasional deliveries. Presumably there will be some deliveries to the clubhouse as well. - Spring Hill Road condition: Tlie condition of the existing road surface of Spring Hill Road is poor, and upgrading that road may involve a total reconstruction of portions of it. The impact of construction traffic and the long term impact of golf course traffic on the condition of Spring Hill Road are as yet unknown. Staffs initial reaction is that the additional use of Spring Hill Road to serve the golf course will result in the life of the current road surface being shortened, and the costs of upgrading the road should in part be borne by the golf course. - Tamn>-fick/6 Intersection: The City has a long-standing concern about the safety of the Tamarack/(?ounty Road 6 intersection, and addition of a golf course maintenance facility near that intersectio-. will not only generate additional traffic at that location but may have an impact on the future ability to reconstruct the intersection if, for instance, additional right of way is needed in the future for turn lanes. The City Engineer and Hennepin County representatives have been asked to look at the need for additonal right-of-way in this area. - City trail system needs: The Orono Park Commission in 1990 adopted a proposed Bike/Hike Trail Plan which includes a trail corridor along Spring Hill Road from East Long Lake Road northwestward to County Road 6 and westward. The intent would be a complete trail connection between Wood-Rill SNA and Wolsfeld SNA. Further, the City of Medina has indicated they may request a trail easement on the east side of Tamarack as part of this Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 7 project. The Park Commission's Plan has not been formally adopted as an amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan but may be in the near future. The Orono Zoning Code allows the City to require dedication of land for park purposes as part of a subdivision, but no such provision exists for Variance/CUP applications. Staff has not determined whether adequate right-of-way exists along Spring Hill Road. Tamarack or 6 for development of a trail without additional easements. - Utility needs, current and future: The City has no municipal sewer/water lines in the area of the golf club and has no intent nor long range plan to extend them to this part of the City. The applicants intend to provide for sewer/water needs via the use of septic systems and we Ms. - Proposed tunnel under County Road 6: Applicants propose to construct a tunnel under Co. Rd. 6 at a location approximately 900* east of the Tamarack/6 intersection. Design detail is on Sheet 10. Hennepin County representatives ha\e been asked to address the potential implications of this design and location on future Co. Rd. 6 reconstruction needs. Maintenance and ownership of tunnel in the Co. Rd. 6 right-of-way are also questions to be dealt with. Also, the Park Commission at their February meeting asked w hether a second tunnel under 6 could be built for a bike/hike trail connection. b. Consideration of alternative site uses: - Compatibility with surrounding;; uses: Based on Orono's Comprehensive Plan, the City’s rural residential zoning districts are appropriate locations for golf courses and similar recreational uses. The alternative pemiitted uses for the site include continuation as a conference center; redevelopment into single-family housing on 2-acre h ts; and use for public parks/playgrounds or municipal buildings. A number of potential conditional uses are allowed in the RR-lB/RR-lB-1 districts. - Comparative impact of potential alternate site uses: The conference center use has been relatively low-key in its impact on the neighborhood, and has not resulted in wholesale expansion of the developed parts of the site. However, long-term conference center use would likely require expansion to be competitive, and would likely need municipal utilities at some point. Development of housing at a 2-acre density would likely have significant impacts on the look of the neighborhood, would certainly result in loss of open spaces enjoyed by area residents and the motoring public, and would likely have negative impacts on wildlife habitat as compared to the proposed golf course use. - Implications of private golf course vs. potential public course: As proposed, the Spring Hill Golf Club is a private course, non-profit, with limited membership, and not driven by the same goals as a for-profit golf course would be. However, there is certainly Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 8 a risk to the City that the course could be sold to a for-profit entity in the future, and the result might be much more play and more and varied activities occurring on the site. It would be in the City's best interest to condition approval on the course continuing as a not- for-profit enterprise, with the ability to require a new CUP if that changes. - Tax base implications: Staff has not researched or attempted to calculate the comparative ta.x base generated by the \ arious possible uses of this property. Some years ago the conference center parcel had been tax exempt and a 'payment in lieu of taxes' was paid to the City each year. However, all parcels within the site are currently taxed. 3. Other impacts a. Archaeological/historical sites: Two areas of archaeological significance were found through a Phase 1 Archaeological Site Sur\ey. This is detailed in the EAW in Appendix E. b. Aesthetic impacts: The project as proposed will result to some extent in a change in character of the existing open space. The plan submitted does not appear to indicate whether fencing at the perimeter of the site is proposed. Additonal visual impacts possibly associated with a golf course adjacent to a busy roadway might include netting, signage, and non- vegetative screening, it is unknown whether any of these are proposed. c. Preservation of open space character, maintaining natural rural vistas: The City Council recently adopted a resolution to preserve the natural and rural type vistas in Orono through the preser\ ation and planting of trees, and the park commission is currently drafting a tree preservation ordinance. Do the plans submitted provide Planning Commission with a sense of whether the City's preservation goals are being met? d. Architectural comp Uihility with surrounding neighborhood: No elevation views of the maintenance facilities have been submitted as of :nis writing, but staff is advised these are underway and forthcoming. The 60' x 160’ mainlenace building is iM located at a site strategically chosen to minimize visual impacts. It is at a fairly open intersection with long views from County Road 6 from cither direction, and visible from adjacent properties. No screening plan has been submitted. This oversize building has potential to be an eyesore if its visual impacts are not adequately dealt with via residential style architecture or adequate screening. Applicant must provide floor plan/elevation views and a landscaping plan for the maintenance facility site to show how the impacts of this building can be minimized. e. Golf course maintenance activity (hours of operation, odors, noise, etc.): llieCity of Orono has 4 other golf courses adjacent to residential neighborhoods, and they have not generated complaints from the surrounding neighborhoods with respect to maintenance activity. Zoning File #2209 Februar}’ 5. 1997 Page 9 f. Golf course amenities: The clubhouse will contain 4 guest rooms as well as kitchea/dining facilities in addition to the locker rooms and other typical operational facilities and offices. Parking facilities for 60 cars would be required by code, and 147 stalls will be provided. Note that the parking lot plan submitted does not match the grading plans submitted. A rest station with toilets and a concession stands is proposed to be located near the Co. Rd. 6 tunnel (north or south of it, depending on which plan sheet you look at). Is this location potentially a problem due to its proximity to 6, for use as a wayside by motorists, or to stop and grab a soft drink? How will it be screened? g. Potential for special events: The large parking area suggests the potential for some type of special events to occur at the site, although applicants note the clubhouse facilities will not be leased out. What other events might occur here, and what are their impacts on traffic and traffic control, noise, etc.? h. Seasonal use: What if any winter acti\ ities might occur at the site? i. Lighting: A lighting plan should be submitted. 111. CUP/VARIANCE REVIEW; OVERSIZE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE; LAND ALTERATION ISSUES Construction of the proposed golf course will require the following City approvals identified by the applicant: 1.Land alteration CUP for excavation and grading in excess of 100 cubic yards (Section 10.03 Subd. 19-21). 2.Variance for filling/grading/excavating within City-protected wetlands and within 26' of wetlands (Section 10.55, Subd. 8). 3. Variance for fill/excavation in a bluff impact zone (Section 10.56 Sub. 16(J)(5)h.). Oversize Accessor>’ Structure Variance To date, stall has found one additional zoning code variance required in regard to the proposed buildings. The proposed 60' x 160' maintenance building footprint area of 9,600 s.f exceeds the allowed individual accessor> structure footprint area of 3,000 s.f. in residential zones, and also Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 10 exceeds the maximum 6,000 s.f. allowed combined footprint area for all accessoiy structures. This will be the largest structure on the site north of County Road 6. A 40’x 20’ building referred to in the narrative is not clearly identifiable on the maintenance facility site plan. There apparently will be additional minor ancillary sheds and/or toilet building(s) also in this area. Staff is viewing the entire golf course proposal as a comprehensive project occurring on one site, hence the maintenance buildings are considered as accessor>' buildings subject to the Oversize Accessory Structure requirements (Section 10.03 Subd. 9(C)). Land Alteration Conditional Use Permit Review - General Conditions The project includes significant moN ement of earth in order to create fainvays, tees and greens . The total cubic yardage of e.xcavation/grading/filling including both Orono and Medina is indicated as 340,000 cubic yards in the EAW. Applicants have indicated they are attempting to balance the cuts and fills within the site so as to minimize the distance material has to be moved. Their goal is to avoid transporting materials on or across area roadways. The result should be a reduction in the construction impacts to the roads and the neighborhood. In addition to the specific wetland and bluff impacts discussed in Section II above, the City is concerned about possible noise, odor, dust and visual impacts during the 2-year construction phase of this project, as well as the potential for erosion and sedimentation associated with the high volume of earth movement expected. The following should be required as general conditions of approval: 1. 2. 3. The City may limit the hours during which grading activity may occur so as not to be a disturbance to the neighborhood. The specific hours should be a point of discussion prior to final resolution approval. Applicant shall take whatever steps arc neccssaiy to minimize odors and dust during the construction process. Given the questionable condition of Spring Hill Road, it would be reasonable and prudent for the City to limit construction traffic to the existing Co. Rd. 6 access. 4. The developer shall maintain local roads in a clean condition. 5. 6. The City shall retain the ability to limit construction traffic on local roads if weather conditions result in an unsafe situation, although most grading work is expected to be completed in the summer months where icy conditions are not a concern. Applicants shall adhere to the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. Applicants have included erosion and sedimentation control measures on their grading plan which will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Zoning File #2209 February 5. 1997 Page 11 Stormwater Management and Drainage Applicants have provided a narrative entitled Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Calculations (please read Exhibit G attached) which has been reviewed by the City Engineer, whose comments are found in Exhibit P. As of this writing, the City Engineer has indicated the proposal conceptually meets stormwater and drainage requirements, but he has asked for additional detailed inlormation in support of the applicants conclusions. Highlights ot the stormwater plan include the following: Three NURP ponds will be developed along Spring Hill Road above the existing culverts. The NURP pond in the south central portion of the site will also be used as an irrigation pond. Water pumped from the well will be first pumped to the pond where it will be mingled with collected runoff, then the mix will be pumped through the irrigation system, allow ing for a recycling of nutrients contained in the runolT water. Nutrient budget anaKsis indicates runoff quality will be improved as compared to existing conditions. Stormwater flow rate modeling indicates the tees, greens and fairways will increase runoff volumes by 120% to 175% over existing conditions, but routing of runolT through the combination of wetlands, mitigation wetlands and NURP ponds is expected to reduce anticipated runoff rates below the existing rates. Existing culverts in Spring Hill Road are expected to be able to handle the 100-year storm flow'. Use of source control and Best Management Practices, including: -Minimal disturbance to natural ruunoff areas during construction -Directing runoff across natural areas to w’etlands -Use of environmentally sensitive course management practices -Integrated Pest Management - apply only as-needed, when-needed The City Engineer as of this writing is still reviewing the stormwater, drainage and site grading plans. He concurs with staflt s assessment that the plans as submitted contain an abundance of detail and are diflicult to interpret. He has asked for additional supporting information (See Exhibit P). IV. BUILDING CODE & FIRE CODE ISSUES Building Official Lyle Oman has reviewed the site plans and preliminary clubhouse building plans Zoning File #2209 February 5, 1997 Page 12 and has determined that both the clubhouse building and the maintenance building will be required to have fire sprinkler systems due to square footage and occupancy classifications (See Exhibit Q). As noted earlier, fuel storage facilities will be required to meet appropriate codes. The Long I.akc Fire Department serv^es this area of Orono and will be requested to review the site plan for both the maintenance facility and clubhouse for any concerns relating to emergency acess. etc. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The intent of this memo, given staff time constraints and the magnitude and complexity of this project, is to provide Planning Commission with a discussion framework for the review process. The conversion of 160 acres of residentially zoned land to a golf course use cannot be taken lightly. The application is incomplete in certain respects as noted throughout the memo, and the City cannot formally approve the project until the EAW process is completed. The EAW and its appendices will assist Planning Commission in understanding the possible environmental impacts of the project, and hopefully you will be receiving a copy of the EAW along with this memo. On February 18 Planning Commission should assist the applicant in this review process by indicating the specific topics for which you feel more information is needed. It would then be prudent to table this application for additional review. You may wish to consider scheduling a special work session with the applicant to provide time for a more in-depth review than can be accomplished at a regular meeting. Following is a compilation of the items noted above as missing or requiring additional information: 1. 2. 3. Submit plans that provide clarity to the actual bluff impacts that will occur. Provide clarity to the actual impact on each wetland. Define the various hardcover zones on a certificate of survey of the entire site and submit hardcover calculation worksheets for the site. 4. Submit a complete septic system site evaluation and design for the maintenance facility. 5. Address chemical storage on the site. 6.Provide floor plaits and elevation views and site landscaping/screening plan for the maintenance facility. Identify the 40* x 20' building referred to in the narrative. % ”9 T-sn Zoning File #2209 February 5,1997 Page 13 7. 8. 9. Provide grading plan that is consistent with the parking lot plan. Provide a lighting plan for the site. Provide City Engineer with supporting information regarding the stormwater, site grading and drainage plans. # ?»Application ff ^J?C^V Date Received //a ^/9"7 Amount Paid -^^50-d^' CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 700 SpriN^ M/l) Road Type of Application to be Filed CUP - Z-qm<I /jl'hvAiio/J ^ Ci)P ~ 6fa/-f Couv<f> Propert}-Identificauon Num -nm:) .CM’S . DQ0t4 4 OooS Name SpviN^ hitll C^oif Clul^_________ Phone (work''_______________ Address ________City M/NklEAfy vi^_____Zip_s;5:^^ i^itU 3>^C5i/«»rTcr»t^ - d.C}o CLDf <reMtT5^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phouc Cnomc) ^75' ~ 26 Namey\^)f^y^ ___ Phone (work) ^ 27?7 Address'O/T^ 7^^ Qtv f^plAAddress <Ty/y) <^feAjrc/g_ Pec ' T (r - A3^ne<g^»C>^T Date Property' Acquired N|*W ~ -Atvn ‘igipi»Tfeo CL^«^iv-i6-_____ I (^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 CommercialAndustrial Use ^ $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain >C 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 (month'year) 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 (^UD - refer to fee schedule) ? _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District RR* /B- I Present Use of Property______Residential ^__Other (specify ) CoNffvg/vee C^Ai'h^i V ci ^Uan T REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 7 J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. 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 Hermepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 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. Topographic survey (e.xisting 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). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF L.ARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUB.MITTED. (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. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The 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 e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true/and to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date /' ^ *7 OWNER'S SIGN.ATURE^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property b>^ity staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for H^rposM^r investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature /- Z4-- f7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ' IMI DAT! oi/ZB/nT •ATCN MS HCiMPItl COlNrv PROPCtTV INfMHATXaN SYSTfH pmnun omcas list RfPORT NO. PIASS401 PAOE 11 Us■^' PtOP AOM »tCK NAW TA>#AYt« hatc /aom sa 2S-iia-ts St ooos fXMSa AOMCSS IMASSIGNIO SPRXIS NIU lAMO LTO PTSP SIHI1N6 NtU ITO PAUnCIISHIP M LARI Sr I suxn tzo NAVZATA M4 IS191 SO t«-lM-ZS SI OOOS Mosa AooRCss uNAsaiaico BURT N i Jf AltC t CQHNXN BURT N CORNIN AOO 1ST AVf N APT tta rVLS »«4 SSAOl SB ts-lli-n SI BBOA 0112S NlPfTfR BR R N AHIS JR t a R iYIIAN AKXS R N ANIS JR a a R LYNAN AH19 1911 RfiaRnO PRMT ms m asAoa I C. PROP AMR OMCR NAT« TAXPATIR HAKl/AaOil SB Z5-lia-tS U 0001 ooosa AooRfss uiassxcico BRUCC H S JUtll J STCX»«R BRUU H • JULXC J STIXKR 194 EOCCNOOB AVt S MAYZATA ft« MS91 SB xs-na-n sz ooos 00700 SXXTH AVC N BRUCE N STfXt€R TRUSTII BRUCE H STEXNCR 700 SIVTH AVf N MAYZATA m assfi sa zB-iia-Es ss ooos OOtZS SPRXNO NXU RO V Z I E r NAMi VAN ZUCT i EaZAatTN T AZS SPRXNO Kill RB MAYZATA m SSS91 PROP AOOR 0»9CR NAME TAXPAYER NAMZ/EOOR SB ZS-llB-ZS SS OOOA 007Z5 SXXTN AVE N SPRltC NXU HMD PARTNERS SPRXNO HXU LAND PARTNERS 44*5 LAKE ST E SUITE ZZO MAYZATA MN SSS91 SB Z5-UJT-Z1 S4 OOOZ OOAAS SPRII« NXU RO NAS STOKER JR HARRY B STOKER 44S STRING HILL RO MAYZATA m S&S91 sa zs-iia-zs S4 ooos 0044S SPRING HILL RO R J NICQN A N E NXOON RICHARD J A MARY E NIUON 44S SPRXtC HILL RO MArZATA 194 SSS91 PROP AOOR 0»«CR NANS TA>»AYER NAME/AOOR SB zs-na-zs S4 ooo4 0CS91 NORTH STREAM RO B A C CARLSON BRUCE N A CAROLINE C CARLSON B91 NORTH STREAM RO MAYZATA 794 SSS91 SO ZS-ilO-ZS S4 0004 C0541 NORTH STREAft RO J t M LAZEAR JONATHON A HitOV LAZEAR S41 4CRTH STREAM RO MAYZATA 794 55S91 SB ZS-lie-ZS S4 0007 OOSZl NORTH STREAM RO 0 L A S L NOPEMAN 8 L NOTEHAN S41 NORTH STREAM MAYZATA 494 ASS9X PROP AOOR 09«R name TAXPAYER HAMt/AOOR SO Z5-lU>tS S4 OOOB OOSSl 4«RTH STREAM RO 6 L HOPEECM A S L HOEEMAN a L A SUSAN HOEEMAN S41 4«3RTH STREAM RO MAYZATA 494 BSS9X Sa tS-UB-ZS S4 0009 OOOIB AOCRESS UtOSSICNEO BRUCE N CARLSON ST AL BRUCE N A CAR0LX4€ C CARLSON S91 N0S1N 8TUAM ROAD MAYZATA 494 ASS91 SB ZS-llA-ZS S4 0010 OOOSB ADORE SS UNASSIGNEO BIKJCE M CARLSON ST AL OauCE M A CAR0LX4N C CARLSON S91 NORTH STREAM ROAD MAYZATA 494 US91 PROP AOOR OMSER NAME TAXPAYER 44AIC/AOOR SO Zf-llO-ZS 41 OOOf OOSOO SXXTN AVE N DOUGLAS 0AYT0I4 ETAL DOUGLAS J DAYTON SOO CO RO NO 4 NAYZATA 194 SSI 91 SO zs-iia-zs AS OOOS 00S5S HOLLA44DER RO 6 C I M H VACEK CARY C A MARY N VACEK SSS HOLLANDER RO MAYZATA 494 SS591 SO ZS-llt-ZS 4S 0006 00S4S SPRXNO HILL RO T 0 EELOtiAlfl A J A EE1041A494 TERRY 0 1 JULIE A FELD4TA4t4 14S SPRXISHXLL RO 0K04O 494 SSSn RU44 OATS Ol/Za/97 SATCN SOS NE4PCPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INEOREUnOII SYSTEM PROPERTY CiOCRS LIST REPORT 440. P14SS401 PACE IZ PROP AOOR 049KR 44A4C TAXPAYER NAMEyAODR SO E5-110-AS 4f 0009 OOSSS HOLLA440CR RO N M ERICKSON AND IRXCKSQN NALTER N A NANCY 0 ERICKSON SSS HOLLANDER RO NAYZATA 491 SSS91 SO Z4-110>ZS SI 0001 OOOSO AOOCCSS U44ASSIGNEO JOHN E SCNUETT A 4UEE JOI94 E SCHUETT IZOS TAMARACK OR LONG LAKE MN S5SS4 M Z4-110-ZS 11 OOOZ 00010 AOORESS U44ASSIGNEO DUNCAN N DAYTON OU44CA44 N DAYTON 445 E LAKE ST STf ZZO NAYZATA 494 SS591 PROP AOOR «M«R ItAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB t4-I10-ZS SI 0007 01111 TAMARACK OR SLACK SRf4f4AN SXOfCY L SRETOIAN JR 1710S A4TH AVE N PLYHOUTN 104 SS097 SB Z4-I1B-ZS 51 OOOB 01099 TA4URACX OR CHARLCS C OmSttVAN CHARLES c ourtavAN 1099 TA4URACK DR LONG LAKE 494 SS1S4 SB 24-Iia-ZS SI 0009 01045 TAMARACK OR SAL PEHRSON STEPHEN C PETERSON 1045 TAMARACK DR L04« LAKE 494 SSS54 . PROP AOOR OMRR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO Z4-110-ZS 14 0005 011S5 SIXTH AVf N E N A H S SPENCER EOSON N A HARRIET S SPENCER IISS SPRI44G MILL RO LONG LAKT 494 S5SS4 SO t4-lia-ZS 41 0002 OOOia ADDRESS LfUSSlONEO SPRING MILL LA440 LTO PTSP SPRIfO HILL LA4tt LTO PTSP 445 M LAKE ST SUITE ZZO NAYZATA 494 5SS91 18 Z4-lia-Zl 41 OOOS 01101 HILLOMBROOK OR 0 N A L E DRUESKE OCRALO A LOIS DRUESKE 1101 HlLLOieROOK OR ORONG 494 5SS91 i PROP AOOR 094ER NAME TAXPAYER NMN/ADOR SO Z4>110-2S 41 0004 01175 NUL04OR0QK OR R C I S K KRUCCER RICHARD C A SU3A44 R KRUEGER 117S HILLCICRCXIK DR NAYZATA 494 55191 SS Z4-118-2S 41 0004 ooosa AOORCSS UNASSIGNEO 0 M A L C ORUESKE OCRALO I LOIS ORUESKE 1101 NlLLOieROQK OR ORONO 494 5SS91 SO 14-lia-ZI 41 0007 Oliso 4<VN0MEfi RO KERN N HOPPE KERN N HOPPE 1150 KYNOEMEili RO MAYZATA 494 55191 PLOP AOCR CICtfR NA4C TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 24 01100 0000 RO iia-zs 41 KYNOMERS Y Kin YOUCXI A YatCSLI4 KXM liao 4YY440MERC RO IIAYZAIA 494 55J91 Y A 10 24-lia-ZS 41 0009 01105 NYNOMERE RO R V MASON A N J NASON ROiaiO V A MARTHA J IIASON 1195 KYIKHCRE RO MAVZATA 494 55191 SO t4*110-21 41 0010 0114S MYNOMERE RO B R NC448 IKK 4CNG BACK K NOUC 1145 NY4I0MCRE RO lUYZATA 494 55S91 PROP AOOR OMCR 44AIV TAXPAYER 4iAMt/A00R 3B Z4-110-Z1 41 0011 01145 MYNONERE RO SUZAZtN N JACKS0I4 SUZAItIC N JACKSON 1145 HYNDNERf MAYZATA 494 55191 10 Z4-11S-Z1 41 OOlt OOOSO AOORESS Ur4AS3XGNE0 KERN M HOPPE KERN NOPPE 1150 NVIKRCRE RO MAYZATA 494 55191 SO Z4-110-ZS 42 OOOZ OOOSO AOORESS UNASSXO4I0 CCNLBY BROOKS CONLEY OROOKS 400 OARER OLOC MPLS 494 55402 W‘ lUN OATf 91/0/97 tkTtH MS MUMMXN COMTY PtMfllTY mrOMnON SVSTfH MMfRPr (MCM LIST RtPORr NO. RI4SS40S RACf IS P9» AOOR OKIfR MUC T4J(PAYC1I ;m»«/aooii SO S4-110-2S 42 OOOJ OOOSO Aoomss unamiqnco CGNltV MOORS CONIIV MOORS 400 BARM BLOG HRL3 m SS402 SB 24-llB>2S 42 0004 BOOM AOOMSS IMASSIGNIO CONtlY BaOORS CUO.IV BBOORS 400 BARtO BLOG >ft'LS t«4 SS402 SB 24-1IB-2S 42 BOOB OOOSB AOOOCSS UNASSXQNiO CONLEY BROORS CONLEY BROORS 400 BARER BLOG MPLS Ml BS402 PROP AOOft OHCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 2«-llB-2i 4S 0001 000S8 AOORESS UlASSICtCO CONLEY BROOKS CONLEY BROORS 400 BARER BLDG nPLS Itl SS402 SB 24-UB-2S 4S 0004 0112S SPR1IR2 MILL RO HZLLARO C SHULL 111 ET AL NILLARO C SHULL IKS SPRING HILL RC HArZATA Ml 5SS41 SB f4-lia-2S 4S OOOG 01025 SPRING HILL RO H B i C BROOKS TRUSTEfS NARI^IV B t CONLEY MOCKS 400 BARER BLOG NPLS mi S5402 PROP AOM OMCR name TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 24-11B-2S 44 0002 004S1 SPRING HILL RO M 0 OUILAP JR A L M OUILAP MXLLIAM 0 OUILAP JR 4S1 SPRING HILL ROAO NAYZATA Ml BSSfl SB 24-118-2S 44 OOOS 00040 SPRING HILL RO SPRIIC HILL LN« LTD PTSP 8PR1IC HILL LAfO LTD PTSP 445 E LAKE SI SUITE 220 HAYZATA mi BSSYl SB 24-116-2S 44 0004 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSIONEO SPRING HILL LAND LTO PFSP SPRING HILL LTO PARTNERSHIP 445 E LARI ST SUITE 220 NAYZATA Ml S5S41 PLOP AOM OM€R NAK taxpayer NAIC/AOOR SB S5>I1B*2S II 0001 OOOSB AOMCSS UIASSIGISO SPRUM HILL LAIO LTO PTSP SPRING HILL LAIO LTO PTSP 44S EAST LARE ST STE 220 HAfZATA Ml US91 SB S5-11B-2S 11 0002 OOOSB AOCRCSS UUSSIGICO CO or H2MBP1N CO or NEMtfPlN SB S5-11B-2S 14 0001 00400 010 LUft LARI RO BRUCE B CAYTON MABENA CUtPAflY 5140 NORHEST CENTER hPLS Ml 55402 PROP OMCR NAIC TAXPAYER NII«/AOOR SB S4-11B-2S 22 OOOS 007SS SPRING HILL RO r imeroN a i c ninstoii PREOfRlCR NINSTGN 74S SPRING HILL RO NAYZATA Ml SSS91 •0 24-11B-2S IS 0002 OOOBO ADDRESS UNASSIONEO DUCAN N DAYTON OUNCAN N DAYTON 445 t LARE ST SUITE 220 NAYZATA Ml SSS91 BO 24-llS>2S 24 OOOS 0120S TANARACR OR JOMI E SCHUETT ETAL JOMI E SCNUE'T 1205 TANARACR RO LU« LARE NIFM 5SS54 PROP AOM OMKR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOM BO 24-llB-U 24 0004 012SS TAMARAOL OR RAN BARER RANDAL N BARER 12S5 TANARACR ORXVf LOB LARE Ml SSSS4 TOTAL BATCH MS 00052 A;Cuc^r fr/i Ncrtc^ ; R oR»O v:lsoa ) 2ISXO F4l/zy\ft^ '-.T. /VIa J RUN DATE 01/2B/f2 OATCM MS HCiiBPiN cournr property intornation syt PROPERTY OMCRS LIST RCPOPT NO. P14S5401 PACE 14 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE RCPRE.4ENTATX0N OF INFCFiUTXON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS Cr THE MtHtFlH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIUI* TO THE BEST Cr NY RNOHUOCC AM) BELIEF. BATE i-29-57. L 1- \ \ V mm \\i il li I r*V] \ I \'It 0' 1 ^ ‘ •V i:V *» “V-0 \ ^ /M , - D<= n* .. X' *N \ u ir S . !JM f d /\ \ f ( \ H'i N ■ y. oN^^ts^V - ■'' t -V — JZ V HK: c^- 4 '•^^.'i j)'.> ‘‘'y.'Z~~Z/'. 4v * V ^ . 1/ZZ rHv-- ■" ,• Tcr^Z/iW'^' >v \ 1 sM''-.;..M i)).-;..- 'iW / V' . yv; • • • V : r wi^h'W’ :.WM •-f • v|i ■ imp -'a^'"’ ~;r I N *. ./ / • /-i \ V Xi M) .■' ‘;0'^:),i''-"'"^i \ ■ \v((if^ yj -v^ F f { r f * \ • • • . • •<i ■» ^ - ^..:/ I :’• .