Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-17-1997 Planning Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 17,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS ■1- COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Barbara Peterson ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting pi oposals 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 MEETING 7:00 p.m. #2218 Jyland Development. Inc., 1185 Hunter Drive - Preliminar>' j - Subdivision, Class III C^2. 7:30 p.m.#2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers, 2080/2190 Wayzata Blvd. - Preliminary Subdivision, Class III 7:45 p.m. #2224 City of Orono, 2080/2160/2190 Wayzata Blvd. - Rezoning ACTION ITEMS Review of these items will commence prior to or betw een scheduled public hearings. i S' 6. 7. #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road - Variances/Conditional Use Permits - Continuation of Public Hearing #2213 Jim Zimmerman, 2745 Shady uood Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing #2214 Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2216 Winston and Barbara Adams, 3195 Casco Circle - Variance - Public Hearing ?2217 John Thimmesh, 1945 Fagerness Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing41IT #2219 Penny Saiki, 2874 Casco Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2220 William and Karen Peters, 1950 Concordia Street - Variance - Public Hearing 11. #2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia, 3115 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing \ \ 1 12 #2223 Lake Minnetonka Big Island Veteran’s Camp - Conditional Use Permit - Public ' Hearing PlannijigCijUimission Comments 13. Report by Planning Commission Representatives attending Council Meetings of February 24,1997 and March 10,1997 14. Other Issues for Discussion PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 17,1997,7:00 P.M. Additional Items 15. Planning Commission Approval of I>dinutes of the February 18,1997 Meeting 16. Planning Commission to Select Representatives to Attend the Council Meetings of March 24, 1997 and April 14, 1997 Adjournment r Public A ttendance Meeting Date 3 ‘ ^ *7 3 □ C ouncil ,S^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.'n. c /s, V V 2. f*/- <7 3. 4. 1?ickA^t/ ko'Zjc)^______ ^3 a^c. P4 ^/(3 ^ z //? 7^ / /n /H ^ 5 ^ ^ 3 ec/1 pi rd t f ’'( ^I/OJ Cl?) //fiiij ’’h 12. UVS^ ?dv^^t-v ^~?oo^^-(-? i-hu y-OfVA vj\oi.o IPCI^ 13. /'^liarLs ^/4vi~/e.2.yb^ 6j. IjD'^ (jikL r I F=3^ (i ^ ^Lj 14. \Ji;t:ic //lJj(o^h>^co\fL.^ni'c (^Ovo(^t> ^ 15. 0UM.4 1 m' <D ~ IS. lo-B 5?P 3 (D0)O !► fil ^'' / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator March 10,1997 SUBJECT: #2218, Jyland Development, Inc., Hunter Drive and 6th Avenue N, "Hunter's Pass" Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing Application: Subdivision of four lots within 2 acre rural residential zone involving a road outlot. Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, 2 Acres Total Area: 21.57 Acres Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28 RR-IB One Family Rural Re><Jential District Subd. 5 Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to the Street Rear Yard 2 Acres 200'5C 30'50'50' 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. The subdivision results in three or more buildable lots; or 2. The subdivision involves a flexible zoning application; or 3. The subdivision involves the vacation or dedication of a public roadway; or 4. The subdivision involves the extension of municipal utilities. List of Exhibits: A B C D Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Orono Designated Wetland Map r E F G H I Preliminary Plat Wetland Delineation Report Weckman Report Minutes from Planning Commission 2/18/97 re: sketch plan review Grading and Drainage Plan Description of Application The proposed four lot subdivision was reviewed as a sketch plan at the February meeting of the Planning Commission. Lot Configurations All of the proposed lots meet the lot standards for the RR-IB zoning district. Loti Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Acreage 8.27 acres/ 6.28 acres dry 6,43 acres 4.99 acres dry 3.09 acres 2.91 acres Wetlands Type I, Soil type is Hamel Type III, Soil type is Glencoe Type III, Soil type is Peaty Muck NONE NONE 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 vehicles 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. Septic The septic tests confirm that there are adequate and suitable soils on each site. Each lot has suitable areas for both primary and alternate sites for five bedroom homes. Lots 1 and 2 have split alternate sites which will require a more complicated system. All of the proposed drainfield sites meet City and State standards. »22I8, Jyland Dev. Inc. Hunter Drive and 6th Ave. N. PC-3/17/97 page-2 * i The applicants have indicated that they have had a preliminary site evaluation prepared by S-P Testing. The plat shows that there are primary and secondary alternative sites for on-site septic systems. The septic system at 1125 Hunter Drive was a concern, however, that property is not included in this subdivision. Drainage Each lot has adequate drainage away from possible building sites. The preliminary plat 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. Park Dedication This application will be reviewed by the Park Commission on April 7,1997. Staff Recommendation To approve the four lot preliminary plat application for Jyland Development, Inc. finding all standards of the septic code and RRl-B zoning standards have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Applicant to dedicate drainage and utilities easements 10' along the boundaries of the property and road outlot, and 5' along all internal lot lines. Applicant to develop covenant for Type I and III wetlands within Lots 1 and 2. The purpose of the covenant is to alert all future property owners of the need to protect the area if alterations are proposed to first obtain the necessary approvals from the Corps of Engineers and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before applying for approvals from the City of Orono. The Park Commission recommends receiving cash equivalent of land that would have been dedicated to City for park purposes. Septic sites for the proposed four lots will be staked and protected prior to any land alterations on this property. Designate Orono wetlands as drainage easements on plat. Applicant is to grant flowage and conservation easements. H2218. Jyland Dev. Inc. Hunter Drive and 6th Ave. N. PC-3/1 7/97 page-3 6. 7. Grant road and utility easement over the road outlet. Maintenance covenants shall be provided for road and drainage improvements. !± ^ 3 ■'’ il .v^*v jf u * .i\ V '.*• ‘*xr. Vi 22^ v>rv^-f,;. «-:7^ <; .%• A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Application if / P' Date Received <3. -A/ ' ^7 Amount Paid /^ ^'3..<.06 P/L^'r^Zts P-C^ “ ^ Sc , C PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 7^/au. 4^/9^// £■— ^ 'S-i^uEtZ - sf^oo.oo {4£'M, . ^sr»8 . 8 Property Identification Number (PID) “2^ - //fl -Ei-^i-ooo;? Please check one - Property____abstract or "y< torrens?If Attach legal description to application.Lot / ^ ^4oc/4 / 7^ c3 APPLICANT Name ZTy^./»yw3 c. Citv ®V/V/V A yJCL£^/M/0 Zip Phone (work) BSS* * OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 'R tt/tr //. Qo/?u»/Ai /tn<i f ^6/fyuAJ£. Co^*<JiyO Address IZ3^ V>2_c_Phone (home') Citv A^L./^fHfO ZipL£5V<3^ Phone (work'l 6>^(o (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels / Development Size /<r,/5 Acres Dry Land J*. *7'2-Acres Wet Land 2/. 5 7 Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)X Residential; no. of units O Other fspecifyl Present Zoning District /A~/e 1 PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) "yZ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites V Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 4^ Units per^A-^ TAcres tZO Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land v Residential • ________Other (specify)__________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey, 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain diis list fixim Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271), 5. As an addendum to this application, please anach 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 __________^___________________i. •* Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1,11 & 111) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class IA11) $350.00 Totals * • « y Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all qon-residential) ___ Fii\al Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 'SlS (Qa ___^ Legal Review and Filing; _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ~ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivisior / ,,jy|iL\,:ion $200.00 ' .'lo change from original application) _ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: X. Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lOO lin. ft. x .50 = $ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; 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 X On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) 7 new lots$50.00/per lot x C. Flexible Application Fecs/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit Tc^\ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Co^il necessa^to pi^ess this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordtaanc. //./!.//// ^ Applicant's Signature / OUtf 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. s'"- aw m 00 (N \ ? I VO *NJ ——r e PH£AWtf V # ' 7 »-m •oi«*ai*«r mil arw rrf . .VT^.TnSA’ ' / ■nr'mmmmmmmmm ::v::-::-X'::::-::::v::-::::«:-:;v::::::;<-::;-x*••«••••••••«••«••••••«•••••• ••«•«••••••• ■ ■•••■•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••■ •a • ■••flag«««ag«aa««aaa««g»aag«g«aaa«aaaaaaa. • V • • • • ••••••••■•••••••••••aiagaiaaaaaaaaa* • ••a-vgVaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaagaaaaai^acaaaa* L****^*****«««««»*l«««**a«***>««»««««««a>*a £aaaaaa«a«a«aa«aaa«*aaa • a a a a • a& ataataBava|aa«aa*aa«aa«aaa*a«ttaaa •••aaavaaaaaaaaaa >a • aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagsaa aaaaaaaaaaaa (:x:x:::x-x:x:x:xx;x:;:?