*/ PROJECT NARRATIVE SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB i PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA -T: JANUARY 1997 SUBMITTED BY SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 700 SPRING HILL ROAD WAYZATA. MN 55391 I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning for this unique, limited membership private golf club in Orono and Medin • is v/ell underway. Initial invitations tor membership have been extended and the membership is virtually full. The vision of Spring Hill is that the club will quietly take its place among the very finest membership facilities available in the country, dedicated solely to enjoying the game of golf in a uniquely natural environment. LOCATION Spring Hill Golf Club consists of approximately 210 acres with about 160+ acres in Orono, bordered by County Road 6 and Spring Hill Road, and approximately 48+ acres in Medina. The majority of the golf course is within Orono, including the club house and maintenance facility. The portion in Medina consists of Holes 8, 9 and 10 and portions of Holes 12 and 13. THE SITE The property is bordered by Long Lake to the south and west and by private homesites in all other directions. Dramatic views of Long Lake from some of the most elevated points in Hennepin County will be prominent from the golf course as well as the clubhouse terrace and lawn. There is an abundance of hardwood and pine forest and natural wetlands. The club will oe very sensitive to environmental concerns and the preservation of natural wetlands. THE GOLF COURSE The golf course has been designed by Tom Fazio, voted by his peers “Best Modern Day Golf Course Architect" for years 1993,1994, and 1995 in a Golf Course News Magazine poll. Fazio was chosen as the architect for Spring Hill Golf Club, in addition, because of his history for environmentally sensitive designs. The golf course routing plays through this natural site incorporating the 23.6 acres of wetlands into its design. The Spring Hill golf course consists of 18 holes. It traverses approximately 7,000 yards from the longest of its four sets of tees. The other three tees range from 5,400 to 6,400 yards. A tunnel is provided under County Road 6 to provide for crossing of golfers and most maintenance equipment. Fazio is confident that the Spring Hill course will be among the finest in the Upper Midwest, if not in the country. Spring Hill intends to be a member of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program and will manage the golf course maintenance program under its auspices. Ground breaking is scheduled for May/June 1997. The course will be ready for play in the summer of 1999. THE MEMBERSHIP There will be only 185 equity memberships. With such limited membership, the golf course will have a moderate amount of use with an estimated 8.000 to 10,000 rounds per year. The peak week day and week end volumes are expected to be 100 to 200 rounds per day. GOVERN.ANCE The development of the club and its operation will be governed by a Board of Directors which in turn will have professional employees to manage the golf course, the clubhouse, and the golf program. THE CLUBHOUSE AND RELATED FACILITIES It is currently anticipated that, of the approximately 60,000+ square feet of the building known as Spring Hill Conference Center, approximately 50,000 square feet will be demolished, with all debris removed from the site. The balance of approximately 10,000 square feet will be remodeled for use as the Spring Hill clubhouse facility. There could be, in addition, as much as 2,000 square feet of additional space built for use as four overnight guest rooms in a second story addition to the building. The remodeled clubhouse facility will include men’s and ladies’ locker rooms, a kitchen, a modest grill room, a pro shop, an indoor instructional facility, storage for both golf carts and golf bags, and as previously mentioned, four guest bedrooms. The Spring Hill site, in addition to ■ ^ i Conference Center, also includes two single family dwellings and several other abandoned outbuildings, and with the exception of the small single family dwelling immediately next to the southeast corner of the conference center, all of these other buildings will be demolished with all debris removed from the site. The finished clubhouse facility will be operated for approximately the period of April 15 to October 15 each year beginning in 1999 and, with the exception of the indoor instructional facility, will be closed down in its entirety for the balance of each year. Hours of operation are expected to be approximately 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. each day, six or seven days per week. The clubhouse will be for the use of members and their guests only, will not be open to the general public and will not be leased out for banquets, meetings, or other group use. Meal service will be limited to lunch and possibly breakfast and/or dinner during the weekend. The elevations and layout drawings prepared by our architects, Bruce W. Schmitt & Associates. 320 Manitoba Avenue South. Wayzata, MN 55391, while very preliminary in nature, represent the best current thinking on the remodeling plan. Other than the demolition noted above, it is not anticipated that any work would begin on the planned remodeling until late in calendar 1997 or early calendar 1998. The maintenance buildings, storage area and parking for golf course maintenance employees will be located at the northeast corner of County Road 6 and Tamarack Drive. The maintenance buildings consist of a 160 foot by 60 foot structure with a 14- foot height, and a 40 foot by 20 foot structure with a 10-foot height. These structures will be wood frame with metal siding and asphalt shingle roofs. Metal siding color will be forest green. The facility will also have covered sand storage bins and above ground fuel storage tncased in concrete vaults. All buildings and storage areas will have concrete slabs. The parking area will be paved. All storm runoff will be conveyed to a stormwater basin for treatment. The maximum number of maintenance staff is 25 for about a seven-month period. f Tom Fazio has masterfully positioned the starting and finishing holes immediately adjacent to the clubhouse. The complete practice facility, including range as well as practice and putting greens, will be immediately adjacent to the first hole. A halfway house, with small rest rooms and a concession stand of approximately 400 square feet, will be located on the north side of County Road 6 near the tunnel. The modest entrance to the club will be off Spring Hill Road, winding up the hill to the clubhouse entrance. II.DEVELOPMENT TEAM The Developer is Spring Hill Golf Club, a nonprofit social club with Andrew M, Hunter III as President. Tim Johnson has been retained by the club as a full-time Project Manager. The golf course design is being done by Fazio Golf Course Designers, Inc. of Overland Park, Kansas. Schoell & Madson, Inc. in Minnetonka is providing environmental and engineering services. III.REQUIRED APPROVALS CITYOFORONO The approvals required from the City of Orono consist of: • Rezoning from RR-1B-1 to RR-1B (rural residential) • Conditional Use Permit for land alteration with variances for alteration of protected slopes and for alteration of city designed wetlands and buffers, Conditional Use Permit for golf course. CITY OF MEDINA Conditional Use Permit for golf course Wetland Alteration Permit Applications for these approvals have been made, and it is anticipated they will be considered by the Planning Commission on February 11,1997. OTHER AGENCIES Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MN DNR MN DNR MN DNR Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Hennepin County Public Works Hennepin County Public Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Floodpicin Reviev/ Grading ana Utility Installation Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Shore land Area Review Protected Waters Permit Water Appropriation Permit Nationwide Pollution Discharge Elimination System County Highway Tunnel Construction Permit to Work in Right-of-Way Clean Water Act 404 Wetland Permit IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Environmental issues for the course include filling of wetlands, removal of trees and water quality resulting from stormwater runoff from the golf course. A remnant maple-basswood-oak “Big Woods" is located on the northern portion of the property (primarily in Medina). The DNR natural heritage database identifies this area as a medium quality remnant. On a scale of A to D it is ranked as BC. This area is a fragment which is nearly separated from adjoining forest areas. Construction of the golf course will result in tree loss and further fragmentation of the remnant “Big Woods." The golf course has been designed to take full advantage of the existing trees on the site and to minimize tree removal. The Developer intends to transplant up to 400 to 500 existing trees to new locations and to plant up to 400 to 500 new trees. Ostvig Tree has been retained as the project tree consultant. A tree i inventory will be done prior to construction. All trees to be removed will be hand marked. Minor adjustments in the golf course design will be made during construction to minimize tree loss. Twenty-one v;etlands are located on the entire site. Seventeen of those wetlands are within the City of Orono boundary. Of those 17 wetlands, 7 wetlands are City of Orono designated wetlands. Two City designated wetlands will be partially filled during the construction of the golf course. Considerable effort has been made to avoid and minimize impacts to the wetlands on the course. Over 10 alternatives were considered during the design process. Several drained wetlands on the course will be impounded one to two feet and as a result hydrology will be restored to these previously drained areas. Variances to the wetland buffer zones will be necessary on six wetlands. A total of 1.45 acres of wetland in Orono and Medina will be filled during construction. Mitigation for all areas will take place on the project site. Mitigation will also include upland buffer areas seeded to native species. A draft Environmental Assessment worksheet has been submitted to the Cities of Orono and Medina for review and comment. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is a comprehensive document designed to evaluate.the potential impact of construction of a project. Several meetings with staff have been held to identify and address potential areas of concern. No issues of significant impact were identified in the EAW. A final EAW will bo submitted to the City shortly after staff comments are received from the January 27, 1997 EAW draft review meeting. V.SURFACE WATER ISSUES The project site contributes drainage to Long Lake. This water eventually makes its way to Lake Minnetonka. The site is located in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Three major watershed areas drain through the site and outlet into Long lake. The watershed boundaries extend north of the project area and include approximately 208 acres of off-site drainage area. The runoff flows through the site from the north to the south and outlets into Long Lake through culverts under Spring Hill Road. Five smaller watersheds also generate off-site drainage. Considerable efforts have been made and over $2.2 million spent In an effort to improve the water quality of Long Lake in recent years. During the design of the golf course, special attention has been, and will continue to be, given to improving runoff quality from the present condition. The nutrient budget analysis indicates significantly reduced levels from the existing condition. The stormwater treatment ponds are intended to be constructed to treat the runoff from the golf course. Tfie irrigation pond in drainage area B will collect runoff for reuse as irrigation, thereby further reducing nutrient loading and reducing irrigation needs. Since there is little impervious area and the flow must pass across well vegetated grassy areas, the golf course will not be a significant loading source. Water quality and quality control will be provided by three NURP basins designed for both on-site and off-site drainage areas. The NURP basins are located along Spring Hill Road on the upstream end of the existing culverts. The ponds are sized to meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and City requirements for NURP basin design. The drainage was analyzed using stormwater modeling software based on Soil Conservation Service methodologies. The modeling was set up to route 100-year, 10- year and 1-year design storms through the existing wetlands, mitigation wetlands, NURP basins and road culverts. The proposed construction of the fairways, greens and tees will increase the volume of runoff by 120% to 175% over the existing conditions. By using the detention storage available in the wetlands, mitigation areas and NURP basins, the additional runoff volume is controlled and the proposed runoff rates leaving the site are reduced to below the existing rates. The roadway culvert c.mssings on County Road 6 and Spring Mill Road were also included in the storm water flow rate modeling. Based on the results of the flow rating, these culverts are capable of handling up to 100-year design storms without overtopping the roads. The proposed golf course construction will not increase the flow rates to these culverts. The project incorporates best management practices to provide erosion control and to reduce sedimentation. Specially designed outlet structures will be placed on the outlets of wetlands to promote infiltration of the runoff. These outlets help reduce the runoff rates and runoff volumes while maintaining the integrity and character of the wetlands. VI. SANITARY SEWER Municipal sanitary sewer is not available to the site. Sewage disposal will be by use of on-site septic tanks and drain fields. The club house will utilize the existing drain field for the conference center which is located in the former gravel pit southwest of the center. The drain field will not be affected by proposed construction. The sewage flows from the club house will be significantly lower than the original design flows for this drain field. The halfway house and maintenance building will both have rest rooms. These are located immediately north of County Road No. 6. A new common septic system and drain field will be constructed for these two facilities. VII. WATER SUPPLY Water supply will be required for irrigation and for domestic use In the club house, halfway house and maintenance building. The conference center has two existing wells. One of these wells has a capacity of 500 gallons per minute and it is proposed to utilize it for irrigation. The second well will be used for water supply for the club house. A new well will be required for water supply for the halfway house and maintenance building. There are a couple of old wells on the site which are not in use. These will be abandoned in compliance with Department of Health requirements during the site grading. VIII. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS The access to the clubhouse will be from Spring Hill Road utilizing a new driveway. The existing entrance from County Road 6 will be eliminated. The traffic volume from the golf course will be low and will be spread throughout the day. The access to the maintenance area will be from Tamarack Drive. The traffic will consist of 12 to 15 golf course maintenance employees who will work out of this area and occasional deliveries. The majority of the golf course maintenance equipment will utilize internal paths and the proposed tunnel under County Road 6 and would not use the public streets. The traffic volume from the golf course will be significantly lower than that generated by the conference center. It will also be lower than that generated by a rural residential development of the site. IX. CONCLUSION Development of this site as proposed by Spring Hill Golf Club is the most environmentally sensitive use of the property short of designation as a nature preserve. Spring Hill Golf Club is very proud of this propose' and feels that it enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Orono. Your acceptance is requested. BUSH. WALTER L.. JR. (Assistant: Beth) Office: Attorney 601 Lakeshore Parkway; #730 Carlson Center Minnetonka, MN 55305 404-4933; FAX 404-4949 Home: 5200 Malibu Drive Edina. MN 55436 935-7437; FAX 939-8943 BYARS. WILLIAM V.. JR. (Assistant: Kathi Ackerman 334-4481) Office: Arthur Andersen & Co LLP Home; 159 South Edgewood Avenue 45 South 7th Street: Suite 2800 Wayzata. MN 55391 Minneapolis. MN 55402 476-8471; Car 723-4259 334-4850. FAX 334-4828 or 334-4700 DAYTON. ROBERT J. (Assistant; Deanne - 339-3398) Office: 5140 Norwest Center Home: 1 French Lake Road 90 South 7th Street Wayzata. MN 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4138 473-3301 339-7151; FAX 332-6280 GRUIDL, GERALD J. (Assistant: Carol Meyers) Office; Gerald J. GruidI & Associates Home: 11765 - 26th Avenue North 9999 Wayzata Boulevard Plymouth. MN 55441 Minnetonka, MN 55305 559-5878 542-0754 FAX 542-0720 HUNTER. ANDREW M. Ill (Assistant; Darlene McNally 204-0549) Office Hunter. Keith Industries Inc. 5100 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 338-2799; FAX 338-7079 Home; 537 Harrington Road Wayzata, MN 55391 475-2628 or 475-2021 FAX; 475-1440 MILES. PATRICIA J. Office KARE 11 8811 Olson Memorial Highway Minneapolis. MN 55427 797-7212; FAX 546-8606 Home: 4354 Fremont Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55409 Phone: not available MORRISON. JOHN L. (Assistant; Marsha) Office: Goldner. Hawn. Johnson & Morrison 5250 Norwest Center 90 South 7th Street Minneapolis. MN 55402-4123 338-5912; FAX 338-2860 Home: 234 South Edgewood Avenue Wayzata, MN 55301 473-3557 NANNE. LOUIE V. (Assistant; Terry) Office: Voyageur Asset Management 90 South /th Street; #4400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 376-4123: FAX 376-7007 Home: 6982 Tupa Drive Edina. MN 55439 829-0909 SCHWALBACH. GERALD A. (Assistant: Suzy Jones 404-3382) Office: Superior Storage Home: 326 West Ferndale Road 601 Carlson Parkway; Suite 350 Wayzata, MN 55391 Minnetonka. MN 55305 473-5019 (u. sted) 449-5755; FAX 404-3399 i WRIGHT, MICHAEL W. (Assistant: Carol Graham 828-4049/Dee Martinson 828-4050) Office: ' SUPERVALU INC. Home; 7766 Lochmere Terrace p Q 0QX 990 Edina, MN 55439 Minneapolis. MN 55440 829-0884 (unlisted) 829-4048; FAX 828-8926 y ^ - ar^ ^ — C •. I ■•*• -N, ' ✓ •< r % STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS SPRING HILL GOLF COURSE January 1997 PREPARED FOR:SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB PREPARED BY:SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. •i 3 t TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL SUMMARY 11.NUTRIENT BUDGET III. WATER QUALITY IV. WATER QUANTITY V. WETLAND HYDROLOGY VI. CALCULATIONS APPENDICES A. DRAINAGE AREA MAPS I.GENERAL SUMMARY The project site contributes drainage to Long Lake. This water eventually makes its way to Lake Minnetonka. The site is located in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Three major watershed areas drain through the site and outlet into Long lake. The watershed boundaries extend north of the project area and include approximately 208 acres of off-site drainage area. The runoff flows through the site from the north to the south and outlets into Long Lake through culverts under Spring Hill Road. Considerable efforts have been made and over $2.2 million spent in an effort to improve the water quality of Long Lake in recent years. During the design of the golf course, special attention has been, and will continue to be, given to improving runoff quality from the present condition. The nutrient budget analysis indicates significantly reduced levels from the existing condition. The stormwater treatment ponds are intended to be constructed to treat the runoff from the golf course. The irrigation pond in drainage area B will collect runoff for reuse as irrigation, thereby further reducing nutrient loading and reducing irrigation needs. Since tnere is little impervious area and the flow must pass across well vegetated grassy areas, the golf course will not be a significant loading source. Water quality and quality control will be provided by three NURP basins designed for both on-site and off-site drainage areas. The NURP basins are located along Spring Hill Road on the upstream end of the existing culverts. The ponds are sizfd to meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed Di.strict and City requirements for NURP basin design. Th drainage v/as analyzed using stormwater modeling software based on Soil Conservation Service methodologies. The modeling was set up to route 100-year, 10- year and 1-year dosign storms through the existing wetlands, mitigation wetlands, NURP basins and road culverts. The proposed construction of the fairways, greens and tees will increase the volume of runoff by 120% to 175% over the existing conditions. By using the detention storage available in the wetlands, mitigation areas and NURP basins, the additionc'l runoff volume is controlled and the proposed runoff rates leaving the site are reduced to below the existing rates. The roadway culvert crossings on County Road 6 and Spring Hill Road were also included in the storm water flow rale modeling. Based on the results of the flow rating, these culverts are capable of handling up to 100-year design storms without overtopping the roads. The proposed golf course construction will not increase the flow rates to these culverts 1 II.NUTRIENT BUDGET A nutrient budget analysis was performed to evaluate the pollutant loadings to Long Lake from the proposed golf course project. The purpose of the budget is to compare the current pollutant loadings to the future pollutant loadings generated by the golf course. The nutrient budget is separated into three components: 1. Determine existing condition pollutant loadings 2. Determine the proposed pollutant loadings 3. Calculate off-site export of proposed pollutants The existing and proposed pollutant loadings were determined using MPCA procedures found in the ‘‘Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" manual. The mean pollutant concentrations used in the budget analysis are from NURP studies and are the loadings for undeveloped open/non-urban land use. -Although there will be a change in land use, a recent study by John Barten, Hennepin County Parks, on the quantity and quality of golf course runoff found the nutrient export from golf courses is very similar to undeveloped land.’ The pollutant loadings for both the existing conditions and proposed conditions are presented in the following tables. The analysis includes the three major watersheds as used in the EAW and another five other minor watersheds not used in the EAW. The runoff from the proposed maintenance facility is included in the analysis of watershed A and the design of NURP basin 1. ’ Quantity and Quality of Runoff from Four Golf Courses in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. John M. Barten, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, September 1995. TABLE 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLLUTANT LOADINGS (LBS.) Watershed TSS/Total Suspended Solids TP/Total Phosphorous TKN/Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Pb/Lead Zn/Zinc A 6.374 6.79 40.13 1.59 6 79 B 12,183 12.97 76.71 3.04 12.97 C 10.045 10.70 63.24 2.50 10.70 D 376 0.40 2.37 0.09 0.40 E 1.061 1.13 6.68 0.27 1.13 F 175 C.19 1.10 0.04 0.19 G 318 0.34 2.00 0.08 0.34 H 128 0.14 0.81 0.03 0.14 The proposed pollutant loadings v/ere calculated by increasing the existing loadings by the percent of additional runoff generated by the new golf course. TABLE 2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS - POLLUTANT LOADINGS (LBS.) Watershed Change in Runoff TSS/Total Suspended Solids TP/Total Phosphorous TKN/Totai Kjeldahl Nitrogen Pb/Lead Zn/Zinc A +75%11,154 11.88 70.23 2.79 11.88 B +19%14,498 15.43 91.28 3.62 15.43 C +27%12,757 13.58 80.32 3.19 13.58 D +32%496 0.53 3.13 0.12 0.53 E + 11%921 0 98 5.81 0.23 0.98 F 0%175 0.19 1.10 0.04 0.19 G 0%318 1 0.34 2.00 0.08 0.34 H 0%128 0.14 0.81 0.03 0.14 The majority of the stormwater runoff generated on the site will be treated in three NURP basins prior to outletting into Long Lake. A small poition of the project will drain directly to Long Lake without treatment, one small watershed drains to a landlocked wetland, and two small watersheds drain to the north without treatment. Treatment was not considered for the smaller watersheds since there was very little change from the existing conditions, resulting in minimal to no change in pollutant loadings. The treatment of the runoff in the three NURP basins was determined using “Walkers" P8 model. The model estimates annual long-term removal efficiency percentages for selected pollutants. These percentages were used to determine the pollutant removal performance of the NURP basins and to estimate the export of pollutants off the site. TABLE 3 POLLUTANT REMOVALS IN NURP BASINS WATERSHED A NURP Basin 1 WATERSHED B NURP Basin 2 WATERSHED C NURP Basin 3 Removal (%) Outflow (lb.) Removal (%) Outflow (lb.) Removal (%) Outflow (lb.) TSS 97.1 323.00 95.8 512.00 96.3 372.00 TP 63.5 4.34 62.1 2.57 62.7 3.99 TKN 53.6 32.59 42.4 36.51 52.9 29.79 Pb 86.0 0.39 84.8 0.46 85.3 0.37 Zn 53,6 5.51 52.4 6.17 52.9 5.04 The overall nutrient budget is presented in Table 4. -------- TABLE 4 NUTRIENT BUDGET SUMMARY EXPORT DIRECTLY TO LONG LAKE (LBS) (Includes Watersheds A, B, C, D. and E) TSS TP TKN Pb/LEAD Zn/ZINC Existing Conditions 30,039 31.99 189.13 7.49 31.99 Proposed Conditions 2,624 12.41 107.83 1.57 18.34 % Change (Decrease)-91%-61% -43% -79%-43% TABLE 5 NUTRIENT BUDGET SUMMARY OFF-SITE EXPORT (LBS) (Includes Watersheds F & H) TSS TP TKN Pb/LEAD 2n/ZlNC Existing Conditions 303 0.33 1.91 0.07 0.33 Proposed Conditions 303 0.33 1.91 0.07 0.33 % Change 0%0%0%0%0% TABLE 6 NUTRIENT BUDGET SUMMARY LANDLOCKED (LBS) (Includes Watershed G) TSS TP TKN Pb/LEAD Zn/ZINC Existing Conditions 318 0.34 2.00 0.08 0.34 Proposed Conditions 318 0.34 2.00 0.08 0.34 % Change 0%0%0%0%0% The nutrient budget indicates the export of future pollutant loadings from the watershed areas impacted by Spring Hill Golf Course will be less than the current pollutant loadings. 1 A further reduction in the future pollutant loadings can be expected when the ditch system draining the existing wetlands is removed and new weir structures are installed at the wetland outlets. The new weir structures will impound the runoff and allow the water to infiltrate into the ground rather than drain eventually to Long Lake. The impounding of the runoff will not only reduce the pollutant loadings, but will also help restore the wetlands to their preditch condition. The removal efficiency of the largest NURP basin (NURP Basin 2) will also be enhanced when the basin becomes part of the Irrigation system. Water will be pumped from this basin to irrigate the fairways, tees and greens. Well water will be used to tabilize the later level in the basin. In addition to the treatment of the stormwater runoff by NURP basins, source control and best management practices will be implemented. These practices are listed below: 1.Grading of the golf course to minimize disturbance to the natural areas and to maximize the recapture and recycling of the runoff and nutrients. 2.Direct the runoff across natural areas and onto grass swales to the mitigated and existing wetlands. 3.Intended membership in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program which will require using environmentally sensitive measures in the management of the golf course. 4.Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices will be employed for the management of the golf course. Application events and rates will be dictated by turf management needs as opposed to conventional seasonal scheduling. 111. WATER QUALITY DESIGN Water quality control is provided by three NURP basins, the natural drainage to the existing wetlands and by Best Management Practices. (Refer to Section II, Nutrient Budget.) The design of the three basins incorporates general NURP standards for geometry 10:1, benches 4:1 to 3:1 slopes, and a skimmer outlet. The specific design features are presented below: i I TABLE 7 NURP BASIN DESIGN PERMANENT POOL Required*Proposed Average Mean Depth NURP Basin 1 1.77 ac-ft 2.73 ac-ft 4.0’ NURP Basin 2 3.24 ac-^4.11 ac-ft 4.9' NURP Basin 3 1.9 ac-ft 2.89 ac-ft 4.07' •Based on the runoff from a 2-1/2" rain event. The NURP basins were evaluated using "Walker ’s" P8 water quality model. The removal efficiencies indicated by the model are presented below. TABLE 8 NURP BASIN - REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES NURP BASIN 1 NURP BASIN 2 NURP BASIN 3 TSS 97.1%95.8%96.3% TP 63.5%62.1%62.7% TKN 53.6%52.4%52.9% Pb (Lead)86.0%84.8% 85.3% Zn (Zinc)536%52.4%52.9% The maintenance facility (NURP basin 4) includes a 10:1 bench, 5 foot depth pool, and a permanent pool volume of 0.23 ac-ft. The required volume is 0.15 ac-ft. The mean depth of this small treatment basin is 2.3 feet. The runoff from this basin also drains through NURP basin 1. L- TABLE 9 NURP BASIN - HYDRAULICS Proposed Outflow Rates (CFS)High Water Levels 100 Yr.10 Yr.1 Yr.100 Yr.10 Yr.1 Yr. MF Basin (NURP Basin 4)2,0 1.6 1.1 984.9 984.6 984.3 NURP Basin 1 Watershed A 3.7 1.2 0.2 960.85 9586 958.0 N"RP Basin 2 Watershed B 16.3 4.7 0.4 953.6 9531 950.1 NURP Basin 3 Watershed C 29.0 6.5 0.9 972.4 971.2 968.2 IV. WATER QUANTITY The proposed project integrates the natural features, mitigation areas and the proposed basins into a stormwater management plan which controls the off-site flow rates. The results of the analysis are presented below. TABLE 10 EXISTING CULVERT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Proposed Flow to Culvert (cfs) Location Size Invert 100 Yr.10 Yr.High Water (100 Yr.) Top of Road Elevation Watershed A Co. Rd 6 30” CMP 971.6 13.0 6.0 973.3 983.3 Spring Hill Road 15"*•3.7 1.7 * Watershed B Co. Rd 6 4-8" CMP 967.8 54.3 24.3 969.6 984.4 Spring Hill Road 36" RCP 943.6 16.5 11.5 945.5 9490 Watershed C Co. Rd. 6 54" CMP 977.8 52.0 22.0 980.4 9939 Spring Hill Road 42" RCP 966.1 29.0 6.5 969.3 971.2 Watershed D Spring Hill Road 24" CMP 981.4 50 2.0 9826 987.0 8 Watershed E Watershed F Spring Hill Road Co. Rd. 6 30" RCP 18" CMP 946.4 984.6 18.0 4.0 7.0 948.4 986.8 951.0 996 2 •Field verify in spring. All of the watersheds were modeled for flow rates. Where appropriate, the hydrology was routed through existing wetlands, culverts, mitigation areas and NURP basins. Outlet structures were designed and inserted into the models to provide rate control. The existing and proposed flow rates of the different locations from which they leave the site are summarized below. TABLE 11 FATE CONTROL EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED COMPARISON Outflow (cfs) Existing Conditions Outflow (cfs) Proposed Conditions Watershed Outlet Location 100 Yr.10 Yr.1 Yr.100 Yr.10 Yr.1 Yr. A 15" Spring Hill Rd.18.5 92 0.0 3.7 1.7 0.2 B 36" Spring Hill Rd.23.4 11.1 1.4 16.5 11.3 0.4 C 42" Spring Hill Rd.57.0 18.0 3.0 29.0 6.5 0.9 D 24" Spring Hill Rd.5.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 E 30" Spring Hill Rd.17.0 8.0 1.0 18.0 7.0 1.0 F 18" Co. Rd. 6 4.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 H Landlocked - No outlet I Overland drainage north - no land use change V. WETLAND HYDROLOGY The existing wetlands are carefully incorporated into the stormwater management plan The objective of the proposed improvements is to restore the wetlands to their original condition prior to the current system of ditches and to help improve the quality of the runoff entering Long Lake. Weir structures are placed on the outlets of wetlands to impound runoff and allow for infiltration into the ground rather than letting the runoff flow out of the wetlands and eventually to Long Lake. The change in land use in the area adjacent to the wetlands will have a minimal impact on the nutrient loadings and hydrology. The wetlands are incorporated into the hydrology model and the results of the modeling are presented below. TABLE 12 WAlERSHED A WETLAND HYDROLOGY High Water Levels Outlet Elevations Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr Wetland 13 989.C 989.0 989.8 989.5 989.0 990.5 990.5 989.0 Wetland 16 970.0 978.0 978.8 978.3 978.0 978.8 978.3 978.0 Wetland 15 976.0 976.5 976.7 976.4 976.0 977.7 976.6 976.5 Wetland 20 971.6 971.6 ,973.1 972.6 971.6 973.3 972.7 971.6 Wetland 9 (Mitigation Area C) --969.0 (No calculations)970.9 970.3 969.0 Welland 11 NURP Basin 1 TABLE 13 WATERSHED B WETLAND HYDROLOGY High Water Levels Outlet Elevations Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr Wetland 14 984.8 984.8 985.3 985.1 984.8 984.5 985.7 984.5 Wetland 17 972.6 973.5 973.4 973.04 972.7 974.3 973.9 973.6 Wetland 7 967.3 967.3 968.6 968.0 967.5 970.5 969.7 968.6 Wetland 5 NURP Basin 2 Wetland 4 943.6 943.6 945.9 945 1 944.1 945.5 945.1 943.8 __ TABLE 14 WATERSHED C WETLAND HYDROLOGY High Water Levels Outlet Elevations Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr Wetland 1 975.0 976.0 977.2 976.3 975.2 979.45 978.50 976.9 Wetland 2 NURP Basin 3 Wetland 2A 968.80 968.80 969.9 968.5 —974.4 971.22 — TABLE 15 MISCELLANEOUS WETLANDS WETLAND HYDROLOGY High Water Levels Existing Proposed Outlet Elevations NWL 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr Wetland 12 (Overflow 981.0) Land locked 977.4 977.5 977.9 978.5 977.5 977.9 978.5 > . fli 01 9 s 801 01 I8 9 9 I I S I Ml ji;i T*1 - % ,I!!K ll utXm t: CimK m> o 30 39 9 > o5 mo> ^ o H o C 39s ^is o <:>n " «• “• < >" S "fn Q (0 o Tl o 39o o ft* smo z > z z z o H O Z mo> O H > 0) "O o X oo "T1 o 09 M. r "■ "D Zm z >z oo z H Zc:o H > Zz oz 1 I •u -. ♦(V I: r.« ■ i'^nir: I III':ii I if «• H :?u __y —^ I (» 21 oo h mo ^■on 09 <o<o xl 1,/^ \ o» KJ OI xj OI I 8 (/> Imm n i'l-i 111; [>ii! i I I'jiH I‘H.5 !li!' - ® ; :||sl rs|2S (/)o X om •i5i- S f co _ » Z ^ m » *HUi:§s«“• 2 5 H • • ^ ^ r* ^ ••Hi z•?H _ « zo o (/)o _________/ (/) s n Ji 8mo 2P o» KJ OI 01 I 8 c/> Imm H O ■n u OSSS 8§ "5 Ooe 9o» 8 >4 8m K a T MATCH UNE ■ri« rwi ilwi cn *o 3. , 3 : o I* *•=)=•!.Q &- . R OfUye wos ^.4*iO•itim5i*3| r :M*S \ CO ss o® ! • on0» c <o<o >J •D 3 Oc.m 0 H ZP 01 KJ 0 01 (/>Xmm -i >5 HI o u *pOj m ;c3m ’I i ira*ll MATCH LINE iOl o • I I I i I i ............................ omzo .1 4“ If -!f IM ■Jil!= {i'!}: ; i!ii‘» I* ;m|5 •Il ‘ill^ a I o» •9 II COm to to vj iv_y O*T> JJo mo H zp K3 (Jl NJ 01 I 8 (/) Xmm H o T1 m o 4» a I 51 *P 9 o sSi ^82 pi ?Po i-2I o MATCH LINE I wmi r wi ■y . ■■ hi m •i\<.' Mm 5 > 5 w 'i*lsIlls:Ih^ 3 5^0 g5 S isli ?|s;im ^ 10 H j •i\ •I ^ 4- 101 O • i i |!!r'!'i|i!!!'!!!lj ■ Iji |i l| I I I i 1 i f;om 2 O y \ O X s I O • » 5 5 1 *** 5|?3i ^:a|li ^ II 8 5 Oo I'M C/),c3maP 51 JiioSh?w1 oi \I 1 1 \1 1 M s' • •0 • 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iL L.1 1 •«I i 1 1 1 1 i I i I i |!!|'‘!'i!i!i!'!!lliIp i''ji moso ! V M,v . •* I . i ♦* *•,♦*» iini:3li3 :!»SS (0oz om ill! i!.^’• _ :s z >o Mo -fi'' o 8 0» si • ou om (Oto vj iVrT>a O i_mo zo 01 K) NJI cn Xmni H O dt (ft £aI s3 5 s i ! !1 8 IP”li*P.i!• IS|l-“I'SI O T!9 MATCH UNI o • I ! ! I I I i I i iiii''i'i{l!l|-j!|!|on 7\ i [ I iA k mmm •D 9 2m 0 -4 Zp a K) 01 vj ?8 (/) Imm -i O I i§ O s|M I** I w .Rtf o• “ j m 5-5 COI'!iij2r c/aa H. 1 9 W'iii^nil! I 8 OSSoss §o o *S COm s Hi I 1 I ( ► 1 1 • i 1!i 9 \ 5 s Hi| • 1 1 IIS 1iiifii i I iM I mlii 3 %mSa.9 \ V JS0|V W-IP —'■-H I--^ —|=is±^ Ul k m Q zo OI CO OI NJ OI I 8 m q lO S5 $ Om CO 3 i hi !!!!!!!§! I i hi I!! iiaim KK HH 32 W* 6li! mmi il n! mm gj ii i m& “• '*•3 3»5S S=IS”85«tE 8 S ^ ^ I s spifsoi e oo obB*o 5 « sue [_ 1 9 QW / :$! P st K>>> i!|g iilitJSt 1 III1 m ]ik o 8 8 3 .« % 5¥1 Iv I i mMi. nB8| 'nmwISi I Icoo-< c. O O< > JL H.tip t-'i I I I* Z \ \ \ \ \, >".—'At: X \ . \ \ \ '5? '' 'hill M /^ / — —% / -«• / III'I! L^ ^ / '''A \ /'l!J* ** /lllll. \ ~V o 7D O Oa O Ii \I i ^ I K Qa X) O 2S o SB o o o CP w n C9 JO C2nr« < Otin Q Qa O Q Ga n / V t H- S ft. i I I ^ n > *. \ r>/^. ■ / ^ <.y<^ i*-sa j - - i ^ Hiiitiifl m oT-g f—1 . 'llitll = rnri_- U- r E tr rmp rl •1 ^-1 te'TlO tV \, Icrrrrf — Li. i I [ ! 1 q !i —i—■_ .1 rf . rr i ' ;<■' ' iM: L. .1 « -‘t - -------Vp¥I. - U--r ^4 /l • I O:‘0a D: 0:i O! o| X3 V O a O O o t;n CP i: m CP 10 Qan CP 3 Ob Ob On a c w•'t \t «• m'I \ • 1 ‘ 5 > ^:\\ V r '.M « in •T- I j I ! . » . i T ■J. rV - “t ^— 4 P! •I / / N / L, ^ i 4 ‘ • A ---------- / t ■? I ’ -i !• t i V -................ ■ I -_a m i «'. t / ^ '• J . t 1 I » I • f I V TBsT* ‘ I » -------/"N 7 »?/' ‘ ‘ *\4 A o 73 o n Oa O T i I i! ' Ga t: V o Efi o o o 3 I c: 03 sis ?" I 03 7D nc% Oon Of 5ono: =1 n Go Go Go OQ C3o *0 >• h7: t- V vV\s . f. ■ *3j ••• >■. V" o o rs n Qd O > I ? ^ i 11 <•I j 3 as Qq t5 2S O o o n D» IS3 DJc CISn Ooo=s 3: 73n iz mn •H Ooon 5:-anoo> r il ?! I I- \ • I *- i ' . * ' V * KS fT -■- •^ ! •' .*• * { . it-i- •■4^1 •>"1 • - v- vJ M 5 t. *• 4 0 Qa T3 O t3 ■VIzC -s0«• ,>< ; t> ^Hi| ' 4 s 2S z o r« Oa O 3 -a o •o •n10• C3 CP' , i<-^ »*y n . V f'"1^ #•* .v'"' •%. A- * .: \ '•\ s ::•'. J- »■;•: ■ r"-w ; • • ( < •r U) S;' ■ t:-’: 1 * O 7D O Ga o ;•n -<I .4 9a *0 O O a O O o 03 ;5 i|sg Si I! rir« Oanrs 3: SO Oa Ors r*i Q Oo Oa Oa On 5S • *■ 1 r -^ ■< , ■•^ •t.*-t 'J *: J■.'5t.- 1 tr5 0 V V, • '. ^ •^* *r/.aT Mii [)i ■• .. .•■■»•• U: • ' •■ V? riL ,^•4 J I- TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SILT FENCE X V V ^. \ \ \ \ \ iiI ^ !TD MAINTENANCE FACILITY . „ 1,^ QRADINQ, DRAINAGE. AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN | § 10.27^.0-1 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "RR-IA" One Family Rural Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA" District and "Animals ” as regulated in Section 10.20, Subdivision 3, Subparagraphs M and N. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 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. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear Yard 5 acres 300 feet 100 feet 50 feet 100 feet 100 feet SEC. 10.28. RR-IB ONE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "RR-IB" One Family Rural Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "RR-IB" One Family Rural Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: District. A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA" Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "RR-IB" One Family Rural Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Uses. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-lA" District except for "Duplex Credit" and "Animals". B. Farms (Stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. . . - .C. Hospitals, Etc. Hospitals for human care, sanitarixims, rest homes, nursing homes, provided that all buildings are located 100 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an "R" District. The site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated. ORONO CC 288 Source: Ordinance No. 185 Effective Date: 6-14-76 (4-1-84) 1 ■i § 10.28 D. Libraries. Non-profit libraries provided that all buildings are located 50 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an "R" District. Screening and signage requirements shall be determined with each individual conditional use permit. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "RR-IB" One Family Rural Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-lA** District and "Animals" as regulated in Section 10.20, Subdivision 3, Subparagraphs M and N. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 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: Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Adjacent to Rear Area Width Yard Yard Street Yard 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet 50 feet SBC. 10.29. RR-lB-1 ONE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT. Subd. 1. Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, Accessory Uses. Any use as regulated in the "RR-IB" District. Subd. 2. Additional Permitted Use. Study and research centers owned or operated by one or more non-profit charitable, scientific or educational organizations, provided that no building other than a residence shall be located within 100 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Subd. 3. Open Space. Not more than 15% of land devoted to use as a study and research center shall be occupied by structures or buildings without a conditional use permit allowing a greater percentage of such land use. Any application for zoning of land as an "RR-lB-1" One Family Rural Residential Subdistrict shall be accompanied by a map or plan showing the portion of land within the district that may be occupied by structures or buildings shall become a part of the conditions upon which such zoning is approved, and no structure or building may be located outside of such portion without a conditional use permit allowing the same. ORONO CC 289 (4-1-84) 1 § 10.29 Subd. 4. Height. No structure or building in a study and research center shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Subd. 5. Temporary or Permanent Residents. No study and research center shall at any time serve as a temporary or permanent residence for a number of persons in excess of that determined by multiplying by 2-1/2 the number of acres of land devoted to use as such study and research center without a special permit allowing a greater number of persons in such number and for such periods of time as the Council may deem appropriate, due consideration being given to the interests of health, safety and public welfare. Subd. 6. Use. No study and research center shall at any time permit more than 300 persons to be present by invitation upon its property, without a special permit allowing a greater number of persons in such number and for such periods of time as the Council may deer., appropriate, due consideration being given to the interests of health, safety and public welfare. Subd. 7. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. (See Section 10.28, Subdivision 5.) SEC. 10.30. M-6 MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ''M-6” Multiple Family Planned Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow multiple dwellings in those areas where such development fits the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, where properly related to other land uses, where there is immediate access to adequate existing arterial highways and public sanitary sewer and_^ no case where located within 1,000 feet of the Lake Minnetonka."^ Rezoning of an area to the ”M-6'' Multiple Family Planned Residential District shall comply with Comprehensive Land Use Plan or may be allowed only after the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is amended to show the possibility of the future rezoning of that area to the "M-6” Multiple Family Planned Residential District. Design and development shall follow the spirit and intent of the land use objectives of Section III-5A of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as adopted December 2, 1974, and the Guiding Principles of Section 10.01, Subdivision 1 of this Chapter. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the "M-6” Multiple Family Planned Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings as regulated in the "R-IB" District. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. ORONO CC 290 - A''- 11 .* \0 0)® (4-1-84) . f 'A V' SEC. 10.20. R-lA OHE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. S 10.20 O “2. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-IA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural 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-IA" 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: A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school provided no building shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R” District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. B. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot lind of an abutting lot in an “R" District. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) I''-' r^>;' .. V >• 9 • 3' / s 10.08 Subd. 8. Variances: Expiration. Variances shall expire one year after the date of Council approval if not used. Any change in use of the property shall require a new variance. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 9. A certified copy of every variance granted under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.358 and 462.359 shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. Variances filed with the County Recorder pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.36, Subd. 1, do not constitute encumbrances on real property. The order issued by the City shall include the legal description of the property involved. Failure to file a variance shall not affect its validity or enforceability. SEC. 10.09. CONDITIONAL USES. Subd. 1. Conditional Uses: Purpose. In order to give the district use regulation the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Chapter, in certain districts, conditional uses are permitted, subject to the granting of a use permit. Conditional uses include those uses generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, but which may under some circumstances be suitable. When such circumstances exist?,^ a conditional use permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of the permit and a periodic review of the permit niay be required. The permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require consideration so they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes, the Council is empowered to grant and to deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of these permits. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 2. Conditional Uses: Reference to Planning Commission. Before the Council may grant conditional use permits for such conditional uses as prescribed in the district regulations of the Zoning Chapter, the request therefor shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed use on the ordinance and on the character and development q£ the neighborhood and for recommendation in regard to granting such conditional use and the conditions thereof, if any, or for the (denial of such conditional use. The Council may by unanimous action waive reference to the Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO CC 267 (4-1-84) ^4 § 10.09 Subd. 3. Conditional Uses: Application. Whenever this Zoning Chapter requires a conditional use permit, an application therefor in writing may be filed with the Zoning Administrator together with such filing fee as may be established by the Council and shall be accompanied by a site plan and such information and showing as may be necessary or desirable, including, but not limited to, the following: setbacks noted, footage. A. Site plan drawn at scale dimensions with B, Location of all buildings, heights, and square C. Curb cuts, driveways, parking spaces. D. Off-street loading areas. E. Drainage plan. F. Type of business, proposed number of employees by shift. G. Proposed floor plan with use indicated and building elevations. H. Sanitary sewer and water plan with estimated use per day. I. A lighting plan showing the lighting of parking area, walks, security lighting and driveway entrance light. ORONO CC 268 (4-1-84) S 10.09 plantings. J.landscape plan with a schedule of the ^ K.An abstractor's certified property certificate showing the property owners within 350 feet of the outer boundaries of the property in question. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 Subd. 4. Conditional Uses; Failure of Planning Commission to Act. If no recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within sixty (60) days after referral of the application for conditional use to the Commission, the Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. Source; Municipal Code Effective Date’; 9-14-67 Subd. 5. Conditional Uses: Hearings and Notice. The Planning Commission or Council may hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a conditional use permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten (10) days or Shall contain the description of the land and the proposed conditional use and the time and place of the hearing. At least ten (10) days before the hearing, the City Clerk shall mail a identical notice to the owner and to each of the pr_operty owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a 1^^ of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part or the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual p^'.perty owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt comply with this Subdivision has been made. At the public hearing the Planning Commission or Council shall review the application an statements and drawings submitted therewith and shall >^eceive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the Pr^oposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Council, the Planning Commission or Council may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs y the parties. The City shall provide for a record of the proceedings which shall include the minutes of the meetin^gs, the findings,^ and the action taken on each matter heard including the final action. ORONO CC 269 (4-1-84) S 10.09 Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit. A. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning anrl ♦-Vi nf H f r 1 r* h in whinh hhp iChapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. B. A conditional use permit may be revokable, may be granted for a limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. C. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this Section shall prevent the City from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses.. D. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles of the county or counties in which the City is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. Conditional Uses: Denial of Permit. The Council shall set forth contemporaneously in writing and in detail all the reasons for the denial of the conditional use permit appli cation. No application for a conditional use permit which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of said denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of changes of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 270 (4-1-84) A r S 10.09 Subd. 8. Conditional Uses: Lapse of Permit. A conditional use permit shall lapse one year following the date on which it became effective, unless prior to that time a building permit is issued by the Building Inspector and construction is commenced and pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the conditional use permit application. A conditional use permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year provided that the request be filed prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the use permit is filed with the Zoning Administrator. The Council may grant or deny an application for renewal of a conditional use permit. Subd. 9. Conditional Uses: Lapse of Use, Should a conditional use permit lapse or cease for a period of six (6) months, future use shall be in conformance with the terms of the Zoning Chapter unless such lapse or cessation is determined to be due to illness, natural disaster or acts of war. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 10. Conditional Use Permits for Non-Conforming Uses. All non-conforming uses actually and legally existing on December 1, 1974, shall be issued a conditional use permit upon application therefor not later than January 1, 1976. Such conditional use permit shall allow the continuation of the non conforming use to the same extent and degree as then existing on December 1, 1974. Such permits shall be granted without application fee and the Council shall be limited in such permits to the full and accurate statements of the conditions pertaining to the existing uses. Such permits shall not be subject to ^periodic review. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 11. Conditional Uses: Review Upon Neighbors’ Petition. Conditional use permits shall not be subject to periodic Council review for the purpose of change or revocation,, unless such a review is one of the conditions of the original permit, or, unless the actual land use is determined to be in violation of the terms of the permit, provided that, upon petition of 75% or more o£ the adjacent property owners (defined here as those whose property lies within 1,000 feet of the property subject to the conditional use permit) the Council shall hold a public hearing on the continuation of the permit. The Council shall determine, ai.ter such public hearing, whether the continuation of the conditional use in question is consistent with the health, safety, and genera welfare of the residents of the City. The Council may, after such petition and hearing, continue the conditional use permit Unchanged, approve a new permit with such additional conditions as may be necessary to protect health, safety or general welfare, or ORONO CC 271 (4-1-84) § 10.09 terminate the existing conditional use permit. Upon termination of a conditional use permit, the Council may allow the former conditional use permit to continue for such period not in excess of one year as may be required to provide time to move or otherwise relocate in a zone where such use is permitted. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 12. Unlawful Act. It is unlawful to violate any condition of a conditional use permit. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-34 SEC. 10.10. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the City, the Planning Commission, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the Council with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter, the Council may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. Subd. 1. Public Hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the Planning Commission or by the Council. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior •-* the ay of the hearing. When an amendment includes changes in d' •'■irt boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similAt nwtice«shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the day of tne hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. Subd. 2. Initiation of Amendments to the Zoning Chapter. An amendment to the Zoning Chapter may be initiated by: (1) action of the Council; (2) a recommendation of the Planning Commission; (3) by petition of the owner(s) of their or adjoining property, the zoning of which is proposed to be changed. An amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report and may not be acted upon ORONO CC 272 (4-1-84) ■ BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ® 612 6361311 02/03/97 12:38 0 :02/02 NO:570 I ^ I Bonestroo Rosene v|| Anderlik & Ivll Associates Engineers & Architects // BcntU'CO Postne. Anaffhi, ana A,to<,..tra tm ,% an Arf„„,^, L , PnnciPAn Orro 0 Bonejtroo •.■oifonC Ana»t>., . Vd'»>n i So->«i« r{ . «.cn*ro I T^.r.., Pf . o.i„n * Cco* »£ . T.'o'nps E \o^Pt Pf . «coe^t Q pi . Jtrr, A aouwr P£ . »oCrr; a Po-.anf •£ ana SuiAn V Ecprlwi CPA Spn.O' Coojo.IAnt, Ai;of...fp »5.vpra A SAVo-a PE . Hn-r A Oo-aoo. Pf . »ce»'t P Puffer.* P£ . p ..'.va W 'OSte> PE . 3P..3 0 LOUii'.A. PE . »05»M C 5ull*l AIA . Mp-, a H.mia- PC . T •»>«;,npnn. p| . Ted A F.p-a PE . Keore:- P Ance Jo« »E • Vjr< P no.‘j •£ . S.dney P W.ll.^mion t S • l?oI>e*-t f r^ O'^res Sr Ucct'evfcr a.n.’re.r ..na 5l C«Ow3 V\ • February 2, 1997 -10.tn A • v^%.a p-i Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Bo.\ 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 139-2209 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the information submitted for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club locoted north of Spring Hill Road and east of Tamarack Drive in the Cities of Orono and Medina. The narrative and drainage summary seem to indicate that the project will be acceptable in concept, however the information did not provide enough detail to verify their conclusions. The applicant should provide a drainage area map and detailed drainage and ponding calculations for each watershed so that the drainage summary can be supponed. We will continue to review the preliminary grading and wetland mitigation plans in the meantime. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very’ truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. i>. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113*3898 ■ 6I2-636-4600 t* ^ .Q interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning and Zoning Admin. from: Lvle Oman, re: Spring Hill Golf date: Februar\'4, 1997 At your request I have reviewed the Spring Hill Golf plans for the purpose of determining if a fire sprinkler system would he required. The building has a mixed occupanc)’ with the most restrictive being the A-3 (dining room) occupancy. Mn. State Building Code requires an automatic sprinkler system in A-3 occupancies with a occupant load 300 or more. I have calculated the occupant load to be well above 300. Therefore a sprinkler system w'ould be required. Tlte proposed maintenance building is classified as a S-3 occupanc)'. Mn. State Building Code requires a sprinkler system in S-3 occupancies \vith 3,000 sq. ft. or more. The maintenance building is proposed to be 9.600 sq. ft. Therefore it w'ould also require a sprinkler system. from the desk of. Lyle Oman, Building Olfidal CityofOrono P.O.Box66 Crystal Bay Kn. 473-73S7 Fax:473-OSIO r. /£. GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Andrew M. Hunter, III Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. 5100 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Mr. Hunter: The cit>- is in the process of reviewing the proposal regarding a golf course on the Spring Hill property. The city’s objectives regarding the review of this proposal were recently discussed at a Council goal setting work session. As part of this discussion. Council e.xpressed concern about whether it would be possible to adhere to your ambitious schedule regarding the review of the proposal. The proposal is a substantial development that involves many issues to be addressed. Although the city will work to keep the process moving, it may not be possible to meet your schedule. City Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A POLICY TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL AND RURAL TYPE VISTAS IN ORONO THROUGH THE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING OF TREES WHEREAS, a key goal of the city’s land use plan and policies is to preserve the city’s rural character, and WHEREAS, the city’s draft park and open space master plan calls for the preservation of natural and rural type vistas as well as the preservation of wildlife habitat, and WHEREAS, tree preservation is an important element in maintaining the city’s rural character through the preservation of natural and rural type vistas, and in maintaining wildlife habitat, and WHEREAS, when open spaces with few trees are developed the natural or rural vista may be degraded or lost, and WHEREAS, the natural or rural vista can most effectively be maintained by preserving and/or planting trees as a landscape screen between new development and public roadways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby adopt the policy of ensuring the preservation of natural and rural type vistas through the preservation or planting of trees, particularly adjacent to public rights-of-way. Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of December, 1996. ATTEST:Edward J. Calla^n, Jr., Mayor / m- T January 27, 1997 received JAN 2 8 'W CITY OF ORONO Mr. Andrew Hunter III 537 Harrington Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Andy: As residents of Spring Hill Road, Harriet and I want to pass on two suggestions: 1.The preliminary indication that the maintenance sheds would go on the corner of County Road 6 and Tamarack is something we oppose. It would make an unsightly corner across the road from our property. That is a dangerous comer because there is not enough time to see westbound traffic coming over the hill on County Road 6. Orono has long had a plan to angle Tamarack Road to the east to put the corner closer to the top of the hill. 2.We are opposed to putting the main entrance for construction machinery and eventually for the Club on Spring Hill Road. Spring Hill Road, a winding road, is now quiet, with little traffic, and has become a popular place for joggers and walkers. The logical entrance is off County Road 6 where the county road could be widened to accommodate the turnoff, and where traffic doesn't have to rise from lake level to •che top of a steep hill to get to the central buildings. hope you will take these points into account in your planning. Sincerely yours. EWSpencer:lp received FEB \ 4 1997 MEMORANDUM CITY OF ORONO TO:Michael P. GafFron, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator DATE: February 13, 1997 FROM:Marshall Braman Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. Andrew Hunter III Timothy Johnson RE; Spring Hill Golf Club In your staff report dated February 5,1997 on the application for a conditional use permit by the Spring Hill Golf Club you raised several questions concerning the development of the property. It may be helpful to you and the planning commission if we furnish to you a succinct reaction to your comments in order that we better define those areas upon which we should focus our discussion. Reference is made in this memorandum to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The reference refers to the bound volume dated February 1997 prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. which has been furnished to you. With few exceptions, we believe that a golf course can comply with most of your requests and suggestions. Our comments are as follows: 1. Rezonintt (page 2 on your staff report). We would have no objection to the rezoning of the property from RR-l-B-1 to RR-l-B. 2. Legal Combination (page 2). We would have no objection to the combination of the entire golf course property into a single tax parcel within Orono (and Medina, if possible) for tax purposes. 