>.S^x:x^^ RUN DATE 02/19/97 BATCH 504 HENNEPIN C0UT4TY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 10 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 25-1X8-23 31 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SPRING HILL LAND LTD PTSP SPRING HILL LTD PARTNERSHIP 445 LAKE ST E SUITE 220 NAYZATA MN 55391 38 25-118-23 31 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BURT H 3 JEANNE E CORNIN BURT H CORNIN 400 1ST AVE N APT 224 MPLS MN 55401 38 25-118-23 31 0004 01125 HUNTER DR R H AMIS JR I G R LYMAN AMIS R H AMIS JR A 6 R LYMAN AMIS 1911 KENNOOD PKHY MPLS MN 55405 PROP ADDR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 25-118-23 32 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6NEC BRUCE H I JULIE J STEINER BRUCE H A JULIE J STEINER X44 EOGENOOD AVE S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 25-118-23 33 0004 00725 SIXTH AVE N SPRING HILL LAND PARTNERS SPRING HILL LAND PARTNERS 445 LAKE ST E SUITE 220 HAYZATA MN 55391 38 25-118-23 41 0001 00300 SIXTH AVE N DOUGLAS DAYTON ETAL DOUGLAS J DAYTON 300 CO RD NO 6 NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 80 25-118-23 13 0005 00080 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO C N A J H CROSBY TRUSTEES CHARLES A JUDITH CROSBY 1252 HUNTER DR HAYZATA MN 55391 80 25-118-23 13 0006 00080 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DOUGLAS J DAYTON DOUGLAS J DAYTON 300 CO RD NO 6 NAYZATA m 55391 80 25-118-23 23 0002 01505 HUNTEP DR J A S MACKAY JOHN S MACKAY 1505 HUNTER DRIVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 80 25-118-23 24 0004 01235 HUNTER DR MARTY B SC»RIEIDER MARTY B SCHNEIDER 1235 HUNTER DR NAYZATA MN 55391 80 25-118-23 24 0007 00440 PHEASANT RIDGE Rl T A K MARTIN THOMAS A KATHLEEN MARTIN 440 PHEASANT RIDGE RD NAYZATA MN 55391 80 25-118-23 24 0008 00450 PHEASANT RIDGE RD FAS KARSBERGEN FRANK A SARY KARSBERGEN 450 PHEASANT RIDGE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 504 00012 5:/ u • V ■ V ■ -.'1 RUN DATE 02>a9/97 BATCH 5M HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE U I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErWEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THF BEST OF MY lOmiLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE r*« t ■L-. V. >■ ('i'V. •» '..vv * • » ■w •. . *,, Is AX'S Avt« •fkTf'• It milS^SaSSKcsy^ "liEJLISaid SH KpSJa >’'43' .t€ jAV l^HH i ^1 01 a n 9 9 U Oi 1 I i i i WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1. TEN OAK ADDITION IN ORONO. MN John Anderson, EnviroData, Minneapolis, MN delineated and documented wetlands boundaries on the subject property on January 13lh, 1997 at the request of Bob Carlson. This report provides information as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as result of the investigation. The parameters of the wetland/upland boundaries are provided in each delineation report form as this information is redundant below. Please review documentation of these findings (referenced in report and site plan). A sketch of the staked wetland boundaries is included in the report. LOCATION Lot 1, Block 1, Ten Oak Division NE1/4, SW1/4, Section 25 T117, R23 Hennepin County, Minnesota METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987) Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these revisions, the U.S. army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual . The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth In Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al.1979). CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INVESTIGATED Transect A.#l This is a Type Three (PEM1F) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Lake Sedge (OBL), River Bulrush (OBL) and Cattail (OBL). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is in in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect A.#l! This is a Type One (PF01 A) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Black Willow (OBL), American Elm (FACW-), Red Maple (FAC), Green Ash (FACW) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is in a wetland drainage pattern. If II i 0 H 0 0 Transect This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Comrron Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapp^ as Nessel, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite B This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Nessel. a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is in a depression which appears to be drained by a surface drainage ditch. Checksite C This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Nessel. a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology Is not met. Site is in a depression which appears to be drainea by a surface drainage ditch. Checksite D.#l This is Type Three (PEMIF) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Pussy Willow (FACW). Reeci Canary Grass (FACW+) and Lake Sedge (OBL). Soils are mapped as Peaty Muck, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is In a wetland drainage pattern. Transect D.#ll This is a Type One (PSS1A) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Poplar (FAC). Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are mapped as Peaty Muck, wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect D. #111 This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Red Oak (FACU), Poplar (FAC) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Hayden, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, saturated or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect E.#l This is a Type One (PFOICd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), common Buckthorn (FAC-) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Black Willow (OBL) is less common. Soils are mapped as Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is in a wetland drainage pattern. Site is partially drained by a surface drainage ditch. Transect E.#ll This is a Type One (PSS1 Ad) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW). Common Buckthorn (FAC-) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are napped as Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as soil is in a wetland drainage pattern. II I I I I AI Transect E,#111 This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW). Red Oak (FACU) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Hayden, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is not in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect F.#l This is a Type One (PEM1 Ad) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are mapped as Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as site is in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect F.#l I This is a Type One (PSSlAd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are mapped as Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is not in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect F.#lll This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Red Oak (FACU) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Nessel, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is not in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect G.#l This is a Type Three (PEM1F) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Cattail (OBL). Soils are mapped as Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. as site is in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect G.#11 This is a Type One (PSS1A) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils are mapped as Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is not in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect G.#111 This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Poplar (FAC), Red Oak (FACU) and Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils are mapped as Hayden, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. Site is not in a wetland drainage pattern. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Five areas were delineated as wetland In the field based on evidence of hydrophytic vegetation and surface topography. Hydrology was assumed by topographic location of the sites. Soils were not sampled as they are frozen. Detailed analysis of the herbaceous layer was not possible due to deep snow cover. It is recommended that the site be analyzed further under growing season conditions. LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT My opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on Information I obtained and evaluated from current sources including state and federal agencies, verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information Is not warranted and is not included in the scope of my services. Wetlands delineated under winter conditions may not be accurate and should be reinvestigated during the growing season. I appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis. Sincerely. I I <John Anderson PWS & GMS - RS Gr 1 TO:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:January 10,1997 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2218, Jyland Development, Inc. - Subdivision The proposed four lot subdivision includes soil testing and design for each lot. Each lot has suitable area for both primary and alternate sites for a five bedroom residence. Lots 1 and 2 have split alternate sites which will require a more complicated effluent supply system, but the proposed drainfield sites on all four lots meet City and State Standards. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the application. SLSit '^COiMStk t 0(h\b>V ■ lA (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continuedy Jabbour asked Staff .0 identify the “Seing generated. Jabbour said he f^'er Peived as g^anting approval of the plans addreLd up fhan that of the vdriance process He also asked project is not a front. Gaf&on said P^kMember subdivision. Jabbour noted t egrea . if a subdivision was Goetten asked Gaffron to determine what the amoi^ouia oe u involved. ^ ^ Smith asked Staff to address th\aU issue andd*®™" Wormed l.er the Park Commission tv^jd&essing that concern.inionnea ui^ * cM«h , Lindquist moved. McMiUan sec^^to table Application #2209. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (Hawn had excused herseMto the discussion.of this application due to a possible conflict of interest.) / \ \ (Schroeder aosentpdhimself from the meeting at this tii^) rMt #2205 AI^!e N SCHEFERS, 2540 CASCO IROAD - IJSE PEMmT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:36-10:37 P.M. \ X A ^ CONDITIONAL Noteymining Commissioner Hawn returned to her seat for tlus^i^a item. Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was not present. ist moved, McMUIan seconded, to table Application #2205. Vote: Ayes 5.'Lmdqui SKETCH PLAN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS The AppUcant was represented by Rick Carlson and Mark Gronberg. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#9 - #2208 Jyland Development - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the property being reviewed for possible subdmsion is located in the RR-IB Zoning District, One Family Rural Residential, requiring 2 acre minimum lot size. The 21-1/2 acre property is located along County Road 6 and Hunter Drive. She noted the parcel with the existing residence is excluded from the parcel being considered for subdivision. The lots meet the code requirements. The subdivision would be a Class 3. due to the creation of more than three lots. The proposal is for 4 lots with one outlot with a cul-de-sac. Van Zorneren ^id their are unresolved septic system issues pertaining to the property with the existing residence. Steve Weckman has determine that the parcel has no alternate septic site, Md the current system is failing. Staff had desired the parcel to be included in the subdivision to allow an alternate site to be found for the septic. Van Zomeren said the drainage on the subject property is adequate. The property will be accessed from the high point on Hunter Drive to allow clear site lines from the north and south. Mark Gronberg indicated the property had been considered for maximum development of 8 lots meeting the 2 acre dry buildable requirement. After probes and wetlands were assessed, it was determined that the slopes were near the 6% limit and would require mound systems. This resulted in the subdivision downsizing to four oversized lots. Soil testing is currently being done and wetlands being delineated. Carlson said they do not plan on pursuing purchasing of the propeity with the existing residence due to the high cost of acquisition. McMillan asked what types of wetlands are found on the property. Gronberg said there are type 3 wetlands as well as two other small type 1 wetlands along the drainage swale and ditch area. He indicated a NURP pond would be constructed at the end of the cul-de- sac. Stoddard was informed that they expected very little change in the wetland delineation. McMillan inquired if any conservation easements would be necessary. Gronberg said there are normally drainage easements taken. Carlson said there were some conservation restrictions already in place on the property. The Planning Commissioners were satisfied with the sketch plan as presented. Carlson questioned whether there would be a problem in meeting the application deadline for the March Planning Commission Meeting tf the test results were not yet returned. Van Zomeren and Gappa said they would make that determination and inform Carlson if there was a problem. To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gat'fron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Maich 1j, 1997 Subject:#2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision - Conversion from Outlot to Lot Status - Outlot E, Sugar Woods ('2190' Wayzata Boulevard) - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-1, Retail Sales Business District / RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre (See Application #2224) Summary of Request: Convert Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable lot status to enable development of the property for commercial use. The key issues are related to access for the lot. List of Exhibits A “ Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Dravvings/Survey E - Enlarged Current Plat Map F - Original Plat Drawings, 19S8 G - Outlot D Easement/Conditions H - East Willow Woods Outlot C Easement Conditions Excerpts from Sugar Woods Prelim. Plat Resolution No. 2554 (12/12/88) Excerpt from Sugar Woods Final Plat Resolution No. 2653 (7/10/89) K - Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 - Excerpts L - 1995-96 Safety Improvements Plan - Excerpt M - Mn/DOT October 1996 T.H. 12 Corridor Proposal Report (Excerpts) N - Sketch - Additional R.O.W. Needed for Frontage Road Background In 1987 the City adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 (see Exhibit K) which included the future development of a frontage road between Brown Road and Willow Drive, paralleling Highway 12. The purpose of this planned frontage road was to reduce and/or eliminate access directly to and from Highw-ay 12, generally for safety and traffic flow reasons. The plat of Sugar Woods, completed in July 1989, included two commercially zoned parcels (Outlots E and F) abutting Highway 12. These tw'o parcels were platted as outlets, rather than J k \ \ March 13,1997 Page 2 #2212 Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision as buildable lots, because Mr. Rebers at that time wished to delay decisions regarding future access to the commercial property until such time that it was developed. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to the comprehensive plan by creating Outlot D, a short segment of the future east/west frontage road. Outlot D, however, only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar W'oods to the northwest comer of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when Outlot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted. Outlot C of East Willow W^oods was subsequently platted, providing a corridor connecting from the west boundary of Sugar W^oods, westward to Willow Drive for future frontage road. Access is the primary issue with conversion of Sugar Woods Outlot E to buildable lot status. The issues related to any forthcoming specific proposal for development of Outlot E wjuld be addressed during a commercial site plan review before the Planning Commission and Council, prior to issuance of building pemhts. It should be noted that Outlot E meets the minimum lot area and width standards for a building site in the B-1 District, hence *he only variances whieh might be needed for its development would be related to building and site layout issues. Summary of Access Issues The following issues related to access have been identified: 1. Should Outlot E be allowed to develop with its only access directly to Highway 12? 2.How do the 1995-1996 safety improvements to Highway 12 impact access to Outlot E? Is a shared access with the adjacent Wear property desirable or appropriate? 3.Given the e.xpected future relocation of Highway 12 in the next 5-10 years, will traffic on the current route be reduced to a level that might eliminate the need for the frontaue road? 4.If not, what factors should trigger construction of the frontage road? Should conversion of Outlot E to buildable status be the trigger for construction of the frontage road? March 13, 1997 Page 3 #2212 Rebers - Preliminar>' Subdivision Highway 12 Relocation Impacts The potential traffic volume impacts of Highway 12 relocation (per the 'Alternate 6 North' plan as embraced by the Long Lake and Orono Councils) on the current corridor are indicated in Mn/DOT's October 1996 T.H. 12 Corridor Proposal Report (Exhibit M). Mn/DOT projects that "through" traffic would use the new b>pass, and total traffic Nolume on the current corridor will experience a commensurate decline. Current 1995 ADT for Hwy 12 through Long Lake is about 23.000. Under the 'no-build' option, this will increase to 25,000+ by 2015 with a three fold increase in traffic on County Road 6. Under 'Alternate 6 North', Highway 12 traffic will decrease to 14,600 at Brown Road by 2015. However, an ADT of 14.600 is still significant traffic volume, and generally a daily traffic volume above 10,000 warrants a limited access_4- lane roadway, with ser\ ice roads for access to adjacent properties. ■ A second factor impacting traffic in tliis area will be the relocation of the South Brown Road intersection westward to be directly across from North Brown Road. This is expected to be a semaphored intersection which will provide signalized access. Impact of 1995-96 Safety Improvements The medians and turn lanes established with the 1995-96 Highway 12 safety improvements define specific entry locations that preclude direct access to the applicant's parcel by eastbound tratfic, unless that traffic accesses through the easterly curb cut of the Orono Shopping Center, and then cuts through the shopping center parkingTbt near the gas pumps. It is not appropriate to allow Outlot E's traffic to cut across the already limited Orono Shopping Center site. The 1995-96 Mn/DOT safety improvement plans anticipate a future curb cut for Outlot E, which due to median locations would have to be a right-in/right-out access (see Exhibit L). It is not appropriate to force eastbound traffic to and from Outlot E to have to make Upturns on Highway 12 to gain access to the property. Whether a new curb cut is more appropriate than sharing a single curb cut with the Orono Shopping Center west entiy, is a question yet unaddressed. It is unlikely that reduced Highway 12 traffic in the futulre would allow the median to be modified to provide eastbound ingress/egress directly to Outlot E. Development of Frontage Road The City's preferred access solution for Outlot E is development of the planned frontage road north of 12. This would reduce/eliminaK direct access to 12 and bring all traffic to semaphored k L March 13,1997 Page 4 #2212 Rebers - Preliminar>’ Subdivision intersections at Brown Road or Willow Drive. The 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment recommended a service road to the rear of the commercial property along Highway 12, linking Brown and Willow, with a possible connection to Highway 12 across from Brimhall Avenue. Outlot D of Sugar Woods was created to provide a segment of that corridor. Shortly thereafter, when East Willow Woods was platted, a 60' outlot corridor (Outlot C) was continued westward from Outlot D to Willow Drive (see Exhibit B). Approval Condition #4 of Sugar Woods final plat approval Resolution No. 2653 (Exhibit J) indicates that a road will be developed within Outlot D at the time of the development of Outlots E or F or the development of the Wear property, unless the City has obtained an alternate legal access through Outlot E to the Wear property. The preliminaiy plat appro"al Resolution No. 2554 also indicates that the access road will be fully installed at the time of either the applicant's development of the commercial corridor or as a result of "any other condition that may require the installation of the road prior to applicant's development of the commercial corridor". These two conditions of approval, then, indicate that installation of a road segment in Outlot D must be concurrent with development of Outlot E. Easement Limitations The City was granted road and utility easements over the East Willow Woods and Sugar Woods frontage road segments when each was platted, although both road outlots remain in ownership of the respective developers. The City has the right to build a road within Outlots C and D subject to specific conditions of the easements (see Exhibits G and H) which appear to complicate matters. The City's ability to construct a road within Outlot C East Willow Woods may be somewhat limited. That easenjent-states^th^^ road shall be constructed until: I. The owner of Outlot C, East Willow Woods, requests that it be built; or 2. 