3. Bluff Variance (page 3). More detail will be provided on the bluffs surrounding the old gravel pit. Significant trees existing on the bluff will remain. Scrub trees will probably be removed. We would like to discuss the application of the bluff ordinance to the artificial bluff created by the excavation of the gravel pit. 4. Wetlands (page 3). More clarity will be provided on the wetland impact. The report is correct that approximately 1.41 acres of wetland will be filled in A both Medina and Orono. More mitigation than legally required is included in the plans. (5.33 to 1 as compared to the legal requirement of 2 to 1.) 5. Big Woods (page 3). Big Woods areas will be altered north of County Road 6. Specific figures and percentages (before and after) will be furnished. We believe that the alteration is not significant when compared to the potential development of the property for residential use to the fullest extent permitted by each city. Large tracts of existing trees will remain undisturbed. A 1995 DNR paper on Maple-Basswood Forests (“A Threatened Habitat”) [included in EAW in Appendix B] states, in part; “The ecological distinctiveness of maple-basswood forest is dependent on its dense, nearly continuous tree canopy. When the tree canopy is fragmented by driveways, houses, and trails, the cool and moist conditions characteristic of the shady interior of the forest are altered. ... The end result of development, even where patches of trees are spared, is conversion of the maple-basswood forest into a degraded woodlot with houses in it.” Further, the environmental impact of the project must be considered in its totality: a low impact use of an approximately 200 acre tract ideal for residential development. 6. Surface Water Runoff (page 5). The EAW indicates that the surface water runoff rates will be less with the golf course than presently exists in the natural state given ponds to be created to recycle water for irrigation purposes and the restoration of previously altered wetlands. 7. Hard Cover Zones (page 5). These calculations will be provided in due course. Parking and building areas will be reduced from those presently existing at the conference center. Accordingly, ratios should not be a problem. 8. Storage of Fuels and Agricultural Chemicals (page 5). All storage areas for such materials will be above ground. Agricultural chemicals will be stored in a separate 20 x 40 foot facility to hold such chemicals for which more details will be provided as requested. 9. Clubhouse Access (page 6). The golf course architects were requested to retain the access on County Road 6.. Unfortunately, after many attempts, it was not feasible to do so resulting in the establishment of the access on Spr-ng Hill Road which has been placed as far east as possible. Treiffic volumes, routings and the like are contained in the EAW which anticipates in excess of 60% of the traffic generated will use County Road 6 and the east end of Spring Hill Road. 10. Maintenance Facility Access Location (page 6). The maintenance facility access on Tamarack Drive will be utilized primarily by employees based at the maintenance building. At peak season 15 full-time equivalent employees are -2- anticipated to be based in that facility. Virtually all of traffic between the northern portion and the southern portion of the golf course divided by County Road 6 will be through the tunnel under County Road 6 which is sized sufficiently large to accommodate both golfers and virtually all maintenance equipment. 11. Spring Hill Road Condition (page 6). The golf club is projected as a private facility and will be required to obtain City approvals before changing its status as such (see number 15 below). The facility is not planned for tournament play with the attendant traffic, spectator and service problems. At peak sesison 200 golf trips per day are contemplated. Treifific to service the restaurant, a facility which will be utilized primarily at the noon hour, should not be substantia] and will not require delivery trucks larger than those currently serving the residences in the area. The clubhouse will not be rented for weddings, parties and the like. However, we acknowledge that the condition of Spring Hill Road is not optimum. We are willing to discuss participating in costs of upgrading the road and would prefer that such costs be performed by the City and assessed against the benefited properties. It is important to us that City input on this issue be furnished as promptly as possible as to the degree of upgrading required, portion of the road involved, and anticipated costs. 12. Tamarack/6 Intersection (page 6). We have no objection to providing reasonable additional right-of-way, if needed, for a right turn lane although our engineers inform us that the existing 80 foot right-of-way of County Road 6 should be sufficient to accommodate such a lane. Hennepin County has been contacted on the right turn lane question. 13. City Trail System (page 6). We will cooperate with the cities of Orono and Medina in accommodating the trail systems of both cities. We note in your report (top of page 7) that you state, because subdivision is not being requested, park dedication is not required. We would like to be consistent with both cities in our trail system agreements and have agreed with Medina at the planning commission level that Medina would receive the same trail system treatment as would Orono. Because neither the Wolsfeld SNR nor the Wood-Rill SNR permits bicycles or horses as a matter of state law, we believe that the trail system should be directed primarily at pedestrians and that its emphasis should be on the perimeter of the Spring Hill property using road right-of-way wherever available and possible. For example. Tamarack Drive consists of a 66 foot right-of-way with an approximate 20 foot traveled surface. The same is true on Spring Hill Road. -3- We win provide a proposed design for an adjacent trail system at the planning commission meeting and are prepared to install, at the golf club’s expense, a split-rail fence, or equivalent, between the trail and the golf course property where the trail is adjacent to such property. 14. Tunnel Under County Road 6 (page 71. The tunnel will be a prefabricated rectangular concrete box culvert zipproximately 12 feet wide located approximately in the middle of the golf course property as it borders the north side of County Road 6. Because it is in the center of golf course, joint use by a public trail is not consistent with the golf course. In our opinion, a second tunnel on the perimeter of the golf course is not feasible but we would be willing to have discussions on this topic. As noted above, the tunnel is to provide safe passage between the two portions of the golf course for all golf course related uses thereby reducing substantially traffic crv->ssing County Road 6. We have no objection to designing the tunnel for potential future County Road 6 reconstruction needs. 15. Potential Public Course (page 7V We have no objection to limiting the conditional use permit to the private golf course contemplated. 16. Tax Base Implications (page 8). We expect that the golf course will pay taxes on a basis comparable to that of other private golf courses in the two communities. 1 7. Aesthetic Impacts (page 8). Open space character : existing perimeter vegetation on the property will, in virtually all cases, be retained. Further, additional perimeter trees will be added particularly at the easterly end of the property and around the maintenance buildings. Minimal signage will be required for the clubhouse entrance and no netting, nonvegetative screening or fencing is currently proposed. Maintenance facility: elevations are being provided for the maintenance building. A combination of berming and planting will shield the building, in practical application, from all vantage points. The applicant intends to minim.ize the impact of the building. -4- Rest station : the rest station will be screened from all external locations both for aesthetic reasons and security reasons. Special events: the only special events contemplated would be customary member tournaments and member guest events. The parking is contemplated to cover all elements of such events so that off-site parking would not be necessary. Seasonal use: presently no winter activities are planned. It is contemplated that the clubhouse, including the restaurant facilities, will be closed when the golf course is closed. Lighting: Clubhouse and golf course: the only exterior lighting will be parking lot lights which will probably be a re-use of the existing conference center parking lot lights. No lights will be installed on the golf course or practice range. Maintenance facil. v: external security lights and parking area lights (re-use of existing conference center lights or equivalent) may be used. 18. Construction Activities (page 10). 'jming: construction is scheduled to start in late spring or early '.ummer of 1997. Assuming favorable weather conditions, the course would be ready for play in the summer of i j99. Hours of construction: an agreement as to reasonable hours for grading activity should not be difficult. Access: all contractors will be required by contract to use County Road 6 as access for construction activity as long as possible. Separate parcels , we anticipate that land alteration on each of the parcels north and south of County Road 6 will be independent and that there will be little, if any, need to transfer material from one site to the other. -5- o I i9. Building Code Issues (cage 10), Clubhouse building: the clubhouse building will be sprinklered if required by applicable codes. Maintenance building: there is no objection to sprinklering the work and office areas of the maintenance building. We want to discuss the need to sprinkler portions of the maintenance building which may be used for equipment storage only and may not be heated. 20. Stormwater Management and Drainage (page 11). Considerable work has been done on this topic. Because of the restoration of wetlands which have been previously ditched, stormwater management and drainage should be more controlled than presently exists. Because the golf course plans to recycle water (pumping water from the existing well into retention ponds and sub>equently onto the course) water runoff and nutrient levels will be controlled. Studies are in the EAW which indicate that water management and nutrient levels will be more favorable with a golf course than presently exists. Supporting information to clarify the studies have been provided to the City engineer. 21 . General Timing (page 12). The golf course design as submitted to the City reflects generally the final golf course designs As noted above, a late spring or early summer construction date is desirable. Site preparation work will require five months and should be done in the 1997 construction season. 1998 will involve seeding and the initial “grow in” of the course. Play is hoped for in 1999. If a late start is experienced in 1997, the project would be delayed a full year. Prior to the start of construction, commitments are required, final plans must be approved, bids obtained, and contracts awarded all of which will require most of the significant land use decisions to have been made. We are aware that this project is a significant one for both cities involved in terms of size and usage. We appreciate the time and attention given to this matter thus far and will use every effort to provide information in a timely and complete manner going forward. -M 1:0228009 03 -6- r/111 To: From: Date: Planning Commission Mike GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator February 18, 1997 Subject: Additional Information for # 2209, Spring HiP Golf Club The following items received since the February 5 staff memo was completed, are attached: City Engineer ’s Feb. 6 letter to City of Medina City Attorney's Feb. 7 letter re: Conditional Approval DNR Feb. 4 letter re: Big Woods Applicant's F^b. 13 memo re: Response to staff memo Schoell & Madson Feb. 14 letter re: Responses to 9 recommendations at end of staff memo Resolution language which applicant ’s attorney suggests PC adopt (PC is not authorized to adopt resolutions granting approval, conceptual or otherw ise) i I X 17" color map of the golf course as proposed Feb. 18 letter from Bruce Carlson, area resident, in support of project The following items were receitoday and/or late last week and copies are available but too massive to attach: Revised set, Schoell & Madson/Fazio prelim construction plans Revised preliminary set of architects plans and views of clubhouse and maint. facilities We also received a set of colored perspective views of the clubhouse facility as viewed from the adjacent roadways. Since a majority of the above materials arc of very recent vintage, and submitted mostly in response to the staff memo, neither staff nor the City Engineer have had the opportunity to review them in depth. i J/1 Bonestroo Rosene vS Anderlik& |\ I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonesrroo. Artdrrfik ^9nd AssociJKCi. Inc ti An Affirmative Aition BquAi Opportunity Bmpfoyer PrmciDAli Orto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin L Sofvala. ®E • Richard E Turner PE • Glenn R Cook PE • Thomas E Noyes. PE • Robert G Schumcht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M Ebertin. CPA Ser> or Consultants AssociAte Principals Howard A SanMf(3 p£ • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskcra PE • Robert C Russeh. Al A • Matk A Hanson. PE • Wichaei T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. P? • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson PE L S • Robert F • :smith Off'Ces St Paul. Rochester Wiiimar ar.: ;t Cloud. MN • Mequon. Wl February 6,1997 40th Mr. Loren Kohnen, Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 N. Jf X M Re: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 190GEN Dear Loren, We have reviewed the information submitted for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Ciub located north of Spring Hill Road and east of Tamarack Drive in the Cities of Orono and Medina. This letter addresses specific engineering issues as they relate to the City of Medina. The clarity of the plans makes it very difficult to follow. We would recommend that the plans be submitted at 50 scale or colored to distinguish specific areas. There needs to be more detail in regards to the rock walls, storm sewer, wetland mitigation and protection of steep slopes. Two areas of wetland 17 are proposed to be filled to construct i green #9 and tee box #10. The proposed contours for these areas .should be shown and erosion control should be installed along the grading limits. The Wetland Conservation Act rules state that if an activity is located in two jurisdictions, the local government unit (LGU) .shall be the one in which most of the wetland loss will occur. For this project the majority of the wetland loss will be in Orono. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should have final approval power for the wetland impacts in Medina associated with this project. They should include the City of Medina in their mailings so that we can comment on the Wetland Repiacenient Flan Apphcaaon. It is nut appaieni which wetland areas are to be impacted and which areas are to be used for mitigation. There is a rock wall proposed along the east side of Tamarack Drive. The dimensions and design details should be provided for our review. There is a proposed drainage swale leading from wetland #14 to #17. There is 12 feet of fall between the two wetlands. The swale is shown cutting across a hill. This excavation will likely be up to 10 feet deep and will create a high potential for erosion. The proposed contours should be shown in this area. The intersection of Tamarack Drive and CSAH 6 is of particular concern due to poor sight lines and the high speed of oncoming traffic. Turn lanes and by-pass lanes would likely improve the intersection. Additional right-of-way should be provided to the City of Orono in this location. A 10-foot wide easement for trail purposes should be provided to both cities along the east side of Tamarack Drive for a future trail. 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 I ^ '5 . i Mr. Loren Kohnen, City of Medina Page -2- February 6,1997 The tunnel elevation should be carefully located to allow for future improvements to CSAH 6. The plans show 2 to 4 feet of cover over the tunnel which is a minimum. If the crest of CSAH 6 is ever lowered to improve the sight lines, there may be a conflict with the tunnel. Hennepin County should review the plans. The installation will require a detour plan. The drainage ditch along the north side of CSAH 6 will need to be carried past the tunnel which will likely require a culvert under the tunnel. These details will need to be addressed. The narrative and drainage summary seem to indicate that the project drainage will be acceptable in concept, however the information did not provide enough detail to ve'-^^y their conclusions. The applicant should provide a drainage .irea map and detailed drainage md ponding calculations for each watershed so that the drainage summary can be supported. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. cc: Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, City of Orono I wi»-. 1 POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRiCH a K aufman , L^o. ocNvcii, coLOiiAeo Tlw 30S t»9-l200 MlAMi. FuO>«>OA Tik 309-990-0090 PiPKA JAFFRAV TOWCA. SUITE 3300 222 SOUTH N inth Street Minneapolis . Minnesota S54O2-3330 TEL 612-333-4600 • Fax 6I2-334 6888 WAiHiNaroN, o C. Tic 202 SaA SOOO INTgMNATlONAi, AFFILtATlOM: StuiNa. China TCk Ol 1SSI-91992S1 Thomas J. Radio , Esq. DIRECT Dial (612) 334-2653 February 7, 1997 received FfB 1 0 1997 CITV OF C^O.VO Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant City Planner and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Spring Hill Golf Club/Conditional Approval Pending EAW Determinations Our File No.: 3643-091 Dear Mike: After considering your question as to whether the City may grant approval of a project conditioned on successful completion of the EAW process, 1 have concluded that the City may do so, but should do so only in limited circumstances. The City has the statutory authority to approve a conditional use pemat, conditioned on their being no issues raised in the EAW process. I am concerned, however, about using that procedure, since it can result in potential confusion and decision-making inefficiency. As noted by the EQB in its discussion of this issue, any such conditional approval should follow these guidelines: (1) They must be properly done; The proposer should understand that until all the conditions have been met no approval has actually been given; and 057/14133027 2/7/97 4 Mr. Mike Gaffron February 7, 1997 Page 2 The proposer can not rely upon the conditional approval and that the conditional approval is understood to be merely an indication that the city views the project favorably based on the known information and conveys no development rights until all conditions have been fulfilled. Should Orono wish to conditionally approve a conditional use permit, it should include the three provisions suggested by the EQB: The conditional approval must not preclude the imposition of changes in the project or mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid environmental impacts that are disclosed in the EAW, comments received on the EAW, the EIS (if an EIS ir prepared), and comments received on the EIS; The conditional approval must not prejudice the decision on the need for an EIS, and therefore the approval should be conditional on the completion of the environmental review process in accordance with part 4410.3100, subpt. 1 rather than on the decision that an EIS is not necessary; and The conditional approval must not preclude an ultimate decision by the RGU or any other governmental unit to deny approval of the project pursuant to Minn. Stat., § 116D.04, subd. 6, in the event that an EIS should reveal that the project would be likely to cause "pollution, impairment, or destruction" of the environmental and that there is a "feasible and prudent" alternative to the project. Another way of saying this is that the conditional approval must not preclude the RGU or another unit from choosing another alternative or the "no-build alternative" over the project as proposed because of environmental reasons consistent with state law. On the whole, however, I would caution against the use of conditional approvals in this context for two reasons. The potential for misunderstanding between the parties is great. Also, if the environmental review uncovers problems the City’s review must be re-done, leading to repetitive hearings and loss of efficiency. 057/14133027 2T7/97 i i % Mr. Mike Gaffron February 7, 1997 Page 3 Accordingly. I would recommend that the City use this process only when the applicant has stated a legitimate need for the process and the City has determined that an overall benefit will inure to both the City and the applicant. If you have any questions concerning my recommendation, please do not hesitate to call me. Ver>' truly yours. TJR/jbm 057/14133027 2/7/97 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2 r 500 Lafa>cuc RoaJ Si. Paul. Minnesota 55155-40 ^7* MikeGafi&on City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 February 4, 1997 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 1997 CITY OF ORONO Dear Mike; As we discussed, I am enclosing some information about maple basswood forests in the metro area to help in evaluating the potential impacts of a golf course on the forest near the Spring Hill Conference Center. The Minnesota County Biological Survey has identified the 40 acre forested tract indicated on the enclosed map (labelled “Medina 26") as a significant remnant of maple basswood forest. This tract was part of the “Big Woods” that once covered about 1.9 million acres in central Minnesota. We have found that less than 1 percent of the original expanse of Big Woods maple basswood forest remains today, and most of these remnants are small and isolated from other maple basswood forest stands. In Hennepin County, only about 1100 acres remains. With so little left, it is important that we do all that we can to protect these few remaining tracts. The Medina 26 tract was visited by a Minnesota County Biological Surv'cy ecologist, who determined that the forest was mature (with some trees over 100 years old) and in good condition. It is similar to the forests in the Wolsfeld Woods and Woodrill Scientific and Natural Areas. Its location between these tracts gives it additional importance as a potential connection between the two, adding important habitat for the forest birds and other wildlife that use these areas. Ideally, it would be good to seek opportunities to connect the three tracts with native forest plantings. I encourage you to do all that you can to ensure this forest remains intact. Developments such as golf courses, roads, and housing cause major disturbances to maple-basswood forests. They serve to further fragment them, introduce non-native invasive plants, destroy fragile wildfl> wers and native grasses, and eliminate forest interior habitat that is vital for many songbirds. DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5484. I-800-657-.W9 An Equal Opp' ^tuniiy Eiiiplo>cr Who Values Livcrsily 0% Printed un Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of lO'r Post-Consumer Waste -a- If it would be helpful, I would be happy to attend a meeting to help explain the importance of these forests and provide information about how to protect them. Feel free to call me at 282- 2510 if I can be of further assistance Sincerely, % Hannah Dunevitz Plant Ecologist, Natural Heritage Program vIEJ)IXA. . _ • ^ , • J• • • •: I c 1 woi^aa Lake ^ /OO? >,___ ' ^ 1305 * •J* • •• • -C--? • • * -» ■ r <•' M - _ w* ^ TrinityThi .,*\'-_* • *'»t'lT . ■’7 TS •- t . Ciea'Xa '-?^3 o ,-s •••. •;•. .-.-.V Ob» > LydiaH Lakt^. _3 »■ y • • .5^'" • • .-^»->-----------r ----------V J j >* - ‘ ’ ^'”“' .....11| i«»- • fVrv. Lake ■ ■' :.'^r /^' — sr y '.• -V. .. Ny. - u) 0 »aH ^" : • • . -.•*. 1 t » • • i : . ' •.-r^jy-.-- ;'-*-■•-'■" V" . • : J-F^ ;J-^ • * • V•: 7^. : \ r * •'* 1 /• • • ^ • *. • '.I. y /• • r!\ •>"'<."v-/ !i /,') * J •7,\ .Vjy2J!S . . ^ • Cou'^t'y C u5 _ /I £ i)//J;< Z6 ^. 1 ' -^o >-Uu^; Jl * x*-- - > •• r _ ^isrrta^.- ^ss55*itfs=^Tr"^"«^2=riP<y^ - r- - • ,M* -x^". *“ •“. ' . .^ * / ■ * »fer >. 'X ""—**“ I- I.** * •- * r*““Q" . -^^.*7 “ A I — •• /\ “'3»5;:a '%»> . / ^ “*' ..->., • • .V.;. .„ ^ •• k--;* ^ -As ,• •^^. -y MAPLE-BASSWOOD FORESTS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY: A THREATENED HABITAT June 1995 nC'hundred fifty years ago. Big Woods forest covered close to one-half of Hennepin County. Today the forest persists only in isolated patches. Unless actively protected, these small remnants are likely to be destroyed within the next few years by subi^an development. In 1856, when John Bninius and E. N. Darling of the United State? General Land Office Survey divided Hennepin County into sections to sell to fanners, railroad companies, and speculators, they recorded that 154,000 acres of land in the county were covered by Big Woods (see map). The Big Woods were moist, shady forests of tall, straight elm, sugar maple, basswood, and red oak trees. In the cool shade beneath the trees grew such distinctive herbs as ginseng, trout lilies, and spring beauties. In 1995, just 140 years after Brunius and Darling surveyed these primeval forests, the Big Woods have all but disappeared from Hennepin County. About 1,100 acres, or less than 1% of the 1850 acreage of Big Woods, remain. Much of the Big Woods, or rr,aplc-basswood forest as it is now often called, was cleared for farmland in the early decades of Euro-Ameri.an settlenwnt It is hard to give precise figures for how rapidly this clearing took place, although aerial photographs indicate that by the late 1930s the Big Woods had , . , u been reduced to a patchwork of mostly 40- to 80-acre parcels. What is very clc^, however, is that in the decades following World War U the remainder of the county’s maple-basswoc^ eroded by spreading suburban development. In fact, more than 10% of the maple-basswood fores, remaining in the county is slated for development within the next few months. While much of rural Hennepin County is experiencing high development pressure, to be especially targeted because they make shady, secluded and scenic loK for new homes. The ecol^cd distincti^ess of a maple-basswood forest is dependent on iB dense, nearly the tree canopy is fragmented by driveways, houses, and trails, the cool and moist condiuons ch^ctensne of the shady interior ^e forest are altered. More sunlight reaches the forest floor and the species typical of the forest are replaced by species more typical of open habitats and forest edges. Tlus fore^st ftS^entation also promotes displacement of native forest shrobs and herbs species such as the ornamental shrubs common buckthorn and Tat^an honeysuckle. In addition, fraementation leads to a decline in the diversity of native forest shrubs ^d herbs because the populations that remain are more likely to be destroyed by poUution and physical dairagc. heriiicide- and fertilizer-laden runoff from lawns and erosion or compaction of soils d^ng constnicti^ TJie end result of development, even where patches of trees are spared, is conversion of the maple-basswood forest into a degraded woodlot with houses in it. The original extent of Big Woods in Hennepin County (shaded), as interpreted by Frances J . Marschner using Public Land Survey records from 1853-55. The Minnesota County Biological Survey has found that less than 1% of the Big Woods remains in 1995. Growth in Hennepin County appears to have reached the point that it is now economically viable to develop all but the few remaining maple-basswood forests present on steep slopes. Therefore, unless they arc deemed worthy of protection by citizens or local governments, most of the remaining unprotected forests will be develop^ ove- the next few years. The citizens of Eden Prairie last year overwhelmingly approved a referendum to raise S3.5 million through taxes to buy and protect land supporting native habitats, including one of the best remaining unprotected maple-basswood forests in southern Hennepin County. Residents of Maple Grove and Plymouth passed similar referendums this spring to purchase land for open space. Some of the parcels being considered arc good-quality remnants of maple-basswood forest along Elm Creek, one of which will otherwise be developed soon. There is no immediately life-threatening reason to worry about the loss of more maple-basswood forests from Hennepin County. If the remaining maple-basswood forests in the county were bulldozed away tomorrow and replaced by subdivisions or malls, few people would perceive the difference. But the county would be more biologically impoverished, we would have lost some of our natural heritage, and we would have destroyed sites that pro\ide unique aesthetic and educational opportunities. The Minnesota County Biological Survey, a Department of Natural Resources Program charged with inventorying and mapping Minnesota ’s native vegetation, is working at a r^id pace to provide citizens and local governments with information on remaining native habitats statewide. This information is intended to help make informed decisions on where and how development occurs, ideally guiding it away from biologically sensitive or unique areas. Survey of the remaining maple-basswood forests and other native habitats of Hennepin County is part of the County Biological Survey’s efforts this summer. Hopefully the information gathered will help to preserve a few more acres of the Big Woods that once covered Hennepin County. maple-bas.Twood forest For more information on maple-basswood forests and other native habitats in Hennepin County, contact: Fred Harris, Plant Ecologist (282-2683) or Daniel Wovcha, Plant Ecologist (297-7264), Minnesota County Biological Survey Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 7 St. Paul, MN 55155 ©1995 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources TO: received FEB 1 4 t997 CITY OF ORONO DATE: February 13, 1997 FROM: MEMORANDUM Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Marshall Braman Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. Andrew Hunter in Timothy Johnson RE: Spring Hill Golf Club In your staff report dated February 5, 1997 on the application for a conditional use permit by the Spring Hill Golf Club you raised several questions concerning the development of the property. It may be helpful to you and the planning commission if we furnish to you a succinct reaction to your comments in order that we better define those areas upon which we should focus our discussion. Reference is made in this memorandum to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The reference refers to the bound volume dated February 1997 prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. which has been furnished to you. With few exceptions, v.e believe that a golf course can comply with most of your requests and suggestions. Our comments are as follows: 1. Rezoning (page 2 on your staff report). We would have no objection to the rezoning of the property from RR-l-B-1 to RR-l-B. 2. Legal Combination (page 2). We would have no objection to the combination of the entire golf course property into a single tax parcel within Orono (and Medina, if possible) for tax purposes. 