3. 4. Until such time that an easbwest frontage road is constructed from Willow Drive all the way to Brown Road with southerly extensions from Sugar Woods to Highway 12 and another southerly extension southward to line up with Brimhall Lane; or Upon rezoning of the two residential properties north of East Willow- Woods, to commercial; or Upon development of Otten's easterly parcel as a separate entity from the currently developed westerly parcel, unless the City determines that tlie easterly parcel doesn't need such access. March 13,1997 Page 5 #2212 Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision The City’s easement over Outlet D of Sugar Woods says that the City can ’t install a road in Outlet D until a building permit has been issued for Outlet E (in which case only a segment directly behind Outlet E is allowed to be constructed) or on Outlet F, in which case the road may extend the full length of Outlet D. Also, that easement requires that any road built by the C • in Outlet D must have its southern edge abutting (or south of) the south boundary of Out)' : D, to protect the Sugar Woods residential development. De\ elopment only within Outlet E, then, appears to allow the City to construct a 150' segment of frontage road across the north side of Outlet E in Outlet D, but does not apparently trigger or give the City the ability to develop the remaining portions of the frontage road further eastward. And, the easement over Otten ’s Outlet C appears to preclude its development as road until the entire frontage road is built from Brown to Willow. A 150 ’ segment of frontage road at the rear of Outlet E with no clear indication of when that road w ill be completed, may be less than desirable. Access Impact on Development of Outloi E Any business development within Outlet E will tend to be oriented toward the primar)' access to the property. If the City intends to eventually eliminate direct access to current Highway 12 and have alt access directed to a frontage road, as is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, then a developer of Outlot E might want to orient his building towards the future frontage road. If the City cannot define when that frontage road will be developed, the developer’s only reasonable option is to orient his buildings to the southerly access. It may be possible for certain types of businesses to be oriented such that access could come from either or both north and south directions. The limitations on Outlot E’s access due to the 1995-96 safety improvements would suggest that a rear frontage road access would be of benefit to Outlot E. Since a semaphore currently exists at Willow, it would be appropriate from a traffic flow standpoint to develop the ser\ice road westward from Outlot E to Willow Drive prior to development on Outlot E. » ■ n ji'- # ri ^h Additional Items of Note The City’s intent with this frontage road corridor was originally to have it also serve as a trail corridor, hence a 60' right-of-way width was established rather than the normal 50 ’. A width of 60' was platted in Outlot C of East Willow Woods. However, Outlot D is 60 ’ in width at the west end but tapers to only 40' at its east end. At the east boundary of Outlot E, an additional 7.05' of width is required in order to maintain a 60' width. This additional triangle of right-of-way should be platted at this time, with road/utility/drainage easements granted. The City Engineer has indicated that a drainage and utilities easement over Outlot D should I L March 13,1997 Page 6 #2212 Rebers - Preliminary Subdivision also be granted for future use, since that was not done when Outlot D was platted. It is appropriate to request that as part of this application. Staff Recommendatii ~i Staff recommends approval of conversion of Outlot E to buildable lot status and renaming as Lot 1, Block 1, Sugar Woods Second Addition only under the following conditions: T IW , ^ ^ ^ Lot 1 is precluded from having direct access only to Highway 12, and is precluded from accessing directly to 12 via the Wear property. 1. 2. 3. 5. The frontage road in Outlot D must be built prior to or in conjunction with development in Lot 1, per Condition #4 of Resolution #2653. In spite of the potential limitations stipulated in the City’s road easements, construction of the frontage road from Willow Drive to at least the east boundary of Outlot E, must occur in conjunction with development in Lot 1. If the easements are ultimately deemed as not allowing this to occur until the frontage road can be completed through to Brown Road, then development of Lot 1 shall not le allowed until the frontage road is fully constructed. 4. Rebers shall grant the City a drainage and utility easement over Outlot D. A triangular segment of right-of-way shall be platted as an outlot per Exhibit N, and applicant shall grant to the City road, drainage and utilities easements over it. i Application U ex-H. k Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLIC AT^^ ‘ , PROPERTY LOCATION " ;r \ • ! i. •-r Site address fO u ~fc£^ P- *■ • . • • • V Property Identification Number (PID)__________________ Please check one - Property____abstract or yC torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name_ Address lStIL 1 Phone (home) r yHM Zip5Sy?^Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Z. 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) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres _ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land _ Residential _ Other (specify)________ ^19/97 Pay 400.00 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A*603 Govt Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature______________________________________ Date _________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature______________________________________ Date______ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & 111) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Totals 7^ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. \ .50 = $______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/IineaI ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main E.\tension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ______________ Date _____________ ordinance. Applicant's Signatur Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into iW^ty Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are he»d 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. MN DATE 02/1S/97BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OH^CR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR 0M4ER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OI'94ERS LIST 3S 54-118-23 21 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6NED SIDNEY 8 « BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B I BARBARA REBERS 3525 NEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 34-118-23 22 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 34-118-23 24 0058 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SIDNEY B A BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B A BARBARA REBERS 3525 NEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 72 34-118-23 23 0009 00520 BRIMHALL AVE EARL N DAY A SONS INC JAN PROPERTIES INC 2815 MCKENZIE PT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 72 34-118-23 24 0002 02073 HAYZATA BLVD H GREGORY M SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 H HAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOX 697 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-110-23 24 0015 00512 VIRGINIA AVE T J A C M KIELEY THOMAS A CARA KEILEY 512 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 22 0015 00038 ADDRESS PENDING CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIO^D CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0018 01977 HAYZATA BLVD H P S A P A 60SHGARIAN PAUL A PATRICIA G0SH6ARIAN 5965 LAKEVIEW DR HOUttD MN 55364 72 34-118-23 23 0023 02225 HAYZATA BLVD H PERRY'S VENTURES VfC PERRY'S VENTURES INC 2205 H HAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0013 00522 VIRGINIA AVE J J A S M RUFF CHERYL LYN RUFF 522 VIRGINIA AVE LOTAS LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0025 02045 HAYZATA BLVD H 0 CREAR A M B CREAR DAN CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 22 38 34-118-23 22 0017 02251 PINE RIDGE LA CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN P 0 BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 24 0001 02120 HAYZATA BLVD H HILLIAM NEAR ETAL HILLIAM H FSAR 36 HACKBERRY HILL LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0071 01964 HAYZATA BLVD H STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE 1964 HAYZATA BLVD H LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 23 0053 02205 HAYZATA BLVD PERRY'S VENTURES INC PERRY'S VENTURES INC 2205 HAYZATA BLVD H LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0014 00522 VIRGINIA AVE J J A S M RUFF CHERYL LYN RUFF 522 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0026 00545 VIRGINIA AVE D CREAR A M B CREAR DAN CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 V.V /V • * • iV V. r - %. «X ,rit IV 1 RUN DATE 02/13/97 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR QNNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OK€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAfS/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HirWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHN^RS LIST 36 34-118-23 12 0003 00A90 BROHN RD N KATHRYN DUNCANSON K A A C DUNCANSON 690 BRONN RO N LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 34-118-23 21 0015 02109 SU6ARN000 DR DAD AHLERS DAVID M A DIANE R AHLERS 2109 SU6ARM000 DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 SB 34-118-23 21 0018 02103 SUGARHOOD DR S M A A M LASKY STUART M A ANN M LASKY 2103 SUGARHOOD DR ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0022 02104 SUGARHOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 38 34-118-23 21 0025 02110 SUGARHOOD DR C TAKACH A M G TAKACH CSABA A MARIA G TAKACH 2110 SUGARI«X)D DR LONG LAK MN 55356 36 34-118-23 21 0028 00036 ADDRESS UT4ASSIGNED SUGAR HOODS K0ME0(t4ERS ASSOC SUGAR HOODS HOMEOHNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 0004 N 38 34-118-23 12 00650 BROI‘24 RO TANA R SEIBOLO TAliA R GARRETT 650 BROIM RO N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0016 02107 SUGARHOOD DR T J A V A SMITH THOMAS J A VIRGINIA A SMITH 5455 BRYANT ST MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 34-118-23 21 0019 02101 SUGARHOOD DR M L A J L DAVENPORT MILES L A JANET L DAVENPORT 2101 SUGARHOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0023 02106 SUGAm.*000 DR REBERS C0NSTRUCTI0T4 CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 38 34-118-23 21 0026 02112 SUGARHOOD DR J R A S H CAMPBELL JAMES R A SUSAN H CAMPBELL 2112 SUGARHOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR HOODS H0ME01A4ERS ASSOC SUGAR HOODS HOMEOHNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 21 36 34-118-23 21 0002 02160 HAYZATA BLVD N HILLIAM H NEAR A HIFE HILLIAM H NEAR 2160 HAYZATA BLVD 6306 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0017 02105 SUGARHOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 »€BSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 /‘A* ' ** 4. 38 34-118-23 21 0021 02102 SUGARHOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 ‘•’a ’ V :: . . V' ‘ I- 38 34-118-23 21 0024 02108 SUGARFX)OD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 • it V, iJ; V • ; 38 34-118-23 21 0027 02114 SUGARHOOD DR LEGEND HOMES INC LEGEND HOMES INC 21301 CO RD 81 P 0 BOX 296 ROGERS MN 55374 36 34-118-23 21 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 RUN DATE 02>a3/97 BATCH 507 HEFiCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 72 34-118-2S 24 0027 00535 VIRGINIA AVE MARGARET E NIUES MARGARET E HILKES 535 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AODR 0»tlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 72 34-118-23 24 0036 02069 HAYZATA BLVO HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL 2069 HAYZATA BLVO H LONG LAKE m 55356 PROP AODR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 72 34-118-23 24 0046 02025 SHAUGHNESSY CIR RJR HOLDINGS CO INC RJR HOLDINGS CO INC 2025 SHAUGHNESSY CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 72 34-118-23 24 0052 02085 DANIELS ST QUENTIN P NENSTROM ET AL LAKE ENGItAERING INC P 0 BOX 787 2085 DANIEL ST LOtC LAKE MN 55356-0787 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 23 72 34-118-23 24 0028 00525 VIRGINIA AVE GUY H FELDMANN GUY H FELDMANN 525 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 • t 72 34-118-23 24 0029 00515 VIRGINIA AVE 0 A C SMEBY OMEN H SMEBY 515 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MINN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0039 02045 SHAUGHNESSY CIR JAM INVESTMENTS JAM INVESTMENTS 6341 KINGSVIEN LA N MAPLE GROVE m 55311 72 34-118-23 24 0040 02065 HAYZATA BLVO H JOHN B DRISCOLL JOHN B DRISCOLL C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST #2100 ST PAUL MN 55101 72 34-118-23 24 0048 02073 HAYZATA BLVO H GREGORY M SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 H HAYZATA BLVO P O BOX 697 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0049 00540 VIRGINIA AVE PAUL S G0SH6ARIAN ET AL P S A P 60SHGARIAN 5965 LAKEVIEH DR MOUND MN 55364 •I 4 TOTAL BATCH 507 00046 4 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEF* ’IN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLcOGE AND BELIEF. ^ . I , ^ OATI % K o f <1 c> r O I 1 •Am i 0 o» 1 P !A Oi I « ^2 i r»»n *1 o -• fc*P! ii^•i r NOKT// / «• A « *• « ^ :v-•^1 r*o V 2 oP ni //1 1 ' ‘ ----- I i4 TTT ' »rr ">Or>rv K-- I gj V'. . / k --------^••||l3'-%.------'^l i ____ ^, -K I j ^''•'->io«iro ?Jffy— 4Mom •*•"■■'•>.. I ^__,f'" ,.^-0»>*»».(£r ^ vvynrc42noir>ai,suc«r aocos^ £_u2£ii — ~~ ’ ~* ~~ '■“-*■ ^ \ f. -?es gj^ S 0219'00‘ W '"'•'BJUUINOUS PAPtONG AR€A-..^ ^ 1-a A V ^# / S '^’anAm^ous PAnanc a /ka --^ ‘N. X yi^q K :!>^,/// HI a V t V' ,SHAUGHNESSY^ CIRCLE --y\ r.»T It ■!5 ^9 sixn '•5 ' i 2 t T ^Op §<Q 9*^ ?8l:$ liJi -Ml'»t >ii’8 li?« Co § a iCo § iII § I § 8 i O I? i"' • * • • * . ; r' ■ • • t A • ^■■,i . . # 1 •1 # A • /‘^ !/•> « N » f M s IB pf C4 OJ^ •x^ f\> —rv — L ^_5tt_1 w Funoev) V*- L '« ^ s i 5 § I ; \ V • I I •1 330 ! # « la •«•••••— 420 —•{— e £ I V c=s£l 222.45 ^ 8 * <00.05 I TAMARACK WE >.=:!<: ’!' 5 r* ni¥r-\415 J *^1P (O 1^ ‘ 415 ; 7 SeSli ' ^5) i 331 • . ; 1 8 I» -^Sf U—no—*' 1 • 229105 55. M 3 No*:2*e ITS • ■1^ ................^ tt BRIMHALL AVE 506.77 ^ k* •32.01 .2 » ir. / I5Z.38 •5 460.00 377.0' A- iii.4i lio "n -D 51 ^ K*•••S 2 4* s-1653tSI.44 *? 8SHAUGHNESSY CIR« i - J « 2 :iR «*"mo i; f /;r,o OI ^ 3 O I6L ll Lit O' 177 16 «o C4 .» un lO P 172.21 a* 4QWTW 2 » 21 50 .34 "TT 69.1 2 >•r-H ^ ii ij-4 5w « •*s ’* _cn S;1 f: JQj RS1 Al LHJJflJ DM J2...2.70.0 r 271.67 WIO'E W l9't 100.93 126.9 mjfe oJ — 73B.9S. 164.01 lUb2.r <»b7. (>9 .V I5V.40 " r/0 *s# O “ 4^ Q » P J OI J w “ti ^ 1 •vflV "40 M.OO lA, - ^ m %> to, ^ •”« f, fw Jt’ 55. ^9; 206.37 •2: a 2 i/» I-- iw. 55 —, 190. M2 •4 I 51.63 I « « VIRGINIA .oH X «* “3o"7TT :hm*••i 5 “ ^ Ts • fw IV /'O f m 8 O IVI 211.66 195.45 .*••* oi - -b ?575.36 RES S0*?2!ZVL ?ll 33 «i 61.3t Tj hinA^H HKUWN Rlla 6R0WN- r i '*bis.. r \ • SC/GAB WODS MATCH UNE --• *t »cfT 1 or 1 »€trs R.T.DOC.NO. \ WiM.M mnr • 1* irSft- \ » *, " •’**iioar •./f ]\ 200.00 \'S.*4'!y-?2 ' wN 87*41’00" W ------f I I ■ AM «f w *tmmt CAM •« tnM <>OMi o » •? « eeama «r |*.i ^ i •/•. mm !/• «C *♦!- • ^ ? MI Kmon CAM iT‘«iO ttmx .AM SV MC» VOMTHS Cam ■« «n«a ‘7^r« MOHt ii»« M lOUlM or ^ • 2 cam m-------- Mean* K sk\^ /;y // I OUTIOT / I.CN0 Ikr.l 'tv-H-i «<; r; TnDUUTtiJAi. r * :V „ 200.00 S 87*41^0* E ■ lu / t M f 81 i vuluvi r -WAM Mt aCM fOMM ” ® *ca»i M- CA« MO Ihoo / ♦ / / •.ah «f in iOMTHS CAM MO *i*m US HO«M) Ma 12 rz '^n '. Tl,. ' * *AH «t an tv ,,-os McmuY Na ij I * I I M\f if Ml mMMt HO tf • ! MOt HM M«a IM-. * • * » t"l« GRAPHIC SCAIJ: JO to IM ■TAJ Ml Ay—1C nANfHMiAlO* iHt^llMC I A*« ScAA PNC —• w%m iamm—«A HAM* Mho ■j|l ■■M •« nit « ■» M ■' I iM* iMA VA«IM •*«MM H. MM ' > I > :»I fJ 1 .r •*»» »oa ^ I ;,. I « 1 » 7 “ ’6-»-43 A ® 5*56 ’08“ ’,^®7.28 C HPr ^ T '«<J6C BBC - N 85*4a'55* W iTwsr 406.10 S 88*4 7’00* WA.VATA Hi • HM0tr« —• h<»amht c' -c 8»cV^2oa. ^ » r'-•°-5«'02’MftTiT-r. nsr.i I....; i:::-tk-« ^ I •*’ ;• '••} i mvt | --fth'ir-ioTA t. •>I SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS farm No. 2t M-OUIT.CLAIM DEED, (l) to Corporation Of Paftntnhip -H*!irr?ollVP^|onn^Convfw^nf BUnki (197fcj No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real EsUte Value ( ) filed (\T) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No.C^__________ V TVi JUN 22 ]990 J_. 19 2199t County Aui eputy Date:May 30 .19 M»h»f.Qtat| Co.. MiAWg|»Qtra 5 V C..r** r^.re c. Xm ^ O5T. tin t • M I ?57 *^1 •51 O r 1 1 C. ^ T^ U • : f n CC* -T h;-'^r • ^ o ^' o ^?I3 ^ ^ SJ O cn 3\ ^ V • FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, husband and wife Sidney S. ReLers and Barbara Rebers, (reserved for recording data) 4:’ ---------------------------------------------------- ^ hereby convey (i) ajid quitclaim(s) to City of Qrono Imantai ftatuU .Grantor (t), I a municipal corporation real property in Hennepin under the laws of Minnesota Grantee, County, Minnesota, described as follows: An eMwnt for pi^tie rood surpotes over ftrtlot 0, SUCAt UOOOS, oubject to the following: of Outr f SUCmIoSs'' Crontee shall be no further Worth than the $o<Jtr i.x«larv more apace It needed, continue on beck) , together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. This easement is given to eliitunate paragraph 4 of the easement fron Grantor to Grantee dated Septenber 8, 1990. Af‘i.\ Df »I 'I a\ Stamp Jlcr^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN —* Barbara Rebers / --------------U . NOTAEUL iTAJO OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) JEAN L CERIJP this lOtAtr. AintCrMl«iPC-7A ' i HtNNWN CVWfly 5 My com.f -.<i.. 4^24-9^ , Grantor (s). 'VftONATURE or FElltOH TAKDtO ACRNCIWLSDOMENt I Tea autemeau for the^^ ?adre2of3S2tee)**^ •h««iMMBt to OadudB r i EXHIBIT A Outlet C, East Willow Woods, subject to the restriction that no road shall be constructed thereon until: 1. such tine as the Grantor, his heirs, successors or assigns, requests sane, or 2. until such tine as an east-west frontage road is constructed fron Willow Drive through East Willow Woods and Sugar Woods to Brown Road with one southerly extension fron Sugar Woods to Highway 12 and another southerly extension to Highway 12 to line up with Brinhall Lane, or 3. upon the rezoning of Lots 1 and/or 2, Block 2, East Willow Woods to a connercial zoning district, or 4. upon the developnent of Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods separate fron the ownership and uses of Lot 1, Block 1, East Willow Woods wherein access to Lot 2 shall be via Outlot C unless the City in its sole discretion determines that alternative access is adequate for said Lot 2. At such tine as a road is constructed on Outlot C, Outlot C nay also be used for trail purposes. If and to the extent that all or any part of Outlot C is vacated, such vacated portion shall inure to the benefit of the adjacent portions of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods, and not to the lands lying northerly of Outlot C. 4 .'I *.'