3. Bluff Variance (page 3). More detail will be provided on the bluffs surrounding the old gravel pit. Significant trees existing on the bluff will remain. Scrub trees will probably be removed. We would like to discuss the application of the bluff ordinance to the artificial bluff created by the excavation of the gravel pit. 4. Wetlands (page 3). More clarity will be provided on the wetland impact. The report is correct that approximately 1.41 acres of wetland will be filled in both Medina and Orono. More mitigation thzin legally required is included in the plans. (5.33 to 1 as compared to the legal requirement of 2 to 1.) 5. Big Woods (page 3). Big Woods areas will be altered north of County Road 6 Specific figures and percentages (before and after) will be furnished. We believe that the alteration is not significant when compared to the potential development of the property for residential use to the fullest extent permitted by each city. Large tracts of existing trees will remain undisturbed. A 1995 DNR paper on Maple-Basswood Forests (“A Threatened Habitat”) [included in EAW in Appendix B] states, in part: “The ecological distinctiveness of maple-basswood forest is dependent on its dense, nearly continuous tree canopy. When the tree canopy is fragmented by driveways, houses, and trails, the cool and moist conditions characteristic of the shady interior of the forest are altered. ... The end result of development, even where patches of trees are spared, is conversion of the maple-basswood forest into a degraded woodlot witli houses in it.” Further, the environmental impact of the project must be considered in its totality; a low impact use of an approximately 200 acre tract ideal for residential development. 6. Surface Water Runoff (page 5). The EAW indicates that the surface water runoff rates will be less with the golf course than presently exists in the natural state given ponds to be created to recycle water for irrigation purposes and the restoration of previously altered wetlands. 7. Hard Cover Zones (page 5). These calculations will be provided in due Parking and building areas will be reduced from those presently existing at the conference center. Accordingly, ratios should not be a problem. course 8. Storage of Fuels and Agricultural Chemicals (page 5). All storage areas for such materials will be above ground. Agricultural chemicals will be stored in a separate 20 x 40 foot facility to hold such chemicals for which more details will be provided as requested. 9. Clubhouse Access (page 6). The golf course architects were requested to retain the access on County Road 6.. Unfortunately, after many attempts, it was not feasible to do so resulting in the establishment of the access on Spring Hill Road which has been placed as far east as possible. Traffic volumes, routings and the like are contained in the EAW which anticipates in excess of 60% of the traffic generated will use County Road 6 and the east end of Spring Hill Road. 10. Maintenance Facility Access Location (page 6V The maintenance facility access on Tamarack Drive will be utilized primarily by employees based at the maintenance building. At peak season 15 full-time equivalent employees are -2- anticipated to be based in that facility. Virtually all of traffic between the northern portion and the southern portion of the golf course divided by County Road 6 will be through the tunnel under County Road 6 which is sized sufficiently large to accommodate both golfers and virtually all maintenance equipment. 11. Soring Hill Road Condition (page 6). The golf club is projected as a private facility and will be required to obtain City approvals before changing its status as such (see number 15 below). The facility is not planned for tournament play with the attendant traffic, spectator and service problems. At peak season 200 golf trips per day are contemplated. Traffic to service the restaurant, a facility which will be utilized primarily at the noon hour, should not be substantial and will not require delivery trucks larger than those currently serving the residences in the area. The clubhouse will not be rented for weddings, parties and the like. However, we acknowledge that the condition of Spring Hill Road is not optimum. We are willing to discuss participating in costs of upgrading the road and would prefer that such costs be performed by the City and assessed against the benefited properties. It is important to us that City input on this issue be furnished as promptly as possible as to the degree of upgrading required, portion of the road involved, and anticipated costs. 12. Tamarack/6 Intersection (page 6V We have no objection to providing reasonable additional right-of-way, if needed, for a right turn lane although our engineers inform us that the existing 80 foot right-of-way of County Road 6 should be sufficient to accommodate such a lane. Hennepin County has been contacted on the right turn lane question. 13. City Trail System (page 6). We will cooperate with the cities of Orono and Medina in accommodating the trail systems of both cities. We note in your report (top of page 7) that you state, because subdivision is not being requested, park dedication is not required. We would like to be consistent with both cities in our trail system agreements and have agreed with Medina at the planning commission level that Medina would receive the same trail system treatment as would Orono. Because neither the Wolsfeld SNR nor the Wood-Rill SNR permits bicycles or horses as a matter of state law, we believe that the trail system should be directed primarily at pedestrians and that its emphasis should be on the perimeter of the Spring Hill property using road right-of-way wherever available and possible. For example. Tamarack Drive consists of a 66 foot right-of-way with an approximate 20 foot traveled surface. The same is true on Spring Hill Road. -3- We will provide a proposed design for an adjacent treiil system at the planning commission meeting and are prepared to install, at the golf club’s expense, a split-rail fence, or equivalent, between the trail and the golf course property where the trail is adjacent to such property. 14. Tunnel Under Countv Road 6 (page 7). The tunnel will be a prefabricated rectangular concrete box culvert jq)proximately 12 feet wide located approximately in the middle of the golf course property as it borders the north side of County Road 6. Because it is in the center of golf course, joint use by a public trail is not consistent with the golf course. In our opinion, a second tunnel on the perimeter of the golf course is not feasible but we would be willing to have discussions on this topic. As noted above, the tunnel is to provide safe passage between the two portions of the golf course for all golf course related uses thereby reducing substantially traffic crossing County Road 6. We have no objection to designing the tunnel for potential future County Road 6 reconstruction needs. 15. Potential Public Course (page 7). We have no objection to limiting the conditional use permit to the private golf course contemplated. 16. Tax Base Implications (page 8). We expect that the golf course will pay taxes on a bas-s comparable to that of other private golf courses in the two communities 17. Aesthetic Impacts (page 8). Open space character : existing perimeter vegetation on the property will, in virtually all cases, be retained. Further, additional perimeter trees will be added particularly at the easterly end of the property and around the maintenance buildings. Minimal signage will be required for the clubhouse entrance and no netting, nonvegetative screening or fencing is currently proposed. Maintenance facility : elevations are being provided for the maintenance building. A combination of berming and planting will shield the building, in practical application, from all vantage points. The applicant intends to minimize the impact of the building. -4- I Rest station : the rest station will be screened from all external locations both for aesthetic reasons and security reasons. Special events: the only special events contemplated would be customary member tournaments and member guest events. The parking is contemplated to cover all elements of such events so that off-site parking would not be necessary. Seasoned use: presently no winter activities are planned. It is contemplated that the clubhouse, including the restaurant facilities, will be closed when the golf course is closed. Lighting : Clubhouse and golf course: the only exterior lighting will be parking lot lights which will probably be a re-use of the existing conference center parking lot lights. No lights will be installed on the golf course or practice range. Maintenance facility : external security lights and parking area lights (re-use of existing conference center lights or equivalent) may be used. 18. Construction Activities (page 10). Timing : construction is scheduled to start in late spring or early summer of 1997. Assuming favorable weather conditions, the course would be ready for play in the summer of 1999. Hours of construction: an agreement as to reasonable hours for grading activity should not be difficult. Access: all contractors will be required by contract to use County Road 6 as access for construction activity as long as possible. Separate parcels : we anticipate that land alteration on each of the parcels north and south of County Road 6 will be independent and that there will be little, if any, need to transfer material from one site to the other. -5- 19. Building Code Issues (pace 10). Clubhouse building: the clubhouse building will be sprinklered if required by applicable codes. Maintenance building: there is no objection to sprinklering the work z»nd office areas of the maintenance building. We want to discuss the need to sprinkler portions of the maintenance building which may be used for equipment storage only and may not be heated. -0. Stormwater Management and Drainage (cage 1 IV Considerable work has been done on this topic. Because of the restoration of wetlands which have been previously ditched, stormwater management and drainage should be more controlled than presently exists. Because the golf course plans to recycle water (pumping water from the existing well into retention ponds and subsequently onto the course) water runoff and nutrient levels will be controlled. Studies are in the EAW which indicate that water management and nutrient levels will be more favorable with a golf course than presently exists. Supporting information to clarify the studies have been provided to the City engineer. 21 . General Timing (page 12). The golf course design as submitted to the City reflects generally the final golf course designs. As noted above, a late spnng or early summer construction date is desirable. Site preparation work will require five months and should be done in the 1997 construction season. 1998 will involve seeding and the initial “grow *o” of the course. Play is hoped for in 1999. If a late start is experienced in 1997, the project would be delayed a full year. Prior to the start of construction, commitments are required, final plans must be approved, bids obtained, and contracts awarded all of which will require most of the significant land use decisions to have been made. We are aware that this project is a significant one for both cities involved in terms of size and usage. We appreciate the time and attention given to this matter thus far and will use every effort to provide information in a timely and complete manner going forward. M 1:0228009.03 -6- SCHOELL & MADSON, INC ENQNEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10SSO WAYZATA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA. MN SS305-1525 CB1B1 B4B-7801 • FAX CB18] B4B.80BB February 13, 1997 Revised February 14,1997 City of Orono do Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55391 Subject; Spring Hill Golf Club Dear Mr. Gaffron: We herein respond to the nine items identified in the recommendations section of the February 5, 1997 staff report on Spring Hill Golf Club. The recommendations and responses follow. 1. Submit plans that provide darity to the actual bluff impacts that will occur. A detailed plan at a scale of 1" = 50 ’ is being prepared which will show the bluff area that is proposed to be impacted. The impacts are limited to the bluff around the old gravel pit area. These are, therefore, man-made slopes which significantly changed the original topography. The Impacts, in general, consist of grading and construction of retaining walls to construct the tee area on the east side of the bowl area and grading for the fain/vay on the west S'de of the bowl. The flat area in the bottom of the bowl contains the existing drain field and will not be disturbed. 2. Provide clarity to the actual impact on each wetland. Detailed 1" = 50' scale plans are being prepared for all wetlands being Impacted and also for all wetland mitigation areas. A total of 16 wetlands and drainage ditches exist in the Orono portion of the project. Six of these are City of Orono designated wetlands. The impacts to wetlands are tabulated on the attached paats. The wetland areas altered by .''ing are 1.18 acres in Orono and 0.23 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 8CHOELL S MADSON, INC. City of Orono February 13,1997 Revised February 14,1997 3. acres in Medina. Existing wetlands are excavated at three locations to construct the three NURP basins. A total of 2.51 acres of new wetland is created. In addition, the following wetland mitigation credits are provided: Upland buffer NURP basin credits Public value credits for enhancement of existing wetlands Total credits 0.64 acres 0.61 acres 3.51 acres 4.76 acres The above credits, plus the created wetland, total 7.27 acres and provide a wetland replacement ratio of 5.16 to 1. Define the various hardcover zones on a certificate of survey of the entire site and submit hardcover calculation worksheets for the site. With the proposed building demolition and reduction in parking area, the total hard surface area after development of the golf course is less than the present area. However, as the existing parking lot being removed is outside the shoreline district and the proposed parking is within the district, the hard surface within the shore land district increases. The coverage percentage is still well below the maximum in each zone. Following is a summary of the existing and proposed percentage of hard cover: ZONE EXISTING PROPOSED 0-75 0 0 75 - 250 0 4.6% 250 - 500 1.5%2.9% 500- 1000 6.5%7.2% Copies of the calculation worksheets are attached. 8CHOELL & MADSON, INC City of Orono February 13, 1997 Revised February 14, 1997 4. Submit a complete septic system site evaluation and design for the maintenance facility. The site evaluation and design will be completed this spring after soil percolation testing can be done. The soil type in the area of the proposed drain field is classified as Hayden clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes (HcC2) In the Hennepin County Soil Survey. This soil has moderate limitations for absorbing septic tank effluent, but should allow a conventional system. 5. Address chemical storage on the site. The chemical and fertilizer storage will be a small, free standing structure adjacent to the maintenance building and built with the same type materials used on the main maintenance building. During the golf season, only Class I and Class II chemicals will be stored in this building. In addition, all sprayers and safety equioment will be stored in this secured building. The fertilizer building will store .ninimal amounts of fertilizers of the type generally used on golf courses. Access to this building will be limited to applicators licensed by the State of Minnesota. 6. Provide floor plans and elevation views and site landscaping/screening plan for the maintenance facility. Identify the 40' x 20' building referred to in the narrative. These plans have been prepared by Bruce W. Schmitt & Associates, P.A. Architects and are being provided to the City. In addition, these plans include line of sight views for looking north to the maintenance facility from County Road 6 and looking east from Tamarack Drive. The 40' x 20 ’ building which is for chemical and feitilizer storage is identified on the site plan. 7. Provide grading plan that is consistent with the parking tot plan. A detailed grading plan at a scale of 1" = 50' is being prepared which shows the grades of the proposed parking lot and access driveway. Also note that the size of the easterly parking lot has been slightly reduced. 8CHOELL & MADSON, INC City of Orono February 13,1997 Revised February 14,1997 8. Provide a lighting plan for the site. A lighting plan for the clubhouse parking lot and access drive has been prepared by Bruce W. Schmitt & Associates. 9.Provide City Engineer with supporting information regarding the stormwater, site grading and drainage plans. A detailed stormwater management plan with all modeling and drainage calculations and the permit application to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was delivered to the City Engineer on February 10th. The revised plans with the additional details referenced above are being completed and will be delivered to the City of Orono on Friday, February 14th. Please contact us if you have any questions. We would be happy to meet with City Staff to review the current plans. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON. INC Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj cc: Andy Hunter Tom Crosby Tim Johnson Wetland Impacts for Spring Hill Golf Club Wetland 1; Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: Wetland 2: Size: Impact: City: Type: Wetland 5: Size: Imoact: City: Type: Wetland 6: Size: Impact: City: Type: Wetland 9: Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: 0.55 ac. Impoundment for Public Value Credit (0.36 ac.) Mitigation (1.0 ac.) Orono 2 (PVC conversion of Type 2 PEMB to Type 3 PEMC) ’*'City Designated Wetland 0.79 ac. E.*<. avation for NURP basin 3 (0.55 ac.) Oro.*.<< 2 NURP Basin 3= 0.71 ac. Wetland Excavated= 0.55 ac. Upland Corversion= 0.16 ac. (968 Contour) *Cit>’ Designated Wetland 1 .92 ac. Fill (0.88 ac.) Excavation for NURP basin 2 (0.84 ac.) Orono 2 NURP Ba.dn 2 = 0.99 ac. Wetland Excavated — 0.84 ac. Upland Conversion= 0.15 ac. (905 Contour) 0.31 ac. Fill (0.13ac.) Orono drainage ditch 0.15 ac. None Mitigation alond east end (0.76 ac.) Orono 2 Wetland 111 Size: Impact: City: Type: 0.12 ac. Excavation for NURP basin (0.12 ac.) O'ono 2/3 NURP Basin 1 = 0.42 ac. Wetland Excavated^ 0.12 ac. Upland Conversion= 0.30 ac. Wetland 12: Size: Impact: City: Type: *City Designated Wetland 0.70 ac. Fill (0.07 ac.) Orono 3 Wetland 15 /DNR 837W>: *Cit>' P .signated Wetland Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: 3.50 ac. None Mitigation along southern end (0.57 ac.) Orono 3 Wetland 17: Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: 0.87 ac. Fill (0.23 ac.) Impoundment for Public Value Credits (3.15 ac.) Mitigation (0.18 ac.) Medina 2 (PVC conversion of Type 2 PEMB to Type 3 PEMC) Wetland 18: Size: Impact: City: Type: 0.10 Fill (0.10 ac.) Ore no 2 Total Mitigation: Upland Buffer:0.64 ac. NURP Credits:0.61 ac. PVC Credits:3.51 ac Created Wetland:2.51 ac. Total:7.27 ac. —^ Total Proposed Fill: Orono: Medina Total 1.18 (Orono City designated wetland: 0.95) 022 1.41 ac. Type 2 PEMB: Type 3 PEMC: Total 1.31 ac. 0.10 ac. 1.41 ac. Proposed Replacement Ratio: 5.16:1 •i 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250’250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X 8 8 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 •C? -r B ZLp,*Loo 'ZIp.Zoo X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________X Length Width X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X \2.o*=> E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE \'2.oo ^ B X 100 2.G>,'Zcx? >L# 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. S.F. S.F. 0 ^ VO 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. S.F. S.F. •i A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250'250-500'500-1000' TXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length WidLh X X X ts se B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X s 8SS E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B “1 X 100 PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House_____________X Length wm X X X D. Garage C. Drivewav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio.TDeck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X N G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 \*2 \ v.s \'Zc?o 43^24 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. S.F. A S.F. B % 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. S.F. A S.F. B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ FXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X 75-250’250-500*500-1000* Length WidLh B. Garase C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL H-ARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE W<=\ p * B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________X Ltnfith Widih B. Garase C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X X ss =: TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B \^9?3AjL>oe>x 100 11 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _____________S.F. \«>e?o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. A S.F. B % lafr, W: \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. S.F. S.F. S.F. A i W^S.Lpo^S.F. B 02-'14/'97 11:07 FhEGPE At id BBISON -* 6124730510 NO. 023 001 Faegre & Benson llp 2200 NOR'A'ESTCENTER. 90 SOUTN SBVfiKm STfc£ET Minneapolis . Minnesota 55402-3901 TELEPHO^S ei2 )3E>)000 PacsrCLE 612 336-3029 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET Minneapolis Fax Center (26th Floor) Facsimile No 612/336-3026 THIS TELECOPY IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE LSE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORhUTION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTinED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR C.’OPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. Date: February 14.1997 Time: // OO Q .m (Minneapolis) From:Thomas M. Crosby, Jr.Telephone Number: 612/336-^3127 To:Ms Jeanne A Mabustli Fax No.: 473-0510 L.ry of Orono Phone No.: 473-7357 Message: The Watershed Dislnct needs “preliminary approval ” before proceeding on its review process (see attached). I prepared a 1/31/97 draft of a resolution for the Planning Commission and sent it to Mike. Such a --esolution is now probably not appropriate given Thursday’s meeting. Attached is another suggestion. 1 assume Orono will want the Watershed to do its job with dispatch. If you do not receive aU pages, please call the Fax Center at 612/336-3932 or Carmda Koehler at 612/336-3879, 02/14x97 11:07 FfiEGRE At4D BBISOJJ 6124730510 MO. 02S 002 2/14/97 Orono Planning Commission RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City or Orono hereby grants preliminary approval to the request for a conditional use presented by the Spring Hill Golf Club in order to permit other regulatory activities to proceed subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to complete its review of the proposed golf course in accordance with its customary practices and procedures. 2. No permits for work on the golf course shall be issued until the conditions set forth in paragraph 1 above shall, in Uie opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director, have been satisfied. 3. [Other terms and conditions of the Planning Commission.] Ml:0224079 0> r 02^14/97 11:08 FhCGFE «ID BErGOH 6124730510 •C2/13*16:54 1997 FROM: 612 548 90€5 TO: 0123363949 tJiD. 023 C»03 FROM :£CH06LL & MPDSON ei2 546 906S 1397.02-13 PA5£: 1G:30 #633 P.D3 12 gray Ffcsnwater Ccntw Hwys. 15&19. Navarra Mail: 2500 Srudywood Road Excdiiior. MM &S331-«S7fi Pt.one. (612) 471-0590 fjx (612) 471-0682 Emaih admlnSif^nwatoraltedArg Weo Site: urww.mnwaterihed.org Board oi niaAigiRi: John E. Thomas Piofiident ParnelaG Bdxt Vico President Mania Cross Secraia7 Thomas W. LaBourty Treasurer C Woodrow Love Thornas Maple. Jr. Malooim Retd IHsirICl Omu: Eugina n. Strommen Qistric! Dimutor Suttnne M. <.VMdnian Asst. Olstr.'t Director MiDoehalia Creeft atersbed District ImprovmgQuality vf Water, Quality of Life February 12,1997 Mr. Ken AtJoI f Schoeil & Madsen 10580 Wayzflta Blvd. Minneioaka. MN' 55305 RE; MCWD Permit #96-25. Spring Hill Golf Club Dear Mr. Adolf: We have received the persnit application for the Spring Hill Golf Club. There arc a few items needed to co«Jiplete the review process. Those items are; Cross section, consiniction specs, disposal sites, and vcgeiaiion restoration plan for the wetland eiccevations • j\n amended erosion corurol plan allowing the dimensions of the .sill foncc trench (6” x 6”) and tlie 24 ’' driven stake depth -5U ■ Documentation that the proposed project has received preliminary approval from the municipal govemmcnt(s) Receipt of these exhibits will enable us to complete the review of this project. Please call me at 471-0590 if you have any questions. .Sincerely. I'yJim Hafncr District Technician fii«H 0» i«yc«0 SWcarMif 02/14^97 11:09 F i^Ct F'E AMD BEMSOM - 6124730510 110. 023 |>*y Q,(& 1/31/97 P04 Orono Planning Commission RESOLVED that the Planning Cotnmission of the City or Orono hereby approves and recommends to the Council of the City of Orono the request for a conditional use presented by the Spring Hill Golf Club subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . The action of the Planning Commission of the City of Orono is being taken prior to the completion of reports and evaluations by the Minnehaha Water Shed District and prior to the end of the comment period required by the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process Accordingly, the Planning Commission and/or the City Council of the City of Orono may reconsider the conditional use hereby approved if issues are rai.sed in the Minnehaha Water Shed District Report or the Environmental Assessment Worksheet proceso which the Director of Planning and Zoning of the City of Orono deems appropriate to bring to either ihe Planning Commission or the Council of the City of Orono. 2 No permits for work on the golf course shall be issued until the conditions set forth in paragraph 1 above shall, in the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director, have been satisfied. 