-v . V \ (/■^'oo^'^ f(2c?U»^> City of OR.OIVO exM. CITY ;. fORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2554 ______ E) Clarify that Outlet D (portion of future east/west road) is to be fully platted and developed at the time of future develop ment of the commerical corridor. The access road will be fully installed at the time of either the applicant's development of the commercial corridor or as a result of any other condition that may require the installation of the road prior to j applicant's development of the commercial corridor. F) Both the private covenants and the Subdivider's Agreement j should include the following restrictions: ' 1) No grading and woodlands preservation area. No removal of trees in excess of 2" or greater in diameter (only trees that are dead or because of hazardous condition require trimming or removal) and no grading in the protected areas without approval from the appropriate authority. The Subdivider's Agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setbac)c area of each lot and the private open space outlet. 2) All building pads defined by the setbaclc areas within each lot shall be limited to 80% hardcover improvements. This shall also include the portion of the access drive, that enters through the front yard setbac)c zone. G) Entrance monuments to be defined and plans approved by the Planning Commission and Council as a part of the final subdivision approval. Entrance monuments in excess of the height will require variance approval also. H) The enforcement of the conditions/covenants of the Subdivider's Agreement shall be a method satisfactory to the City. 1 (The City does not feel it appropriate that the landspace buffering agreed to by the applicant be included in the Subdivider's Agreement, but that the City encourages applicant to install appropriate evergreen buffers along the north boundary where feasible and on the east side of Brown Road where the egress road may create problems for resident to the east.) Page 8 of 11 / . i\ t- * * ! ^ ■' i' - “ >■V. '’<{*'A i>; 1-? CITY /v ' ■■•-J* •. *mmn ORONps1 5M6-ftie. (/JX^S fiUkL ^f^CoJkL^ City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2653 __________ . i?XM , X 2. All construction vehicles used for the installation of the private road shall enter and exit only from U.S. Highway 12. The subdivider is to provide appropriate signage to control traffic during the construction period. No construction traffic shall be directed to use Sixth Avenue North. The subdivider shall be held responsible for the enforcement of the approved traffic pattern. 3. Prior to the filing of the final plat, associated documents and covenants, the subdivider shall have completed the execution of an agreement or petition agreeing to pay without appeal for sanitary sewer and water line& to be installed in or near Highway 12 by the City. 4. Outlot D, a portion of future east/west road located within the commercial zoned portion of the property, shall be installed at the time of the development of Outlots E or F or the development of the Wear property (unless the City has obtained an alternate legal access through Outlot E to the Wear property all subject to the approval of the City). 5. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Registrar of Titles on or before January 10, 1990 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements and covenants noted above. The execution of the plat by the City of Orono and the filing of the plat shall be conclusive evidence that the subdivider has satisfied all conditions set forth in this resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 10th day of July, 1989. /D^othy Hallin, City Clerk 1/ Page 4 of 5 ies~ R.' GraSe)ia_Jliyor / N n m m m m a 3 m m m m m m % 3.5 Property No. 4 1 Introduction - This 45 acre grouping is currently under two ownerships with the majority of it zoned rural residential single family. Approximately 10 acres abutting Highway 12 are currently 1 zoned B-1 residential business district. All but approximately 3 acres of this are under a single owner. Typical concerns for this property include access to Highway 12 and North Brown Road together with the concern for safety at the North Brown Road and Highway 12 intersection. Discussion of Alternatives - Alternative No. 1 - Present Zoning If this property were to develop as it is currently guided and zoned, it would result in a narrow strip of commercial uses along Highway 12. However, since these businesses will be restricted from direct access off Highway 12, some form of frontage road will need to be provided. If this area were to be served by a frontage road adjacent to Highway 12, it would represent an expensive solution to this problem since this road would only be developed on one side.l^fc • • • • • •••••••••.•••.•.V.V.*. • • • • • • • • • ••••••• mmmmIPmv ■AV:V:<y- • • • • • • • •••••• ^0 • • • •• •••••••••••a• •••••••••••• • •••••••••a ■ iiijiilgjpMi immmmrn \\w.\• • • • • t • • • • •.*X*I*X •• • Area 4 & 5 Fig. 30 I I Alternative No. 2 - AXtern«ive 2 would allow for buslness/con^eroial abutting Highway 12 to be served by a remote frontage road that would eventually extend over to Willow Drive. The north side of this would provide for eulti-residential with the bulk of the northern .xte developed at the unsewered 2-aore residential. Connection Of the Single fanily to Pine Ridge bane is optional, and would be elrmx.ated fron consideration in exchange for frontage road between North Brown Road and Willow Drive. ALTERNATE 2 T Area 4 ' Fig. 31 I il I :. t .. m m m 1 1 3 If! .1 M M 1 I M Alternative Ho. 3 - Property Owners Proposal - At the beginning of the process, the owner submitted a scheme for development of the property, which was subsequently amended by the owner during the process which provides as shown in Figure 32 for: A) A combination of land 2 acre single family lots on the portion utilizing municipal services. The two acre single family are used to buffer the 2 acre unsewered lots to the north and west. B) The southern portion does provide for a remote frontage from Brown Road west to the western edge of the property. ^ • 2 vts.north I Property Owner Proposal Area 4 Fig. 32 Recommended Alternative - The recommended alternative, which is includes a further extension of the limited/office conmtercial business district back from Highway 12, with a remote frontage road on the back portion of this district similar to figures 31 and 32. Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the existing intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed. Configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of development. Frontage road access to Highway 12 could either be opposite Brimhall Avenue in Long Lake, and/or on Willow Drive opposite the frontage road between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The property north of the commercial area would be single family with sewer and water planned for the area. With sewer and water services available to the property, the owner could submit a 1 and 2 acre mixed single family density alternatives for Council consideration.The maximum allowed density acceptable would not exceed that outline in the alternative 3, subject to utility availability. appropriate density, buffering, etc. The residential area would be served by a cul-de-sac or circular road off Brown Road with no connection to the west if the frontage road is installed. I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m m m m m m m M 1 Property Area No» 5 - Description - This small parcel of 13 acres represents the property most difficult to develop effectively because of its narrow depth between Highway 12 and the existing Ringerswood residential area. The area however, does not have soil limitations, wetland limitations, or slope concerns found in other areas (see Appendix E). The shape and size of this parcel does present a problem for the installation of a frontage road in this area. Discussion of Alternatives - Alternatives as indicated above are very limited for this area. 1. Developed According Current Zoning -• This parcel is relatively small and presents constraints regarding development as found in other area in the corridor. 2. Commercia 1/Retai 1/Multiple Families - Alternative development in the northeast quadrant of Willow Drive and Highway 12 would be of a commercial office/retail nature. It is anticipated that any development on the north/east side of the frontage road would be of a multi-residential nature. The possible inclusion of two residential lots (A & B) which were not originally included in the study would allow for appropriate buffering between the multi-residential and the single family development in Ringers Wood. 4 t t ,^..OCKEY LAKE RD • ^ Primary Frontage Road Alternate Frontage Road Area 5 Recommended Alternative ~Fig. 33 The recommended alternative in Figure 33 would include transition of commercial on the south side of the frontage road back to mu1ti—residentia1 on the norths with appropriate buffering from the single family to the north. The frontage road, regardless of configuration, would commence opposite the road west of Willow Drive and tie into the frontage road coming from North Brown Road. Given the intensity of development, this area would be sewered either through the Long along Willow Drive, or possibly through branches of the Long Lake system. I I \ \ I I r • • H T.H. 12 Corridor Proposal Report S.P. 2713-75 Prepared by Mn/DOT October 4,1996 m r 1 i For the purposes of this document, Mn/DOT is i 5 Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), Contact persons: Tom O’Keefe, P.E. Mn/DOT, Metro Division Water’s Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Phone: (612) 297-1296 Patti Loken, P.E. Mn/DOT, Metro Division Water’s Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Phone; (612) 297-1293 VI. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT The purpose and need for this project are focused on Mn/DOT’s responsibility to preserve the National Highway System, to enhance safety and access in this important interregional corridor, to decrease congestion and delay, and to enhance access for economic development. Traffic along the TH 12 corridor in Long Lake and Orono is currently experiencing periods of severe congestion and delay both in the morning and evening peak hours. Residents have great difficulty in gaining access to and crossing the highway, which has a direct relationship to highway safety and capacity. Capacity of the road is often described in terms of the Level of Service (LOS) of the roadway. LOS is a measure of delay and driver inconvenience based on the average travel time and the present available capacity used in an hour. Traffic levels forecasted for the year 2015 anticipate long delays through Orono and Long Lake, which could result in an LOS ranging from E to FF (F being the worst condition on a scale of A-F, and FF corresponding to a condition where demand is 1.2 to 1.5 times the hourly capacity). An LOS of F represents at-capacity conditions and may lead to traffic shifting in order to use local roadways. Another consequence of an LOS of F during rush hour would be peak period spreading, a phenomenon where travelers make their trips earlier or later, which would extend the rush hour. Safety deficiencies on TH 12 that relate to poor geometries include inadequate vertical and horizontal sight distances, inadequate bridge vertical and horizontal clearances, and problems with access to driveways and entrances on TH 12. The accident and severity rates illustrate these safety deficiencies. Accident rates reflect the number of accidents per million vehicle miles. Severity rates reflect the seriousness of the accidents; with a rating of 5.0 indicating that improvements are warranted. Shown below are the accident statistics from 1992 to 1995 between Wayzata Blvd. and CSAH 6. J I LOCATION YEAR ADT CSAH 6 to Old CiysUl Bay Road 1992 1993 1994 1995 16.773 17.098 17.381 17.964 FATAL PERSONAL PROPERTY injury damage 5 4 II 3 TOTAL 3 0 0 0 8 14 12 6 12 18 23 9 ACCIDENT RATE 1.4 2.1 2.6 1.0 SEVERITY RATE 6.4 3.5 6.4 2.0 Old Crystal Bay Road to Wayzata Blvd. 1992 21,094 1993 21.500 1994 21.862 1995 22.630 0 0 I 0 26 21 26 19 49 44 53 58 75 65 80 77 3.2 2.7 3.3 2.4 6.5 5.4 <5.9 4.2 The May 1992 TH 12 Corridor Scoping Document details the history of a high number of severe- accident locations along the TH 12 corridor from TH 101 in Wayzata to TH 25 in Montrose, emphasizing the longstanding need for safety improvements. Research indicates that there is a direct relationship between accidents rates and the number of access points or intersections along a roadway segment. TH 12 is classified as a principal arterial roadway, as such there should be no less than mile spacittg between intersections on an urban design segment with 1-2 miles preferred. The segment from CSAH 6 to Old Crystal Bay Road has 9 access points per mile with an average accident rate of 1.8 and Old Crystal Bay Road to Wayzata Blvd. has 21 access points per mile with an average accident rate of2.9. Table 3.3.1-2 in the April 1996 TH 12 Corridor Study shows accident statistics for metropolitan trunk highways similar to TH 12 for the years 1992-1994. Minimizing access is a priority for improving capacity and reducing accidents on TH 12. In addition to the need for safety and capacity improvements, there is a need for structural and geometric improvements on proposed TH 12. Principal arterials should have a minimum design speed of 45 mph (70 km/h), and the vertical and horizontal geometry should be consistent with the design speed. From CSAH 6 to Old Crystal Bay Road, TH 12 is straight except for a jr and one-half degree curve at Stubbs Bay Road. This intersection involves a railroad track, a curving alignment for Stubbs Bay Road, and a speed zone transition from rural to urban character. From 1992 to 1994, three fatal accidents occurred related to the curvature and to slowing or stopped traffic. Stopped traffic in the curve area can block sight distance for oncoming traffic and for traffic entering the side road. West of Old Crystal Bay Road is a segment of highway with guardrail on both sides of the roadway. This guardrail protects motorist from the steep slopes that extend into the wetlands. Rear-end and head-on accidents occur in this area. The segment from Old Crystal Bay Road to Wayzata Blvd. is almost entirely in the City of Long Lake, and is the main street for the business district. Horizontal curves create skewed, offset, and short intersections. The geometries and numerous access points are not compatible with the principal arterial function, and the design speed and sight distances are substandard. Just to the east of the downtown area, the highway parallels the railroad, and two intersecting streets are J constructed under the railroad, creating skewed intersections with poor sight distance. This high accident area has 3.5 accidents per million vehicle-miles of travel. The east end of the project transitions and connects to the TH 12 freeway in Wayzata. A series of substandard ‘S’ curves, along with width transitions and lane drops are used to go from the divided freeway to the two-lane highway. The intersection with Wayzata Blvd. is in the middle of this transition area and intersects TH 12 on a curve. The bridge opening under the DNR Luce Line Trail is too narrow, and the shoulder width is below standard. Typical accident types are rear-end, sideswipes, and head-on. Posted speeds range from 35 to 50 mph (55-80 km^). Vn. ALTERNATIVES / CORRIDORS The April 1996 TH 12 Corridor Study/Comprehensive Report identified ten construction alternative solutions, eight of wh'ch were identified and discussed in the May 1992 TH 12 Corridor Study Scoping Document and Draft Scoping Decision Document. These alternatives ranged from four-lane expressways to two-lane limited-access highways. The four-lane alternatives were broken down into nine different segments representing northern, southern, central , eastern, and western portions of the study area. Mn^OT is no longer proposing a four- lane upgrade because of; 1) lack of funding availability; 2) the Metropolitan Council does not support a four-lane alternative; and 3) the purpose and need for the project can be met by a lesser- build alternative. Documentation of the study and information on the four-lane alternatives and the termination of the EIS is detailed in Mn/DOT ’s April 1996 Trunk Highway 12 Corridor Study/Comprehensive Report. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED UNDER THIS CORRIDOR PROPOSAL No-build Alternative = Existing Corridor; The No-build Alternative would allow the present conditions of TH 12 to remain unchanged. Currently, this TH 12 project roadway segment has restricted and substandard geometries, congestion, uncontrolled intersections and access points, and high accident and severity rates. Build Alternatives / Corridors: Alternative 6: South of the Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) Tracks New alignment from CASH 6 to Wa)'zata Blvd. along the south side of the railroad corridor. Two-lane, limited-access highway. Project length appro.ximately 6 miles (includes distance to Femdale Rd.) Tunnel under Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) on east and bridge over railroad on west. Overpasses at Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. Ramps on Femdale Road; interchange where new TH 12 alignment splits from existing TH 1 2 near Wayzata Blvd; Watertown Road interchange; and grade-separated intersection at CSAH 6 & TH 12. ATTACHMENT B CAPACITY / LEVEL of SERVICE AND TRAFFIC FORECASTS The information below is based on a roadway configuration that includes projects in the 1996-1997 Transportation Improvement Program. The 1994 traffic counts were derived from the 1997 base network fi-om the Metropolitan Council Regional Model and cross referenced with existing traffic count data. The 2015 projections were derived from the Metropolitan Regional Model and socioeconomic data fi’om each of the communities in the study area. The followiiig information identifies the main travel demand and operating characteristics and depict the level of service and volumes on key segments. Three alternatives are shown to make comparisons of the No-build, Alternative 6 South, and Alternative 6 North. By providing a cont: oiled-access route through Long I^ke and Orono, travel time savings will be achieved withir. the corridor. Traffic volumes on existing TH 12 decrease somewhat, and the level of service will generally improve, particularly in the hours outside the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. ALTERNATIVE 6: SOUTH of the TRACKS Comparison of Peak Hour Directional Volumes/LOS to Capacity ADT (2015) 27,500-31.300 22.400-27,500 Segment Peak Directional Traffic Volume (2015) Peak Direction Capacity (Vehicles/liour) Level of Service* Peak Directional Speed (mph) l.Ci^ofWayzata to Brown Road 1.580-2.080 1.750 E-F 25 2. Brown Road 1,580 1.750 E 35-55 to CSAH 6 •LOS associated with the peak direction of travel Level of Service Throughout the Day - 2015 Wav^ata Blvd. to Brown Road Time Period Brown Road to CSAH 6 Trunk Highway 12 New Old New Old p.m. Peak Hour E-F E-F B-E A-Ba.m. Peak Hour E-F A A-E A5th Highest Hour A A B A7th Highest Hour A A A AAvg. Off-peak Hour A A A A • A A ALTERNATIVE 6: NORTH of the TRACKS Comparison of Peak Hour Directional Volumes/LOS to Capacity Segment Peak Directional Traffic Volume (2015) Peak Direction Capacity (Vehicles/hour) Level of Service* Peak Directional Speed (mph) ADT (2015) 1. City ofWayzata 1,680 1,750 E 35 28,800 to Brown Road 2. Brown Road 1,580 1,750 E 35-55 24,100-28,800 T0CSAH6 *LOS associated with the peak direction of travel Level of Serv ice Throughout the Day - !2015 Wav'zata Blvd. to Brown Road Time Period Brown Road to eSAH 6 Trunk Highway 12 New Old New Old p.m. Peak Hour E F D-E A-B a.m. Peak Hour E C-E A-E A 5th Highest Hour A A A A 7th Highest Hour A A A A Avg. Oflf-peak Hour A A A A New TH 1 2 is Altcmalive 6 South and Old TH 12 is existing. ' ' _T, ' NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE Comparison of Peak Hour Directional Volumes/LOS to Capacity Segment Peak Directional Traffic Volume (2015) Peak Direction Capacity (Vehicles/hour) I evel of S«vice* Peak Directional Speed (mph) ADT (2015) l.Ci^ofWayzata 8I0-I.3I0 850 E-FF 10-15 25,400-28,700 to Brown Road 2. Brown Road 630-760 850 C-D 40 19,100-23,900 toCSAH6 *LOS associated with the peak direction of travel Level of Service Throughout the Day -:2015 Wax^ata Blvd. to Brown Road Time Period Brown Road to CSAH 6 p.m. Peak Hour E-FF C-D a.m. Peak Hour E-FF C-E Sth Highest Hour E B-D 7th Highest Hour D-E A-C Avg. Off'peok Hour B A 2015 ALTERNATIVE 6 (SOUTH) YEAR 2015 P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES • ^ ....... ■ ,■’! 