3. [Other terms and conditions of the Planning Commission.] Ml;0224079 02 FEB-18-97 TUE 15:56 NORTHCO CORP FAX NO. 6128201620 P. 02 • t Bruce M. Carlson 591 North Stream Road Wayzata, Minnesota 612-476-1775 February 18, 1997 Planning Commission City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re; Spring Hill Golf Club Item 2209 Dear Commissioners; I am a resident of the Spring Hill Road area of Orono. My home is directly across Spring Hill Road from the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club that is the subject of your public hearing thi.s cvcTimg. I am writing this letter to fully support the construction of tliis golf club. I am delighted with (he prospect that the Spring Hill Conference Center site will continue to be used for low density recreational open space even though 1 will not be a member of the club. I have seen the plans for the golf course and I believe the designer has respected the uniciue nature of the site. 1 am aware tliat access to the club house will be on Spring Hill Road and, given the private nature of the course, am not concerned with the possibility of increased traffic. The recent resolution of the Highway 12 controversy, Bmce pa>'ton’s gift of land to the DNH and the addition of this golf club to our area will cause our neighborhood to become a trul> unique and beautiful rural residential enviromnent. Please accept this letter as a strong personal endorsement of the Spring Hill Golf Club project. Veiy Tnily Yours, /) ____ruce M. Carlson VT^ I 8CHOELL Gi MADSON, INC. ErJGNEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1 0500 WAY2ATA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA, MN 5C305-1525 (Biei B<«e>760'l • FAX CBiei BAB-B068 February 14, 1997 City of Orono do Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55391 received FEB 1 8 1997 CITY OF ORONO Subiecc Spring Hill Golf Club Dear Mr. Gaffron: As we indicated in our February 13, 1997 letter, transmitted herewith are 30 full set revised plans of the following: 1. Schoell & Madson, Inc./Fazio Preliminary Construction Plans a. b. c. d. e. Title Sheet and Plan Index Sheet - Sheets 1-2 of 12 Grading and Drainage Plan - Sheets 3-5 of 12 Clearing Disturbance and Wetland Mitigation - Sheets 6-8 of 12 Construction Details - Sheet 9 of 12 Details of Site Plans, Wetland Impacts and Bluff Impacts - Sheets 10-12 of 12 2. Bruce W. Schmitt & Associates, P.A. Architect Plans a. b. c. d. e. Revised Preliminary Site Plan of Clubhouse, Parking Lot and Driveway, also shows lighting and landscaping Preliminary Site Plan of Maintenance Facility, also shows landscaping Floor Plan and Elevations of Maintenance Building Site Elevation from Tamarack Drive to Maintenance Building Site Elevations from County Road 6 to Maintenance Building AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SCHOELL a MADSON, INC. City of Orono February 14.1997 In general, the revisions consist of addition of details for the site plans for the clubhouse and maintenance facility areas and for the wetland and bluff impacts, as requested in the February 5, 1997 staff report. A possible future city trail location is shown along the west portion of Spring Hill Road and Tamarack Drive on sheets 3, 4, and 5. The architectural plans referenced above are new plans except that the site plan for the clubhouse was revised by reducing the easterly parking lot size. The clubhouse floor plans and elevation views are unchanged from the previous submittal and are not being resubmitted. Please contact us with any questions. Very truly yours. SCHOELL & MADSON. INC. Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj enc. cc:Andy Hunter Tom Crosby Tim Johnson I - ■ :-v: . >■ . l. .;;v:-, r’ '• ; •'■;■•. v» ‘»■ •„ .-:v, • ■ >= v: * ■•• g • V: ..■t\ '* . ^•1/ . .-v . *. i ♦» ^ V-- * f - V mM- ■s'- •■ - ••r-vf.-.y • •. -c- ;• : .. : 1«-. :- . v A'■ Vit';'*-, Ji*'' -^•■i': r ■ ■ ' ■• - ■ ;-f .-V,.::.: . • " ■■• '■ ": •■'■ .. ■■ A ■•' ■■'■. . ■'■■■ '■ ■ ■ - v^v ■;, - vv/:y. :'V:S^v^^vy:y:':.y ■ ■•■;• fV;. •■;.>•;: •■■ ' - ■ ’ :■':■'■■:■■ : ■■:{ *■ **'' *. ‘ ' -'IV • ■■ * r..y ;.V . ■...-.;:.;-.r;:..' -v.. ^'-yy • vvy.-■ -" v „:, ,,y;. .>.^ ■ '■ -y-.' '■ ='■■;-,'•' ' . - 'y-. ■■' : ■■;■' -* i.;;: ;• V, v . • ••;•::*■ ;^ .• . ■ •'f .■,^!'■. -Vi ■•. .^;' It ■ •■-. ■*: . * k: ■■ i'^'f •■■■' •••••'.;• . '.v'„. ■■Wt ■ 9-r-'- :‘-S --.•• "J 1"^ I. • lA tfSs VI V • 1-V 1 <.’:a : '-ML vV^ i>- < * / •' f •■.••<«’ ' i ■ ■^'’Vs'fe... yf ih -Af m y«i .y,* > >» >v ML ' ' -ii_= ■■■^'■Miv \t >*■- © . I /A r p . St, X ■ . y X'.' V •‘it zS »•' »-. ' fca: y;- t* * AM I ¥»* J «',m w ■■}imm m*:'. ii ■ iir L** ^.'.■VM ■-■y''v‘A-yyv ■ ;■;■-■■-:; ..;■ ^ 'V- ' •-x.:'..-, • ^ ^--By:--"A* ■•' A^x,y xxA.: /• ■■;>>'■ A'^AA Ay"'.' 'A XX,.v" X:X.XX yx ‘y:-X;, .y;-:, .■'. ' ■ .•'■••' ■''■ •■ ■■, ■ ■'. ■■ ■• ■ "X’ <... • ■y.vyxy •X:;av X Xx-‘ ^a V ,-:xx.'" > ■ ■ .'.■'.■■■•,-iy. , y.-.:. . ;■ • ‘/X- •; w-- ■■ X.xx . ■■•'y •■ -yA-, - : •■■y.-.. ■ . y.;: ■• .yX.A.y;v;v:>_V:XV;X:y..;i y ^ :y.X-S' ■• / X_y ' ■ ■-■•• yAsxA‘yx:y yyy y '•.■yK;--X;.y. ,. iAvyy ■A.y-..y-yyy xy.:yy;Xx.:^yyx■^y A#?A#lA?g^yA . ■ .' .• V ■ ■'ys.-'a ‘X:y--,yy y:Vyy; 'vy;-.y.; ’,.'• -. i -V •:■ . : :y*A>,;A'y'yyyiX-V:Xx^ y;v.p>:x;:ixyy ;: x y . , .- vy f^'-^AAA/AA^AA'AC.^A;v^V- Ax"xX;7"ALvyx yry-y/'x ,: ■••V.'. • -■ V ■AA'^S.;’o A: ■ X'VX>7. . Ai^'A-; •' "'A *'. ■"-y'/ywy X- " ■ ... .^ :y'jy‘-...»i:X-:X^y;K: ■ X ' ■-A ^ >. . ./-A'"-a ^;A^A^.A:-A;A;. ■ ':; .: ■ y : ;Tk.^/y, ,:_ ; AAx:>.x.cA. :.,x^ .' A;a A;A yA'^>aa 'aa ,;:> •'AA ■■\"x^-;:-y. a ;..y.y,;.y- X:-^'^*yA;X; ;A" ;A 1 tA A vAA-7;A^yy4^ 7AxAy A:" " ' - ■ A AA< yAxy'y,AyA_y' .-y-;4 :-...A: .yAv * .*W •• f;A':A^;: ^ -A . A- . . : ' ^: •: . < . :■ -A v ' .■ V.A-7;;.^yy^ 7; ■.- •-y:i-v‘i..'U.: : " 7 .vyvA... 7-;^ :; xy - • " 'X ;‘Xy;yxY,;y :' .y-x..;,;:; -■; .:.yy.yyyXXy'y:Xy: ‘ ■.. ‘-'V'y : . ,,. .. yy;isy;yxyyy V :y;y ' ' ..7' \ 7 X.«.v#®»X'*yxxxi.yyyX‘X‘-A ., ■:yy»^,,^■:x-‘ss«»itex,x A'xAWx: A'.., y.- X x:‘X-''-A ■■ ,v..7 iiifc7X7x77'7 7' • ; ::':*'i. pX7 ■-■■■■■.•< -r. P: :777y;-vAi'Xy y A.7 > 7.xx^A7 ..;;;:;..r ;. • AA^A'^A.-.X.XX, ;. r:y^y.- v-y.- ■ry'V7:-'-:A:AxyA-x XX. ■■■.■.'7 ‘ y; X7.-^ .: ..... .:;-.:i...-, •.■;..X *‘ .; y7 '* ....'■■■• . '.xx •; -x xy: x t .’• ■ r-B>::. ■'; •'■ ..y.:.c.. •vXvy...Y,vyy; :'-.yy.-, .'.:X-X..-.y-y ,;r ' ■' ■■■• ■ IX ,yXX7.y;-yyyyx.y-y,.yy'> :yX'X^ ’• J*";y'--~-y''. •. .•.r‘rr>-:^-7X.'!-i7 .xX" VAy; ■ .■Ax7 "'7 ,x:-x.:x77.'., .7-yfyx,v..“;-77.x:a 77-^ 'xy:y;X.xx;yy,ryy ^;xx;yy--y'Xvyy::'X.:yy •:■ x.;yy‘y-y.y.; ...■ ■•: ■-y.y7y.,-y-y.: ,.,.; r xx.-7AA..:A y.AxAAx.;- - ■*■ ■ ,', • X ' „', 7- ' .X • y Xy. y.yXvy •^yy .;-:yYyi;X XXyXXXX^^ X'XX ‘ A . x'^ x^7Ay^ A ’x 7-A ;AAA7 :x.yA:;7yy7y ^ •A:7':7 xAA x-:A7: xx‘vxx 7AA.-7A7':A7 x.A-' x7A».'--: .yA-;,- 7:v,.;7X.y-.Xy77^7xA7|fy;: *, . x;-.;;7 ...,'-7 .' ,:7- X. ;• y\YAx>AV.xyy...;....:. ••. x" x-:-- ,v.,..- x^ x;-:-;:--:-..;",';•.••*-V . ' A • x-y'AAA;A7A--A y;X- •■■vX- •■■•'. X- X "xv;AAA7A.x..yrx.;. . - - .: X, ■ .yy ..y:y y.y:- ly y ? y ^ -yH;:’: 7777AiixAxy,:7,... X7y'.; -y.. ' :..:X-7 XyAxy'XXXXiv.^ ■•xV-^vAAxXx-; .'■y:^y xxA x-.A77: xAAx77.y^y777V.77-: y ; A xA^'xxAxi^Ailii •. y\ - A: .:• * ••-.• • ;•;. y A •■• -A •. : v7 .7x77Xv.9ifyXY ..;yy.y.yXy^^ ^XXiX*.;.:; -'X XXyXXX. XX;V,^t A' y.xi'V'!v"££x7x7- 1*a 7_^7'xx*y;:; •: ilxKS^Ayx A":-A7Axy»Ay7 .'■A.'yA;x:.7tA.;>xAx-Ar:«x^^ «Xyyy;y.yyy7'.3y:XX;Ysfv-.y.: yx^>~.y7^y. 'iv: jX XX ‘ xxx'iy; kX .■ ■ X .TxsSs^A;:X :y7 ••;; ;.x. ;i r---'X. ..XA- xv*v.-.,y '• ..X..x.y;.. ■•- :*i:J ■ • • ’ A7'7:.‘XX.7X '^i^Axxixi y ■ x 'uYxx..y777 - .'XXX,..^y. - t7 x;. yy-;; ■: ..yyTj :,;.;y. f.*;- ■•=.;: y;-.y..: yx.- :.-:v,;..,.y .x-y; ■A'-^x^Lx/l-Vyxv.7Ay;V ..'..y xA- AxyX p::A7:x.:,7;r7 ,. IfK-TA-x'-y.,^ .7A:7.'‘AiAA7X.yY-;:.:x^^ E;"7l>AyAA:A.:7.xA..:^ .p V. /' AA:AA‘7:7xy7x;;X77;;.x:x7,y .: X-- ."*y;::-;7 ■•■.x:.'7- "-y-X-.xr . ' v .• -X'' . ■ 7vX.::-; ,1:. -^y- yx ■:' -.Xx7::v;.; X- . ;x >. ■AA-AVXA xAA x 7y.Axx7:AA:;7x.... .. ... -.. . y7x-'^‘7;y7:x7 7S^7x,:X'-‘yXy7,.x;;X:77x,;Y-vyx,yy^ . '■ A,:.r .,„ V>- ‘ >=•.7 X-AA.'. .' Ax' X '• -X .7':V::yxy7y7xAAxA7^7-'^ ■■ x.-:- '^ V./' A .; .:.A:¥yAyA:y-A7- xV^a A;7;:--:,7 x'-7.:. 7A7x ky.x.y7 X■* :77::A.;'y x'vAAx xxA ... : , X yx Af; ;,A-7 ‘! '-V7..X' X ■LX7'::xA;;y7X-.^y,.y.-. , .,.. • * '.' 7-;.xV . ; y : X7r ..\"X777|AA.x. 7.x.-., ' :>A.vAr y vx.^xyyyx '■-X^7':v A:7 x;;7x.^^ .7-.i'.X..; x; z‘- 7 7x7i v>. . ■ xvX-x7-y ■ X i r,!v .. . .,. '•7yA;7x7.J:A.:A.:Vy7yV; .7 . ..^."AoyytXAAy ■ *■^7 ’- ■*'7>Ax;7:rx;r vA.Ajxyx >'iy-..'7:7'A-A ’x7y 'AxA7Ax77:7x:X ‘AX:X(77X;7X:.^,;y;;:| ■ V ' '- -‘ ' ■kXfteX777x xiAiil. .• A- '7.77 -A..7;7x7^7 •7,;y7;.7;A^'.A7X^ ‘^•-xx.yA.^A-y ^77-7 . ' '!■'. ■■• ■ ’’’A X "*':,-! .t -x7-77v:77Avx:A'^'77vAy7A:X:7 x,7x7 ‘xyAxx‘A:7*‘ :>'X;y7-':xx',yxyy'Xix7x-''.: '■"A^A7® ‘‘yxt7«-xxy■' v-xk^yTy-y: 7 ..x-x-y-: x*". .•• ■ 77:‘^M^‘^ x * X7 (••• ;■•. •" : ^77 mx. Rv.. To: From: Date: Subject: • Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator Februar>’ 11,1997 U22 10 Kent E. and Susan Swanson, 3229 B Casco Circle- Amendment to Previously Approved Variances--Public Hearing Zoning District:LRl-C, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre, Sewered Application: To amend a previous variance ;equest to allow for an existing 1' by 7' deck off of the Master Bedroom to be extended to 5' by 7' Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) Structural Coverage The total area of the subject property is 33,801. sq. ft. The structural coverage allowed is 15% or 5,070 sq. ft. The existing structural coverage is at 10.9%. The proposed improvements include removal of some of the structural coverage which will result in net increase in structural coverage. Section 10.22 Subd. I (A) Lakeshore Setback The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots is 75 feet for all structures. The existing house is located on a peninsula. The house was constructed prior to the 75' shoreline setback requirement. The southwest comer of the house where the screen porch and master bedroom are located are forward of the lakeshore setback. The proposed deck extension would be located approximately 15'-17' forward of the 75' setback but does not extend beyond the screen porch. Section 10.22 Subd. 1(B) Average Lakeshore Setback 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. This house is located approximately 50' lakeward of the average lakeshore setback because of its location on a peninsula and the location of the two adjacent properties. Most of the house is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed deck extension is approximately 43'- 48' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The deck extension will not impact lake views of the adjacent properties. Section 10.22, Subci 2., Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporar) or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1, of this section. W'ithin 75 feet 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. Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75*17,537. sq.ft.0 465 sq. ft. (2.65%) 479 sq. ft. (2.72%) 2.72% A variance of 2.72% is being requested in the 0'-75' setback to allow for the deck extension which will add 14 sq.ft, of hardcover. List of Exhibits:A.Application B.Architect's Letters C.Plat map D.Property Owner's List E.Top Floor Plan F.Side Elevation G.Surxey H.Hardcover Calculations Description of Request A previous variance application to allow two additions to the existing structure were considered and approved by the City Council in August 1996. The applicants have since modified their design and are asking for an amendment to their variance request to allow an existing deck to be increased from r by 7' to 5' by 7'. The previously proposed kitchen addition will not be built. The house was constructed 25 years ago prior to the current shoreland standards. The legal setback was 50’. The majority of the residence is located in front of an average lakeshore setback. Statement of Hardship The applicant's have previously indicated that they want to modify the iiiterior of the structure to better suit their extended family needs. The architect's letter indicates that they are asking for less than what they had originally requested in previous variance applications. Issues for Consideration 1.The proposed deck does not extend beyond the screen porch and will not impact lakeviews for adjacent properties. ”)The location of this house on a peninsula, the location of the adjacent properties, and the average lakeshore setback limit the area where new constructioa'remodeling would be in compliance with the City's ordinances. Options of Action 1. To approve as proposed or amended. #2210, 3229 B Casco Circle Kent and Susan Swanson- Variance Amendment page-3, February 18, 1997 J • ’t 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 INFORMATION S ite Address \ l oi Prcperty Identification Number (P.I.D.)_________ Application it / Q_____ Date Received / • j *4 - c; -7 / ^ . Amount Paid /^V) _____ APPuiCATlOt--! Attach legal description to application if not included ou required surv’ey. Date Propert)’ Acquired__________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>" ___residential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:_________________________________________________________ APPLICANT —r, Phone (home) 9~-IOV) Name j(L^Tr ________ Phone (work)________________ Address:TontV fe 7 l\<Cn f' Zip: CKnC// OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (I'ome). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constnxtion Cost $ i^pOO Describe request in detail: A is ~rc:> . (attach additional sheets if necessar>’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage 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: ._________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the fnllmving information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered comnlete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Fomi Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\l Center. 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required.*^ In addition, provide one (1) copy g'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ypur vnrinnce anpHcntion is not comnlete if the above information ha$ iiot been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurrgd—in review j^fthis application, and certifies that the infoi-mation supplied is true qrtd'^ect tpyhe best^ his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature ilfiijMM. Patr—A du. sV / ^^9- OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City^staff. consnltag^, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of irfve^ationrand ve^cation of this reque^ Owner’s Signature ^ Date 1 fljU ■ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 J Nestet Architecture ■ 9 • • : SI' - ^: rAX %%2 474.02 29 i* - a s • I .'!■ ?\ • I I e 1/24/97 City of Orono Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55391 Dear Jeanne, As you requested, please find enclosed a request for an amendment to Swanson’s variance. In response to the “Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions section of the application, 1 feel the Swansons are justified in their request for the following reasons. 1. The deck addition is a logical and needed addition to the house and does not extend past the porch on that side of the house. 2. The deck below (second level) is being removed as part of the original variance. 3. The approved dining addition has been planned to extend less than originally proposed. 4.1 he approved addition on the other side of the house will not be built. As you can see, the Swansons are doing less than requested and approved and would be grateful if Orono would grant this amendment as a natural evolution to the design. Thank you and please call if you have questions. Mark L. Nesset, AIA RUN DATE 06/21/96BATCH 502 PROP ADDR OtIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OI^MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 43 0002 03229 CASCO CIR D P PARUPSKY t J A CARLSON DAVID PARUPSKY 3229 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARY SUSAN SHANSON MARY SUSAN SWANSON 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D C PLAIN A P L PLAIN D CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY O^WERS LIST 38 20-117-23 43 0003 03229 CASCO CIR MARY SUSAN SWANSON MARY SUSAN SWANSON 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0015 03233 CASCO CIR D M SPILSETH A P D SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0018 03227 CASCO CIR D C PLAIN A P L PLAIN D CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 38 20-117-23 43 0004 03229 CASCO CIR G R TRIPP ASK TRIPP GREGORY R A SHARON K TRIPP 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0016 03231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENT^EPIN COUfTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAUPN, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Cp ^ DATE ^ «^Y \ ( 02?11/19S7 07:17 6124740228 rcs'BET ap>:h PA-3E 01 «#. r^i>' 1^4^—riu* '' I!e»^ /'AkJrT'Y -n Tiu^ pg&u<^ Kj^iT'SR’: ttoe- 07^^ tug# -rt^cg; -------- »0 \ ««» « ^ \ f <» • • • S,' «s k • M. g>e,I?t^^a;PM C^YT. J5X?^ /NLO^h4P WAU- Aecv€- . '' • I fogiWUO Eg^' - - AKV m ASl^iSC? »so/z— I © «>• •• *. ‘Tu>'' • t .. , • I • »f .» * JiSS- ■% .• ’ ’. 1. „ ' • • I • . • •i * •i .•;■ f'-i... . • t OtTv.4 VsC^\U. .AJtoVi*' ' r *i . V >r*'*. v: . ; •. -i V • ” 't'-' " *• • ou^ ;i • ■ ;*.%#! . •, t. • *^ « .»•• #.•••.•• • * ‘ •• * *A... j; •• *t • . 4 ' .•!" lii' /L •'' ■ \ ^ ■ .\ ‘ ’ • ’ 1* . •• '" . M ■# «i •• ' f • •I ^ •. Ji>; •.« ^ \. •• ••>.•.>-,.. y • . f. •' • • ;•• V.y.. •■‘'.. V^/* i‘ VI • • ♦ " t \ • '' h m, • * * *•r^^Alrl/^r . AA 'nn^50t3 .txcel5ipr.,Mlnnespu;v •553314:^;::^.. /.' VvV • K .4 % • •« • •• * »• t •**'** *^ * Vi , 4 7 4.1008 -j • FA*» 0 12.474.0228 .. ' ^ . - ••• ’P • ' s r ^.y • ft A r- / . V>jOOD STEHb -r —r -V \S.9' ^) .-----------—i ^--------------------yy K it 7 ■ ^------ ir^EOGE LIKJE OF £NTR r New house a GAR/i oe«t cx+cAsido •fmio I -fc S' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#5 - #2149 Theresa Norsted - Continued) Lmdquist commented that he would be in favor of a second stor>' deck if it did not encroach into the averaae lakeshore setback. Stern commented that he was strongly in favor of maintaining the average lakeshore setback He did not wish to see a second story deck which he felt would obstruct his views. It was noted that trees would result in the same obstruction. Stem replied that trees were within the rights of the applicant where a deck was not. Stern asked that the Commission uphold the code. Peterson said, although he usually voted against encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, other members did not necessarily do so Mabusth added that the City does listen to the comments from neighbors Stoddard asked the Commission to give direction regarding the garage Lindquist said he would be in favor of a garage no nearer than 1-2' from the lot line which might lequire a fire wall Lindquist said a side setback variance would probably gain approval. Stoddard said a registered survey should be conducted During public comments, Susie Swanson noted that there was a garage on the site in recent times and questioned whether the felled garage could be grandfathered in. Peterson said the Commission docs feel a property owrer is entitled to a garage in this climate and would attempt to come to a resolve. Stem said he had no problem with a garage, only with obstruction of the views. Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2149. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. <#6) #2150 KENT AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARUNCES - PUBUC HEAFISG 8:17-8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants were present. J 8 NITNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#6 - #2150 Kent and Susan Swanson - Continued) Mabusth reported that the existing residence was built prior to the current Shoreland regulations The majority of the residence is located in front ot the average lakeshore setback as it is located on a peninsula and lot is pie-shaped The applicants are proposing a single-story' bay addition which will extend no closer to lake than the existing 3’ deck. A 27 s.f kitchen expansion addition will replace an upper level deck at 76 s f. There would be no reduction in hardcover as a 3' path or walk e.xists below deck. A second addition involves a kitchen e.xpansion of 27 s f located over existing hardcover and upper level deck One addition is within the 0-75' setback and the other in the 75-250* setback. One addition would be 49’ in front of the average lakeshore back and the other at 33*. The setback of the lakeside deck e.xists at 58.5* and bay addition is proposed 65’ to the lake. Mabusth added that she has received no calls from the neighbors, and there is no visual impact from the proposal. Peterson informed the applicants for the reason for the average lakeshore setback. It is to eliminate a leap frog effect from home improvements He noted that the average lakeshore setback was meaningless for this particular property^ due to its configuration. Stoddard questioned whether both additions were necessary to meet the needs of the family. Peterson said there was a plan to complete both changes. He continued by noting the location of the home close to the lake requiring a variance, the reductions made, and creation of a different type of structure for stmcture, the problem arises when there are continual increases in hardcover. Susie Swanson replied that the setback was at 50* when the home was built meeting the code at that time. Mabusth added that the majority of the home was also out of the 0-75* setback. Smith was informed that the same architect was being used who originally designed the improvements for the residence in the early 1980's and 1993. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve #2150 for both additions. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, stating he was not opposed to the application but to the encroachment of the average lakeshore setback (#7) #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD, 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:25-9:03 P.M. The Affidav-it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicants, along with their architect, were present. MCVUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#3) REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 12,1996 Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 12, 1996. V^ote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK CO>LMlSSION COMMENTS The Park Commission was not represented PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Chair Dale Lindquist had no comments PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) #2150 KENT AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3753 The applicants were present. Mabusth reported that this property provides access to two adjoining properties. The proposal is for variances for hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback zones, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback for the construction of two small additions. One addition is 27 s.f to the lakeside consisting of a single-story bay addition located in the 0- 75’ setback. The applicants propose the removal of a 3’ wde deck at 103 s.f. This improvement would result in 76 s.f reduction of structural coverage. The other addition is located outside of the 0-75' setback area. It is a single story addition to the kitchen to expand the dining room area. There would be no reduction in hardcover as improvements will be located over existing hardcover. The additions are located 30’ and 40+' in front of the average lakeshore setback. Mabusth said the applicants are in the process of reviewing their financial ability' to complete the additions. Applicants may only proceed with one improvement. Mabusth noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance application. The only member voting against the proposal was Peterson, who historically has voted on principle against proposals encroaching the average lakeshore setback. Peterson did say that there was no \isual impact for neighboring properties. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^ /z3/9-7 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’250-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House tot- /MPiPITIOM X ______________ - "% fe*??S.F. Length Width •r* fc X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X SB SI S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X A'b S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. I { F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X 31 S.F. S.F. S.F. . t G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B X 100 S.F. S.F. A B z."7 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE- fcyt-Tl^rJSI A. House X _____________ = 3 3 3 S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X A??S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X /4- S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X 31 S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE H- B I »•- X 100 = W S.F. ___S.F. % A B e?72. To: From: Date: Subject: Zoning District: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Februar>’ 12. 1997 #2208 Jyland Development, Inc., 1185 Hunter Drive-"Hunter's Pass" Subdivision/Sketch Plan Review RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District. 2 Acres Total Area: 21.57 Acres Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28 RR-JB One Family Rural Residential District Subd. 5 Area. Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obser\ed: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to the Street Rear Yard 2 Acres 200'50 ’3U ’50 ’50 ’ Section 11.03, Definitions, 66., (c) "Class III Subdivision" A Class III subdivision shall be a plat which includes, but is not limited to, a subdivision which meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. The subdivision results in three or more buildable lots; or The subdivision involves a flexible zoning application; or The subdivision involves the vacation or dedication of a public roadway; or The subdivision involves the extension of municipal utilities. #2208, Jyland Development, Inc. Hunter Drive and Cty. Rd. 6 Sketch Plan page-l, February 18. 1997 Section 11.10, Subd. 6, The Sketch Plan-Purpose and Requirements: and Section 11.10 Subd. 7. Sketch Plan Application; and Section 11.10 Subd 8, Sketch Plan Review and Recommendations List of Exhibits: A.Application/Letter B.Location Map C.Sketch Plan D.Wetlands Delineation E.Topographical Map Description of Application: Tiv. ..pplicant proposes a four lot subdivision of the property currently owned by Mr. Burt Corwin. The land is vacant and contains several wetlands. Jyland Development, Inc. intends to purchase the property from the Corwins and has scheduled a closing date of May 15, 1997. Lot Configuration The subdivision consists of four lots and an outlot configured as follows: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Outlot A 8.0 acres 6.15 acres 3.4 acres 3.15 acres .87 acres 6 dry acres 5.05 drv a'-res 0 3.4 acres 3.15 acres .87 acres Each lot as proposed complies with the minimum lot standards for property in the RRl-B zoning district. The applicant has indicated that he is interested in acquiring the adjacent lot at 1125 Hunter Drive. If the lot is acquired, then the subdivision would consist of 5 lots. U220S, Jyland De\ elopnien. Inc. Hunter Drive and Cly. Rd. 6 Sketch Plan page-2. February 18, 1997 Septic The applicants have indicated that they have had a preliminary site evaluation prepared by S-P Testing. The plan shows that there are primary’ and secondary alternative sites for on-site septic systems. The septic system at 1125 Hunter Drive is a concern. There does not appear to be a secondary’ site for the property’ because of the topography and the presence of a wetland on the site. If 1125 Hunter Drive becomes part of this development, a secondary site will need to be identified. Lot 4 as proposed may need to be reconfigured to provide an acceptable alternative site for the property if it is purchased and included in the development. Drainage The sketch plan as proposed provides for the future residences to be located on high elevations that will allow for drainage away from the proposed building sites. Drainage and utility easements will be required on the property. Access^ The proposed private road, Outlot A, is located on a high elevation point for Hunter Drive which will provide adequate sight lines to the north and south for \ ehicles entering and existing the private road. Although there is unplatted land to the west of this proposed development, it is not feasible to require an easement for future access from the cul-de-sac west to the unplatted property because of slopes and wetlands. Future access to the unplatted area to the west can be provided by other roadways. Planning Commission There is no formal action required by the Planning Commission. Members are asked to provide the applicant with conceptual direction prior to the applicant preparing the fomial preliminary' plan. The following issues should be addressed; 1.Will the parcel at 1125 Hunter Drive be purchased and incorporated into the development? If so, should the access off of Hunter Drive remain or should the access be changed and provided from the private road? Any future new construction at this site needs to provide a secondary' septic system site. 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. #2208, Jyland Development, Inc. Hunter Drive and Cty. Rd. 6 Sketch Plan page-3, February 18, 1997 i nI O O r-. - " t ’ * ^ . • •<"1. ‘i *-•>• Application #A V i- _ ^ i'^ V.-Date Received /-^V- 9^7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . S ite address /1 /f £Co (o \ - //<S -23-^/ -Property Identification Number (PID)__ Please check one - Property____abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. l^a~r ( ^ / 'T~£aJ APPLICANT Name_ Address City__ __ Phone (home) <9S~i^- V<?<9 2. Zip5y^?^Phone (work) S' - ? so o 0\VNER (if different than a^licant) Name ^ *^/e7 C>fyfVvO Address City__ /Z3S" c6i Phone (home) ryiPCj, ni>0 Zip;£fVf^hone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) J C Subdivision for New Building Sites _ Existing Units New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) y Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELI>nNARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list fi'om Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature _______________________________________ Date______________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature _________________________________ ______ 1. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator lo check (X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _Subdiv ision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals ZSO 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 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original oplication) 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 vari ince) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DwelIing Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and CouncjJ^ce^sary to^ce^this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature __Date //gy/97 Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. jr Ii;i M — 2 — «5<F" R I 1 "4 : .4 ^ ..T V L. Fi M r> H O M JYLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 28^5 Boulder Drive Btinm ille, MN 55337 (612) 895-9900 Fax 895-199S FAX COVER SHEET January 24, 1997 To: Liz City of Orono From: Rick Carlson Lot 1, Block 1, Ten Oaks No. Pages. Including cover; three Liz: Jyland Development, Inc has a purchased the above property, with a closing scheduled for May 15, 1997, The current fee owner is Burt Corwin. Following 1$ a signed application by Mr. Corwin. The property i.s currently vacant land, and contains several wetlands. We have hired Mark Gronberg, Coffin and Gronberg as our engineer; John Anderson, EnviroData for our wetland delineation, and Steve Schiriners, S-P Testing for septic evaluations. Based on their preliminary tests, we are proposing a new subdivision with four lots, and should not need to request any variances We have made an offer to purchase the adjoining property at 1125 Hunter, and if we are able to reach an agreement with the owners. Intend to incorporate into the proposed plat as an additional lot. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me at 550-4002, \ a A r 4 — 2 -4 — •=?•R F! I 1 ^ r ^ ^ J V L. r 4 D M O M E S;R . G i 01/24/l'3 ‘i}7 14:03 5r* • *? V* .V ^ i 61235'=!633& WS'M-.M'C oK-wir j t. 4 O S V ^ » V »_ M c M O M e a -*...• Date Received i F<iz P . C 3 AppHeation ^_ Date Receive Amount Paid ►. J •• •• ^ ‘M -H ■■ • CITY OP ORONO - SirBDIVlSlON APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION / \ Siteaetdrr _ _ I Co /?0 6 ) Pi0pe»1y l<J«.r.iincA«ionNxjn»ber (plpf -j s: ^ //S * ^ Ple*\l< check one . Piopcrty _____a^5U#:.i br _ /C__ torrens? Attach lejal dcseription to appJicstlon f f ^ APPLICANT Name 7i> Addreis __________ Phr7nV(hOn\0 *. C'V-----_________________ _____Phone (work) OWNER (if difTcrent than a^l cant) Name_ Addrcj:s^___Fhore (home) ..^3? •.4:^3(e _______________________________Z\p^ycJ?\i^ne (work)____ (atr* 'h Il5t If more than one) • EXISTING I.AND USE Number of Tax Parcels DevetopmetU Present v iieck) ______ Acres Dcy Land ______ Acres Wet Land _____Acres Total, all parcel} _____ Rcs;dent|;sl; ro. of units Present Zoii.nc District Other (spectty) > • « . ^^ . M. Pr OTOSAL _____ , Division for Tax Purposes _________Lot Line Rcarrangcrr.ent Only (no new bundling sites) _ Subdivision for New Building Sites Nup.ber of Btiildlng Sires Existing Units ^ New Units Total Units Proposed Oross Dens^t^- Minimum Lot Si2e Proposed Use (check) Units p<r___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Pultdnble Land v*-" ~ Residential _______ Other (specify)_______ U 1/ ^ ^ U . U U Exh i bit 23 RES •i>.4; c '^jf-......... ^/.•ril^ ' /mmm :<! I. * r=^:' >.'/"•<»i'cl£^iH^« s^'.'^>-: # -• ?K* ;Vt' ^ / ri . • ' • V- :c\ 1 <■ .^ci: m u N V- 't V> ■>. ®vVi; >;>^v • m^v'» V:e. Vfi;i.}vr ' .'“ - - r*. ............. " • *km •'.■ . —. _ V.Sa i«f TO. NO. 6 5 8^^' 4«--E ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 21, 1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Lili McMillan, and Elizabeth Hawn Janice Berg and William Stoddard were absent The following represented the City Staff. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron. City Planner Elizabeth \^an Zomeren, and Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Sherr>’ Frost. Mayor Jabbour and Council Members Kelley and Goetten were present Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/Pl BLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS Gaffron informed those in attendance regarding Agenda Item #7, County Road 15 Road Improvement, that the intent of this review at this meeting is to consider wetland mitigation only Discussion of the design and layout of County Road 15 road improvement would not occur. He reported that the Council will conduct that forum at a meeting in the future. A neighbor inquired if in fact the road improvement would ever occur. Gappa said some research was being conducted and a meeting would be scheduled in a few weeks. This neighbor asked that the Staff consider the engineering review previously performed Mel Harrison, 1410 North Shore Drive, reported that he is concerned about safety due to the frequency of motorists making U-turns in the vicinity of his property. He asked when he would have the opportunity would occur to discuss the road hazards to include the problem with speeding along the curve of the roadway. Lindquist informed him he would have that opportunity at the Council level. Jabbour informed the Commission and audience that the discussions regarding the roadway has been underway for the past two years through several public hearings. He noted the final hearing was held in December, 1996, at which time, the Council approved the contract with the County for the County Road 15 road improvement. Jabbour reported that he was willing to discuss the improvements but the approval of the layout has already occurred. He noted that the intersection is a separate issue. The turning lanes and Indian Mounds have been discussed. Jabbour met w ith those interested in another area of the chambers to inform them of what has already taken place. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 <#l) 7:00 P.M. - #2201, GEORGE ADAMS, JAMES FIEGER AND S.T. ROBB, JR., 570, 580, 590, AND 600 BIG ISLAND - V ACATION OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY 7:10-7:47 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. 1 he Applicants were present. GalTron reported that the application was a request for a vacation ol the dedicated portion of nght-of-way of the Pleasant View plat of 1888 due to the need for upgrading of septic systems The applicants have met together to obtain a suitable location for a combination septic Gaffron informed them that the City is appreciative of these efforts. He noted the property locations as well as the platted right-of-way to the east and west and park property. The park is an unimproved City park that is designated as park property only. The location found to be acceptable for the septic systems is in the right-of-way Gaffron suggested vacating be made of ouly a portion of the right-of-w ay and a rededicating of the an adjacent portion but noted this would interfere with the access to the Henderson property The Staff memo also refers to the need for vehicular access for the properties to the rear due to the high elevations Gaffron said the Staff recommendation is for denial of the comprehensive vacation but request applicants to accommodate the septic in one area and enlist the assistance of adjacent ptoperty owner Erickson for legal access to the I lenderson property. Gaffron noted the number of letters received from neighbors and utilities regarding the vacation. The letter w riters arc not in favor of the vacation. Adams reported that the access road utilized by the property ow ners and is located between the Robb property, and it extends to and crosses over the Fieger property. He stated the park property is mainly under water all summer long Adams said the area is completely forested and would not enable a fire engine to cross The area to the east is mainly swamp. Fieger said the applicants have never asked for the vacation of the entire "T" area but only the area on the right side (east) which affects his own property. Fieger said he is willing to make a shift in his property line to allow the other properties to continue crossing to gain access to their properties I le noted lot 22 is under water, adding he also owns lots 23 and 24 Adams and Fieger have ow ned their properties 20 years and Robb 40 years (ow ner of lots 19. 20, and 21) Fieger informed the Commission that the only suitable soils found for the septic is the location noted MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1 - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Big Island - Continued) Adams reported that the plans have cost the applicants $3,200. The applicants asked the septic tester to come up with the best plan for accommodating their septic systems, regardless if the outcome is one combined system or three individual ones. The current systems are non-conforming but are not polluting the ground He noted that !ie compliance for these seasonal dwellings is the same as that required by year-round homes resulting in an astronomical cost for 10 weeks of use each year. Adams says the best recommendation would allow for a truck to stay in a barge and pump out the systems He added that there is no access to the |,.operties to the rear Robb noted where the utilities were located McMillan inquired of the property ow ner to the east of the Robb property. It is noted to be quite heavily wooded Adams said alot of the property is under water and there is only a limited area for building on GafFron informed the applicants that if the small triangular portion was vacated and the road replatted further north, there would be a need to gain a small piece of land from Mr. Erickson to allow access to the Henderson property. Gaffron questioned whether the City should give up 33' in exchange for 10'. Smith asked if there was the ability for the septic location to be pulled back in toward their properties Adams said the drainage would then How toward the Henderson property. There is also a hill on the other area, and the septic needs to slope toward their properties and not others. Smith asked what effect the change in right-of-way would have on public access. Gaffron said the accommodation could be made but an agreement would have to be reached with Erickson for the Henderson access plus an agreement for utility easement. Hawn inquired if NSP would require an ag. 'ement. It was noted that the utility comes in underground to the first pole to the transformer. Adairs said NSP uses his dock to gain access. During public comments, Don Henderson, 1518 Normandale Court, reported he has been the owner of the property to the east for 40 years 1 le stated the lot is buildable. He noted that property with direct access is worth more. He said he is probably willing to consider changing the location of his access to allow the applicants septic needs as long as he still retains a 34' access He noted that the information packets points out that the DNR and property owners to the west, east, and north are opposed to the vacation and Staff does not recommend approval but requests the access remain open. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1 - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Big Island - Continued) Robb said the contusion lies in that the letters address the easement between the Adams and the access which is the wrong easement. It has not been the applicants intent to vacate that portion of property 1 he Commission discussed the access changes, concerns for septic and driving over drainfields, and the need to retain access to the Henderson property. Hawn asked the applicants to speak with Mr. Erickson regarding the sale of a piece of land for a new corridor to give direct access (not easement) for egress and ingress as currently there for Mr. Henderson Henderson said that w ould be acceptable as long as the width of the access remains the same Fieger said he did not know if Erickson would be willing to sell the land. Adams was informed that no approval could be made at this time \vithout knowing the outcome. Adams asked the Commission w hat would happen if Erickson is unwilling to sell with no other solution for obtaining a conforming septic. Smith inquired if there were any other concerns from Staff if this access could be resolved. Gaffron said the primary concerns are a septic in the right-of-way and providing an easement for utilities. It was noted that no other site was found satisfactor>’ for a septic. Gaffron said Big Island is allowed structures without septic systems under specific conditions It was noted that Henderson does have enough dr\ buildable land The question of holding tanks and pumping was considered Gaffron reported that holding tanks would not be the first choice and would probably require a variance, but he would ha\e to review the code Fieger said he would prefer a holding tank due to the cost of the septic system The length of piping was also discussed Adams noted that the septic design allows for 640 gallons of water per day per cabin capacity which is extreme considering its seasonal use Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2201 to allow the applicants to research further options for access through acquisition of property from Mr. Erickson. The applicants were also encouraged to speak with Stall'regarding holding tanks. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) 7:"0 P.M. - #2204 JAMES G. FUM.ERTON III, 3350 AND 3400 FOX STREET - CLASS 111, PRELIMINARY SlIBDIVISION/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7:47-8:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant, James Fullerton, and Attorney, John Winston, were pre.sent. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON J.ANUARY 21, 1997 (#2 - #2204 James Fullerton - Continued) Mabusth reported that the applicant proposes a 5-Iot subdivision of the Fullerton property. Lot 3 is encumbered by a view easement covenant which will run for 30 years There are no Orono designated wetlands, but the wetland delineation report located a type 2 wetlands within Lot 3. Tract E, a ten plus acre parcel not included in subdivision, has deeded rights to use of private road but limited to two future residential units There is a potential for a total of eight lots to be served by private road. Lot 4 could be subdivided in the future based on current zoning standards Lots 1 and 2 could not be further divided because of septic limitations The view covenants on Lot 3 w ould limit further division. Along with the subdivision, the application includes a request for a conditional use permit for a guest house on Lot 3. Staff has inspected the structure and found it to be structurally sound. Lot 3 meets the area and width standards for two residential units. The guest house would be served by a future primary septic system to serve Lot 3. The system has been designed for 8 bedrooms and would include 2 bedrooms in the guest house along with the 6 bedrooms in the primary residence. Mabusth reported that the major issue for this application involves required upgrades of existing drive to be converted to private road GtafT met w ith the Assistant Fire Chief of Long Lake Cox found that there would be specific upgrades needed to meet needs of emergency vehicles The amenities and plantings were noted Review of ditching and curbing is necessary to minimize impacts Mabusth said the Engineer and Asst Fire Chief requested the road be upgraded to a 24' width. The applicant's plan already reflects a change in curve radius where road extends south and west. Mabusth noted Gustafson wanted monuments relocated to meet 24' wide opening but Cox felt the monuments could remain as long as a 28' wide paved road was installed to the w est side of monuments for approximately 100' length. 1 he drainage for the subdivision will drain to northwest at road intersection through Lots 1 and 2. The remainder of drainage will run to south of road on existing swale in Lot 5. The accessory structures within Lot 2 would be removed as well as the structure located on the shared lot lines of Lots 3 and 4 John Winston reported that the applicant is considering the creation of 5 lots from the original 3 and does not have the same viewpoint as the Start'with regard to the future divisions Winston said he would like the opportunity to review the roadway changes with his engineer and work out the details with Start' He noted that the applicant appreciates the ability to maintain the monuments Jim Fullerton said it is their attempt to maintain the ambiance of the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1 - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Big island - Continued) The subdivision includes Lots 4 and 5 as lot line rearrangement and the division of Lot 3 into three new lotsMabusth noted that the existing lot of record includes lots 4 and 5. Lots 1 and 2 would be new lots. There were no public comments Lindquist asked the applicant if he had read Staff recommendations 1-8 for the subdivision and 1-4 for the guest house CUP and is in concurrence with those findings The applicant said he was noting the need to work out the details regarding #7 (road improvements). Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2204 with Staff recommendations # ’ whereby #7 pertaining to width would be reviewed with Stall and Engineer, and with Staff recommendations 1-4 for the guest house CUP. Mabusth reported that the application would be presented to the Council at their January 27 meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#3) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:02-8:25 P.M. The Applicant was present along with Architect, Nei' Heupel Gaffron reported that the application for a guest apartment was reviewed by the Commission at their November meeting The applicant was asked to revise the plans to address the concerns brought forward. The street setback was reduced to be consistent with the existing house The setback was originally proposed at 1T although 50’ is required The setback currently proposed is 24'. The single stall attached garage remains adjacent to the entry to the guest house in the proposed plan. Changes were made to the floor plan to straighten a line where the garage extended The required setback from Lake Classen is 150' and the proposed is 126'. The east side setback is proposed at 5' and jO is required The east side setback had been discussed in an earlier review which did not include t»ie guest house. The average lakeshorc setback was reduced from 90 to 80 to provide easterly views for the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Gaffron reported the issues for discussion include whether or not the single stall garage is necessary considering the proximity of the large structure to CoRd 6. He suggested the location of the garage may possibly be reconfigured by pivoting the garage and eliminating the staircase Gafiron stated that the DNR felt the hardship noted for the setback to the lake as self-created He asked the Commission to consider whether there are suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance given the magnitude of the additions to the west He asked the Commission to consider w nether the guest house design will function as a separate entity or part of the principal residence Gaftron noted that the guest house does clearly share the main entrance to the house He did question whether the separate garage stall gives the appearance of two separate dwellings rather than that of a single family residence He also asked if the Commission had specific concerns regarding the lack of an alternate drainfield site. Heupel reported that the design of the house was pulled back on the lot in response to the suggestion by the Commission. McMillan asked if the site was too steep for a mound system as an alternate for the septic. Gaftron said the concern was over disturbed soils as well as the steep topography. McMillan also inquired if the great room exists as show n on the plan She w as informed that the family room, hall, great room, and kitchen will remain the same. She inquired about landscaping plans. Heupel said the landscaping would be the same as that shown in the original plans Lindquist asked if the single stall garage could be eliminated. Heupel said moving the garage would aftect the well. McMillan inquired about the well Gaftron noted that the new plans solve the well location problem. McMillan said she would be in favor of the plan with a detailed landscaping plan included. Smith was not in favor of the garage as located. She asked if the garage is of importance that it be pulled back from the roadway. Hawn asked if the well could be relocated. The applicant said he does not wish to make any further th mges to the well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helga^er - Continued) Helgager said he understands why guest house requirements prohibit more than one main entrance. He noted that prior to remodeling, it had been difficult to know where the primary entrance to the home was located. Helgager said the location of the single stall garage is to enable the user of the guest house entry to the interior without having to walk through the entire house. Smith suggested moving the garage location from the front of the house so it would not protrude. Heupel brought the Commission's attention to the steep topography of the property. Hawn inquired if the access from CoRd 6 could be moved ftirther west. Gaffron did not believe this would solve the problem. Helgager also said it would increase hardcover. Lindquist reported his problem with the plan had to do with the garage and not location to the lake side. There were no public comments The applicant w'as informed that the Planning Commission’s objection to the plan was the garage. Helgager asked if it was the additional garage or the garage location to the road. Hawn said she had a problem with both noting that she would prefer less garage area farther from the road Smith said she was concerned about the design of two distinct li\ang areas. She felt it would encourage the establishment of two residences in the future. Lindquist indicated h;‘. f .jncern about the proximity of the garage to the road. Schroeder was concerned about ihe future creation of two units and the proximity of the garage to the road. McMillan noted there is limited area to resolve the issues and questioned whether some square footage of living space should be eliminated to accommodate the third garage. She does not wish to see any further encroachment to the lake side and sees the lake as a bigger concern than that of CoRd 6. At the applicant’s request. Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2187 to allow' the applicant to review the plans. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2195 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, INC., 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN/VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:25-9:29 P.M. The Applicant w'as represented by Mary McConnell and Jeff Melby. The site operator was also present. i f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (U4 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application had been tabled at the November meeting to allow revisions to be made. He clarified that the e.xisting building has been connected to sewer for the past 10 years and the newly proposed building will be stick built instead of modular design. A lot area and lot depth variance would be required for reconstruction of the building. There is a potential variance for parking stalls, a variance for parking on the opposite side of the street, a lake setback and street variance, and hardcover variance. There is concern over boat storage in the yard and for landscaping. The proposed amenities will include a boat head pump out facility, toilets, stormwater upgrade, and tree replacement. The general intensification of the site also is of concern. Mary McConnell addressed the concerns previously made by the Planning Commission. She reported that the current 4200 s.f building is in need of repair. It is proposed to demolish that building and replace it with a smaller building. The existing permit allows for a 111 slip marina with boat storage and maintenance. 1 heir plan is to take 12 slips out of marina rental use for boat storage McConnell then addressed the concerns over sanitary sewer, type of building, pump out, parking, stormwater, and intensification of use. McConnell informed the Commission that the building plans now call for a cape code style building with a small wood sign In responding to a question from Smith regarding building materials. McConnell said the building will have lap siding, shutters, and shrubbery and flowers conducive to that style of building. The interior floor plan of 1152 s.f will include two offices, a lobby/reception area, and inside bathroom. The entrance to the bathroom facilities will be from the lakew'ard s.de for boat slip users. Smith inquired about the use of portable toilets McConnell said they would continue to use the satellites on the other side of the roadw ay with a 3-sided enclosure matching the siding of the building. Hawn was informed that the indoor bathroom would be available when the building was closed by the use of keys provided to those slip users. McConnell said a boat head pump out facility, which is not currently provided, will be installed on the lake side with portable discharge to a clean out on the side of the building. The hours of operation will be 9.00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday thm Saturday, closed on Sundays. The bathroom facilities will also be handicap access'.ble. McConnell reported that the setbacks for the proposed building are more confonning than the existing building with a 27' improvement to the lake side, 5’ improvement to the road, noting the 75% decrease in building size. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#4 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Smith asked about the boats on display between the lakeshore and building. McConnell said there would be up to 6 boats on display. It is their intent to convert 12 of the slips for boat display from the current rental use. Smith was informed that there would be some exchange of boats amongst the display area. McConnell did not believe the condition of the grass would be highly affected by the boat display. She informed Hawn that people would not be climbing onto the boats on display. Similar boats w ill be on the water for customers to test. McConnell reported that the original proposal called for a 3-stall parking variance. In their calculations, 8 stalls would be required under the ordinance for office use, 3 stalls for employee use, and the remaining for marina use, less 12 slips converted for display use. It is Genmaris belief that the 12 stalls for display use are the same required for the sales office and should not be required for duplication. Lindquist noted that the ordinance does not differentiate for the type of use McConnell asked for a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance and asked that the duplication not be required She noted that the 12 slip usage would be restricted as they will only have two employees available which would result in only two stalls being used. Boats will not be allowed to be taken out w'ithout an employee or w hen the office is closed. McConnell showed drawings of the stall locations and ponding for the 3-sta!l and 10-stall variance proposals The pond would change in its dimensions in the 10-stall configuration by being located closer to the south end. A few trees would be lost but replaced elsewhere. McConnell reviewed the stormwater basin. The existing accommodations and new standards were reviewed. More tree removal would occur in the 3-stall configuration. Regrading of the site would occur. Melby noted that there would be drain tiling on the northeast side of the property as well. McConnell questioned whether there would show enough benefit to warrant meeting the current standards. In responding to the intensification of use, McConnell noted the reduction in the size of the building and less activity. She also noted there would be a ma.\imum of 3 employees. The active marina use would be reduced by about 10%. 12 less slips with limitations to boat sale operations, as well as restricted hours. There will be no winter boat storage, except possibly for employees use. There will be no permanent maintenance facility. Assembly only will occur, such as prop replacement. An on-site manager will be on duty to police the property. McConnell also noted the 77% green space for the lake property and property across the street. The only increase in hardcover will be if the additional 10 parking stalls are required. McConnell said they will do as required to comply with the NURP stormwater requirements. McConnell responded to Exhibit D, a letter from Mr. Oberhauser. noting the facility would be more in conformance than its current use as far as traffic and hardcover are concerned, the permanent structure, and bathroom facilities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (;i4 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) McConnell said she saw 4 options - approval with no additional parking or NURP requirements, approval with no additional parking and expansion ot ti.e pond, 5 additional parking stalls required and NURP compliance, or 10 stall additional parking and NURP compliance resulting in additional hardcover. Hawn inquired about lighting by the docks. The operator said there are lights on each dock at the current time. Smith inquired if there could be criteria developed which w ould require additional parking stalls to be required. Gaffiron noted this would change the stormwater pond issue as the pond itself would change in its configuration. Gaffron asked what criteria might be used to determine that the parking was not working. Smith cited cars parking on the shoulder of the road as a possible trigger. Lindquist asked if NURP ponding requirements are necessary. Gaffron reported that these requirements, though not in the code, are to be incorporaied into new development per the comprehensive plan. The B-2 zoning revisions also reflect the need for pond revisions. McMillan inquired about changes in slip usage. Lindquist noted that the operations are in accordance with the number of stalls. Lindquist inquired about parking on the east side. McConnell said all parking will occur on the east side noting problems with parking by those not associated with the marina. Gaffron cited a possible basis where concern would be raised regarding stalls and slips where the new sales use is accommodated. Lindquist noted that the addition of 3 slips is based on 111 stalls. He explained that either 6 or 10 additional are required with 67 for sales function and employees. The addition of 10 stalls would accomplish the 78 required. Lindquist said he was in favor of only requiring 3 additional stalls as long as the ponding is adequate due to the decrease in hardcover. Smith questioned whether a change in sales could be a factor for requiring additional stalls in the future. Hawn questioned whether the elimination of sales would take away the stall requirement but Lindquist reiterated that the number of stalls is not reflective of whether they are rental or retail. During public comments, Dana Wells, 1397 Orono Lane, said she views the marina from the lake side. She voiced concern over sight lines questioning the size of the slips and also concern over lighting. She preferred the yellow lighting currently used over white or fluorescent. She also said she was concerned about trees which would act as a buffer around the building. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#4 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Craig Moen, 1387 Orono Lane, noted the cooperation in the past regarding lighting and the elimination of spot lights. He is satisfied with the current lights. He also asked that the signage not be lit at night. Lindquist asked Gaffron to address the issues of dock size and lighting. Gaffron said dock size is under the LMCD jurisdiction. The City requires lighting to be kept within the site, shielded, and directed downward. Wells informed the Commission that if the City made its position known to the LMCD, it could make a difference. McConnell reported that no changes are proposed for the lighting. The sign would only have a downward light to show its location for safety purposes. She said there are no plans to change the dock size or configuration and would notify the residents if any were proposed. Moen noted the different circumstances involved with homes viewing the site from the like side and asked to be notified of any changes within the bay area. Gaffron said he would notify the Orono Lane residents regarding any future meetings held by the City on the subject but could not speak for the LMCD. Jabbour asked that the residents be made aware that there is the potential for changes by the LMCD. GaftVon noted that the density level is regulated by the amount of shoreline, and there is potential for more dockage on the site However, he added that the parking is not adequate to accommodate any more docking from the City standpoint. He noted that the Citj did not exert any authority over the allowed expansion that occurred 10 years ago. He opined that the site is being used to its capacity. Kelley asked that the issue of tour boats and wdnter use be addressed. McConnell said the only winter use would be for storage by employees and no tour boats are proposed. Kelley asked that this be in writing as well as a statement regarding snowmobiles. McConnell reported that the negotiations made with the operator are for use of Genmar related boat products only. Gaffron suggested any approval include as a condition of the approval the list of proposed and allowed uses and readdressing of the issue if changes were made in use. McConnell said she would be in favor of that. Smith asked that there be an even replacement of any trees lost on the property. McConnell noted that some of the tree replacement will occur elsewhere on the site as there were limited spaces where the trees will be removed. More trees will be placed by the building for screening purposes. Smith asked that this be presented as part of the landscaping plan. n MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#4 - #2195 Genmar Industries - Continued) Hawn inquired about the boats being on trailers. McConnell noted there would only be room for 18 otherwise. She also reported that it would be unusual for people to try out any of the boats that are displayed on the trailers. Hawn noted the limited ability to view those boats on the trailers Gaffron inquired if the on-site manager would be on the premises both week end days. McConnell said no. McMillan suggested having parking stickers for use by the rental customers. The operator thought that was a good idea. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2195 with the requirement of 3 additional parking stalls in order to maintain a reduction in hardcover and expansion of the pond to NURP requirements. The use of the facility would not allow any winter boat storage or snowmobile sales. Lighting on the site would remain as existing and slip size is to remain as currently e.xisting. Gaffron asked if Planning Commission wanted criteria regarding possible parking problems such as references to police departments Schroeder said he felt that would be difficult from a practical standpoint. Gaffron asked if the Commission was satisfied with the enclosure of the portable toilets as proposed. Schroeder said he was. Smith asked for criteria regarding parking problems. Lindquist did not agree. Schroeder noted it would also increase hardcover. McConnell clarified that the operation would be allowed to reserve 4 Sundays during the year to be open. Gaffron noted that the Council will receive this application at the January 27 meeting along with the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of the bluff expansion. Hawn asked that the conditions as proposed receive signature prior to Council approval. McConnell said that would be satisfactory. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2199 RICHARD W. BLOOMQUIST, RICK'S SUPER VALU, 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:29-10:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#5 - #2199 Rick’s Super Vau - Continued) The Applicant was present, along with Gary Kosfeld of Super Valu and Ben Herda, Senior Civil Designer for PlanMark, a Division of Super Valu Mabusth reported that the proposed addition consists of 6688 s f at the north and east ot the current structure. The B-3 zoning code calls for 60' setback from all setback lines. This proposal would require side street and side yard setback variances. A previous land use application in 1991 involved a new loading dock located 10’ from the west side lot line. In that review, a parking stall variance was approved. Mabusth noted that the shoreland regulations did not go into effect until 1992. The property is located within 500’-1000' of Lake Minnetonka and is now subject to hardcover standards. The allowed hardcover is 35% and is proposed at 73%. The addition would include 1600 s.f of new paving on the east side to allow for more efficient movement of semi-trucks delivering to the east loading dock. Mabusth said the City Engineer has approved the new alignment. The improvements will also require a parking stall variance The 1991 requirement was 134 stalls and was approved at 108 stalls. The current requirement is 177 stalls with the increase of retail and warehouse facilities. Mabusth noted that the restrictions on that prevents expansion of structure to north or south. The only available space is either to the east or west. There is a 100* conservation easement to the south and a 30' utility easement to the north of the structure. Mabusth reported she met with the applicant to discuss questions raised in the Staff memo. She said the store hours will remain from 6.00 am. to 11:00 p.m. The deliveries will be limited to 3 semi trucks with daily delivery at the south east loading dock. Thrw to four 22' length trucks will deliver daily to west loading dock. The delivery trucks will back into the loading docks. Bloomquist informed the Commission that Super Valu uses the west side loading dock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays using the approach from the south (Cc'Rd 19). Mabusth added that the access to the property will be relocated more to the south which would be a great improvement as it will maintain a greater distance from the busy intersection of CoRds 15 and 19. Mabusth noted that the Engineer has recommended some signage limiting parking to either "15 minutes" or "for employees only" for the 4 diagonal parking stalls near the loading area. Bloomquist said these stalls are used primarily in the evening hours. Mabusth informed the Commission that there will be no change to the pylon signage or in lighting. Bloomquist reported that the additional hardcover would assist in improving safety with the change in access. Mabusth added that there are 75 employees at the store with 9 being full time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#5 - #2199 Rick's Super Vau - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property will meet the 12% green space required under the B-3 zoning code. An attempt was made to add green space within the parking area but proved too difficult. The business lost 8200 s.f. of land in 1987 to the County for road improvement. The pylon sign had to be relocated back onto the property at that time. The applicant has agreed to plant trees along Kelly Avenue and along the bank lot line on the higher elevation. Since the elevation drops sharply northward on the subject property, the trees will be visible from the County roads. A letter from a neighboring resident on Kelly Avenue expressed concern over the proposed addition. Lindquist read the letter into the record which noted opposition to the expansion due to loss of green space and increase in drainage problems. Bloomquist responded that he has worked with a gardener the past several years and the trees on the property are becoming larger and more noticeable. He added that he is replacing hardcover with hardcover in order to expand his inside use and add a pharmacy. M^usth said the 1991 application asked for excavation of a pond above the 940' elevation writhin the conservation easement area. The City Engineer reported that the pond is adequate to handle the additional increase of 1600 s.f of paving. Mabusth said Mrs. Nadler's concern was consistent with calls from several other neighbors who noted problems of flooding during heavy rains. It has been determined that the flooding was most likely caused by a plugged culvert. Mabusth reported that Staff will investigate that problem. Mabusth noted there was also a concern from the neighbors in having to view a dumpster. Bloomquist reported that it was located inside the loading dock area and loaded through a chute. He reported there are trees 5-6' high to camouflage the dumpster. There previously had been an open dumpster located on the other side of tlie building. Bloomquist added that he assigns employees to clean up trash found around the property. Lindquist informed Bloomquist of the recent discussions regarding the beautification of the Navarre area asking for his assistance. Bloomquist noted that the outside decor will be a pre-cast split block. The signs are located high on the building and are well lit. The canopy will also be repainted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#5 - #2199 Rick’s Super Vau - Continued) Smith inquired if the applicant intended to have a drive thru window for the bank. Bloomquist said he did have tentative plans to include a drive up teller. The ATM machine would be located inside the building. McMillan voiced concern with cars driving up to such a facility at the front of the building. Bloomquist said he had discussed the option of using the east side of the building but found it unsatisfactory. He noted he has not secured a bank tenant but has heard requests from customers for banking facilities. He said the drive thru window was not a necessity. The banking facilities themselves are questionable, though a pharmacy is a priority. The Commissioners informed liim that they would prefer the teller be located inside the store only and would not look favorably upon a drive thru window. The limitations of the grocery pick-up area were noted as well as location near the customer entrance. Bloomquist agreed with their assessment noting it would add two parking stalls if the drive thru w indow was eliminated. Smith asked if the applicant had a master plan for the site noting the site limitations. Bloomquist informed her that he had felt the last upgrade would be the extent of his improvements but with the loss of a neighboring pharmacy and another grocery store in the area, he felt pressured to expand. He did feel this improvement would be the last improvement that the site could accommodate. Lindquist informed him that if approval was granted, he too felt the property was maximized in its use Smith noted that the Commission has placed limitations on properties and would probably recommend a notation in any resolution that the property had reached its maximum capacity for improvement. There were no public comments. Schroeder inquired about the pond. Mabusth said the pond was functioning and deemed adequate to handle the additional hardcover improvement. McMillan in noting the limited green space, asked that more vertical plantings be considered to break up the sight lines to the east. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2199 with the conditions that a landscaping plan be presented to Staffs satisfaction with additional vertical green to the east and west and no drive thru teller. All banking services are to be located within the building. Smith clarified that there will be no change in store hours. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#5 - #2199 Rick’s Super Vau - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the green space issues. The detention pond will be reviewed by Staff. The exterior look of the building was discussed. Schroeder said he felt it was difficult to ask for a certain look. McMillan questioned who would make the decision on what the building would look like. Smith asked that some criteria be given. Bloomquist said he understood the need to make visual or cosmetic changes. Schroeder added to the motion that there would be a fruitful discussion between Staff and Applicant regarding the building exterior. Vote: AycsS, NaysO. (Hawn left the meeting at this time.) (#6) #2200 MR. AND MRS. WILLUM ELLIS, 2435 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING I0;13-10;18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant w?- represented by Robert Hare The applicant has a contract to purchase the property in order to construct a new residence within the approximate footprint of the existing residence. The lot is non- conforming by the standards of the 2-acre zoning but was platted prior to those zonmg regulations. The proposed construction would require variances to lot area, lot width, side setback, and hardcover. The same setbacks are proposed as exist today at 16.2' and 13 5' The hardcover exists at 36.6% and is proposed at 36.5% within the 250-500 setback. There is no structure within the 75-250 ’ setback. Mabusth noted that the lot width and lot area variances are a renewal from a December 1995 approval of a replat. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the constaiction of a new residence limited to the existing parameters. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2202 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY ROAD 15 IMPROVEMENT COMMENCING AT ORONO ORCHARD ROAD INTERSECTION EAST TO CITY LINE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10;18-10;52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 1 I 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Improvement - Continued) Gaffron reported that the request by Hennepin County's Department of Transportation is for a variance to fill wetlands and for a conditional use permit for filling in excess of 100 cubic yards. This project is in conjunction with the expansion and safety improvements to County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road in Orono to Hillside Drive in Wayzata. The wetlands received City wetland designation in the 1974 inventory. An updated inventory is now under way. The wetlands affected are located between the railroad tracks and CoRd 15 on the west side as well as several smaller areas. The roadway will be moved 10-12' north from the existing road bed to avoid impact to the Femdale Marsh area. Gaffron referred *o the impact maps of Exhibit K. The 2.3 acres of w etlands to be impacted are under the City jurisdiction as well as the DNR and MCWD The County has made application for permit from the Corp of Engineers. The 1.2 acres under the DNR's jurisdiction is awaiting completion of the environmental assessment worksheet process. According to Ceil Strauss of the DNR, the mitigated site is along CoRd 6 in Independence The 1.1 acres of wetlands under the Conservation Act has been review'ed by the MCWD, who has issued a permit. They have determined that there is no place in the project area for mitigation and has accepted a $38,000 contribution for a ponding area in Excelsior, which is in the same sub-watershed. The 1.2 acres of flood impact overlaps the wetland impact The City Council approved the "Ferndale Cutofl'* for use by the County for the road improvement to mitigate its impact. Gaffron said he is of the opinion the other agencies will approve the wetland filling as the MCWD has already done. It is up to the City of Orono at this time to determine whether it is in favor of filling the 2.3 acres to accomplish the safety enhancement and improvements of County Road 15. He noted the last project to receive such an extensive wetland alteration approval was McCulley Road in 1980. Staff recommends approval of the County's provisions for erosion control and construction plan. The City Engineer has not specifically reviewed the plan as of yet. The layou. was approved by the Council in December, 1996. Gaffron reported that the Staff is recommending approval with a number of questions to be considered. Should the City grant what is a substantial wetland filling variance for this project based on the public need for the project, and does the public interest served thJc nrniprt fmm similar orivatc projects which might proposedistinguish this project from similar private projects which might propose significant wetland filling? Should City approval be conditioned on applicants obtaining all the necessary permits from the other regulatory bodies? Gaffron remarked that yes, that condition should be made. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Improvement - Continued) Should the City accept the concept of mitigating impacts to Orono w etland via wetland/stormwater projects in other cities or in other subwatersheds? How does the Planning Commission feel about payments for Riture off-site mitigation in lieu of concurrent on-site mitigation? Does the Planning Commission feel more information about the functions and values of these wetlands should be provided before a final decision is made on this projeci • Would the Commission prefer to review the EAW before reaching a conclui,:-'!*? Gafifon noted the C^ty has not required mitigation in the paoi as it is a relatively new law. He did note that other agencies are allowing mitigation. He questioned whether the City should approve the project betbre the EAW process is complete. Gaffron reported that Staff supports the application as it sees the need for the update of CoRd 15 and conceptually recommends approval and asks the Commission to consider the issues presented. Lindquist asked Bruce Polaczyk if as County representative, he had any comments to make Polaczyk referred to Joel Settles, wetland c.xpert for the County. Settles reported that all impacts from the project will be replaced above a 1:1 ratio within the same sub watershed though not necessarily in Orono he noted mitigation will occur in Painters Creek in Independence and in Excelsior Schroeder was informed that the decision where the mitigation would occur came about from the State Statutes which allows for replacement within the County, preferably within the same watershed but requiring local approval. Schroeder voiced concern with approval of additional pavement when the City has strived to reduce any hardcover which would impact the lake. He noted that approval of this application greatly outweighs the mass of single hardcover applications for such improvements as decks and driveways on lake shore properties. Gallon noted that Settles had met with the City years ago to discuss much of the same issues as Schroeder is bringing up. Smith asked why the sites in Independence and Excelsior were decided upon. Settles noted that the sites are in the same watershed and payment is allowed in lieu of on-site mitigation. If there is no room for mitigation, contribution for creation of a pool is allowed which would allow the most treatment for the contribution made. He noted that Excelsior is the only city with an agreement for regional ponding. Orono has not come to a written agreement as of yet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON L\NUARY 21, 1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Improvement - Continued) Smith asked what impact the filling of wetlands would have on the wild life in the area. Settles said the reports indicate there will be no impact noting the land is only a long, narrow strip. Smith inquired if there would be any detours or rerouting of traffic. She was informed that the construction would be staged such as halt the road would be built at a time allowing for on-going two-lane traffic by use of one lane and the shoulder. McMillan questioned the surcharging. Cniy Knowlan said the surcharging will make use of a select granular sand, wltich over an appilimate 6 month period of time will compress the air and water out of the material to allow Class 6 and bituminous to be laid over it. The north side would be affected 1 2 meters and driveways will be left lower to accommodate the surcharging. There were no public comments Gaffron informed Lindquist that the Council is considering a ponding agreement but does not wish to delay the project. Polaczyk noted the construction cooperative agreement between Hennepin County and Orono states such language listing the responsibilities regarding maintenance and funding participation between the County and City. He explained the costs regarding right-of-way and construction as well as the City contribution of the Femdale Cutoff for mitigation. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of the CUP and variances for alteration of existing wetlands in conjunction with the reconstruction of County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road to the eastern border of the City with the recommendation that the Council pursue alternate mitigation sites. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS (#S) #2203 TED WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED CLASS ill SUBDIVISION The applicant was represented by Mark Gronberg and Mike Hilbelink. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#8 - #2203 Ted Wolf - Continued) Mabusth reported that the applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of the 8.3 acre property located in the RR-IB Zoning District The property is subject to the Shoreland Regulations as it is located within 1000 feet of Dickey Lake, an natural environmental lake. Structures and septic drainfields are not allowed within 150' of OHWL at 985.5', The existing residence within the property curreritly has access off of Willow Drive. Outlot B of the Shadowoods plat to the immediate north was created to provide a future loop road to Willow Drive The applicant proposes a single driveway is proposed to be installed within the Shadowoods outlot to eliminate impact on vegetation The subdivision, Shadowood Farms, is served by a cul-de-sac road 1300 ft in length. This driveway would increase that access from the 1300 ft. to 1600 ft. The code would allow a 1000’ length. It was the City ’s plan to plat and install a future loop road. Mabusth reported that the dry buildable has not yet been determined and will be a factor in whether there is a two or three lot division. Mark Gronberg indicated a wetland deli neation occurred about six weeks ago using aerial and field checks. Mabusth noted that the wetland consists of 2 types, PA and glencoe, adding that the soils of the glencoe need to be determined. Gronberg will get the results of the testing to Mabusth. McN^llan noted for the Planning Commission that winter testing is not guaranteed and will require further confirmation. If a 3-lot subdivision were to occur. Staff must ask for a future corridor connecting Cox Farm Road with private road in subdivision. If a 2-lot subdivision is proposed, the City may not ask for a platted extension at this time. Mabusth noted that a letter signed by the Sanford's, 945 Cox Farm Road, along with 10 other property owue^s of Shadowood, asked for elimination of Outlot B extension road. Lindquist read the letter into the record voicing concern over access from Outlot B. The residents feel two lots are not an extensive development and the City's right to outlot B does not exist citing safety and environmental impact with the number of maple trees existing in Outlot B The residents voiced concern over impact to the wetlands and Dickey Lake and prefer an access from the subject property. Gronberg noted the possibility of a loop road. He did not feel they would have to use the driveway and do not wish to connect all the way through for the two lots. He asked for consideration of the 30' outlot for two lots from Willow Drive with Lot 1 using the existing access. Lindquist asked if two curb cuts were possible. G*'onberg said there were no sight line problems. Mabusth said this would require input from Greg Gappa, the Director of Public Services. It was noted that the Ringerswood plat does not have a connecting corridor to north lot line or subject property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#8 - #2203 Ted Wolf - Continued) Schroeder asked if the reason for a loop road was for safety purposes. Mabusth said the concern was for safety and this pattern for development is recOided in the Comprehensive Plan. Schroeder asked if the outlot could be developed with a temporary cul-de-sac. Hilbelink said the applicant prefers the way the property access is currently laid out and does not propose to extend the cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked if an outlot could sei^ e as a driveway. Mabusth said a 3-lot plat would require a private road. Mabusth questioned the loop drive that serves proposed Lot 1 and the requirement to maintain its use. Lindquist said ideally he would see all access off of the future road outlot. McMillan noted the difficulty of installing the connecting road outlots once development takes place. The roads should be installed prior to development or placed closer to the boundary of the developed site. Mabusth informed Schroeder that there were no standards for driveways. She informed him the access serving three units would have to be a private road. Lindquist noted the 50’ outlot would still be platted. Schroeder questioned whether there was enough land. Gronberg said there was 3.05 acres to the wetland area He noted there would be a need for an "S" shape to hook up to the outlot. It was felt there would be adequate land. During public comments, Matthew Sanford, 945 Cox Farm Road, informed the Commission that the property owners of Shadowood were unanimously opposed to the use of Outlot B. He noted that one reason for the purchase of his property was because of the stunning maples located there. Schroeder informed him that it was not the intent of the Commission to have to cut down those trees. The Commission discussed the options for access. McMillan noted the need to have the additional information regarding the wetland on Lot 3 in solving access from Willow Drive. Mabusth advised that the final resolution of the access issue is dependent on the number of residential units. Lindquist noted the need for assurance that there is enough dry buildable land for three lots. Applicant’s representatives w ere informed that if there was a 3-lot subdivision, the 50' outlot must be a private road designed to connect with Outlot B of Shadowoods. The private road could be constructed with a temporary cul-de- sac. Mabusth inquired about septic testing. Gronberg informed her that the testing has been completed and all three lots have acceptable sites for septic systems. S ’ =-ceder said he would be inclined to plat a road outlot with a 30' corridor with a driveway. Concern was voiced that it would be difficult in the future to divide if the outlot was not platted at 50' A suggestion was made for a driveway installed within Outlot B that was specifically created as a connection corridor. Sanford asked that Outlot B be stipulated that no driveway would be constructed oft of it. His concerns were noted. 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 25,1996 AND DECEMBER 9,1996 The Commissioners had no additional comments. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No other issues were discussed. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1*, 1996 MEETING Lili McMillan's name was added to the roll call of the minutes. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of No vember 18, 1996. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 27,1997 AND FEBRUARY 10,1997 Schroeder will attend the January 27 Council Meeting. McMillan will attend the February 10 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 11:32 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person