2015 ALTERNATIVE 6 (SOUTH): YEAR 2015 ADT i X LINKS: ! typ«>9 \Ae 2po <% 2300 T C.R. 24 o L ACVJ <1^ c 1 V\J X C.R. sX \ X fTrri^lMPo £^tour\ F{<j 900 Fox St. 1400 / / vS' 3000 '.HMG/c? PUn.JECI : T.M, 12 t'urricJur Rnulvuiu SCHMHHIU B0!>5 • 8C15 N««l . Hi t c no accuua. Fvi rtilut <« or Uutartouri. PMPK WINDOW C: 512.9</195.326 523 e</203.351 96-09-27 15:55 MODULE: 2.13 RD386/10. . .mji> I STING •ILDINC X W26.2 ( t029. residential property • ^/ / 9 !1028.9 FOUND JLM TORRENS CASE NO % --------- I ^TfJRBEd^Y ^9NSfR X WW.5 Y////,>/.'^ V FD. MnDOT R/W MON. B5109 PROPOSED S LOT I BLOCK 1 ^ ^ ' area = 41,612: so. FT. ^ _ 9HWAY R/W—^.,^ A v< 'f'l a lljOO) r% « f /I • • i % t % j r- # i - '# # » ^ f t • t ^ Si \s^ I Syc^J EXISVNG BUILDING y 'ey- ' • VV\ » ' f ‘ '' » - .1 ' <y L''' '' 'lS jij ^ —50±-\-Li ?<://>/.>/5r* . rHi • xl\' / , //^/ existin // '’BUILDING/ RETAINING WALL BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 03/13/97 16:30 0 :01/01 NO:396 • • • ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\]| Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo Bosene. Arnferttk Assoctetes. Inc is an Affirmative Actton-Equal Opportunity Employer Bnncipait Otto G. Bootstroo Pi • Joseph C Anoeriik PE • Marvin l Sorv#f4 Pi • BichiifdE Tbrntf. P£ • Gienn R Cooh. PE • Thomas i Noyes PE • Rootrt G Schunichr PP • jerry A Bourdon, eg • Robert W Rosene Pi er^d Sui^n M Ebertin. C PA. Sen«or Coniuit^ts Asionate Principals Howard A Hanford PI • Keith A Cordon. PI • Robert P Pleffene PI • Richd/d W Foster. Pi • David O Lotkota PI • Robert C Ruiseh. Ai A • Mark A Manton P| • Michael T Rauunann. P.f • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P. Andersoa PE • Mart R Roits. P£ • Sidney P witliAmson. Pi. l S • Robert F Kctsrritrs Offices St. Paul. Rochtiter. Wilimar and Sr finud MN • Mequon M/i March 13, 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Sid Rcbers File No. 139-2122 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the proposal to convert Outlet E, Sugar Woods to buildable lot status (Lot 1, Block 1, Sugar Woods 2nd Addition) to enable development of the property for commercial u.se. The property is located 0.25 mile.s west of Brown Road along the north side of Highway 12. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. An additional strip of roadway easement is needed at the north end of the property to continue a 60- foot width along Oulloi D. The easement would begin at the northwest comer of Outlot E, thence easterly to a point on the east line of Outlot E distant 7.05 feet southerly from the northeast comer thereof. The description of the roadway easement should also include use for utility purposes. A 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement should be located along the ' th edge of the roadway easement. The City has long planned for an easi-west frontage road between North Brown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road to reduce access to Highway 12. We would recommend that the development of this site be lied to the contruction of the frontage road. When this road is completed, the commercial area along the north side of Highway 12 would access to the north. The developer should agree to construct the road along the north property line as a condition of approval. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTRCX), ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113*3898 ■ 612*636*4600 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning 3c Zoning Administrator March 10, 1997 Subject: #2224 City of Orono, 2080-2160-2190 Wayzata Blvd. - Rezoning - Public Hearing Application: City-initiated 'housekeeping' rezoning of 55' strip within/near Sugar Woods plat from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-1 Retail Sales Business District or R-1A Single Family Residential District. Properties Involved: - Outlets A, D, E, F of Sugar Woods - Bill Wear property containing the 'Orono Shopping Center' List of Exhibits: A - Draft Rezoning Ordinance t - Plat Map C - Property Owners List (Used list provided for Sugar Woods 2nd Additon Applic. #2212) D - Sketches of Proposed Rezoning E - Current B-1 District Description F - Ord. #64 2s. Adopted 10/10/88 (Rezoned Sugar Woods residential from RR-IB to R-1 A) G - Public Hearing Notice H - Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 Excerpts (1987) Background Prior to the platting of Sugar Woods in 1988, the 2-acre RR-IB District extended northward from an east -west line located 1170' south of the north line of Section 34. The property on the south side of the 1170' line was zoned B-1 (Exhibits D & E). When Sugar Woods was plaited, the residential part of Sugar Woods in the RR-IB zone, was rezoned to R-1 A, 1-acre residential. The south boundary of the Sugar Woods residential area was about 1115' south of the north line of Section 34. Consequently, the rezoning to R-1 A only extended down to the 1115' line. This inadvertently left a 55' strip still zoned RR-IB, beUveen the R-1 A and the B-1. The City's intent since this was discovered some years ago, has been to rezone this strip to B-1, matching the zoning district boundaries to the current property boundaries. The current Sugar Woods Outlot E re plat proposal is the motivation for doing this rezoning now. Zoning File #2224 March 7, 1997 Page 2 Impact of Rezoning The proposed rezoning will result in the following benefits: - Zoning boundaries will follow lot lines rather than bisecting individual properties - Outlets E and F, and the Wear property, will no longer have the potential limitations imposed by a 50-55' strip of RR-IB at their north ends. - The incongruity of having an unusable strip of RR-IB sandwiched between R-1A and B-1 zones, will be eliminated The only possible negative impact of this rezoning would be that the Sugar Woods residential owners might perceive this as allowing commercial development to be closer to their back yards. However, they knew (or had e\ery opportunity to learn) that the property in Outlots E and F was planned for commercial uses when they purchased in Sugar Woods. Note that the legal descriptions for the rezoning take into account that the south boundary of Sugar Woods Outlots A and D, does not exactly match the 1115' line but is slightly skewed (See Exhibit D-2). The result is that a small portion of the residential commons (Outlot A) and part of the future service road (Outlot D) is being rezoned from RR-IB to R-1 A; and that a sliver of Outlot F currently zoned R-1 A will become B-1. Conformity with Comprehensive Plan This rezoning is in confomiance with Orono's 1987 Highway 12 Comprehensive Plan, hence no Plan Amendment is required (See E.xhibit H). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. i ^rxH . A ORDINANCE NUMBER j SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO BY LISTING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY AS REZONED FROM RR-IB TO R-IA, FROM RR-IB TO B-1, OR FROM R-IA TO B-1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: Section 1. The municipal code of Orono is hereby amended b>’ amending the official zoning map and zoning use district boundaries for the property described as follows: That part of Outlols A and D, Sugar Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying south of a line drawn 1,115 feet south of and parallel to the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, T 118 N, R 23 W. Said property is hereby rezoned from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to R-IA Single Family Residential District. Section 2. The municipal code of Orono is hereby amended by amending the official zoning map and zoning use district boundaries for the property described as follows: That part of Outlot F, Sugar W'oods, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying north of a line drawn 1,115 feet south of and parallel to the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, T 118 N, R 23 W. Said property is hereby rezoned from R-1A Single Family Residential District to B-1 Retail Sales Business District. Section 3. The municipal code of Orono is hereby amended by amending the official zoning map and zoning use district boundaries for the property described as follows: That part of Outlot F, Sugar Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying south of a line drawn 1,115 feet south of and parallel to the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, T 118 N, R 23 W and lying north of a line drawn 1,170 feet south of and parallel to the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. Said property is hereby rezoned from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-1 Retail Sales Business District. 1 Section 4. The municipal code of Orono is hereby amended by amending the official zoning map and zoning use district boundaries for the property described as follows; That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, T 118 N, R 23 W, bounded on the north by the south line of Outlot D, Sugar Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota; on the west by the east line of Outlet E, Sugar Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota; on the east by the west line of Outlot F, Sugar Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and on the south by a line drawn 1,170 feet south of and parallel to the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northw est Quarter. and That part of Outlot E, Sugar Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying north of a line drawn 1,170 feet south of and parallel to the north line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, T 118 N, R 23 W. Said property is hereby rezoned from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-1 Retail Sales Business District. Section 5. This ordinance shall be published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper and shall be effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the day of____________, 1997 by a vote of___ayes and___naves. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1 RUN DATE 02/U/97 BATCH 507 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OI-74ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI43540I PAGE 22 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 34-118-23 21 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO SIDNEY B I BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B I BARBARA REBERS 3525 HEDSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 34-118-23 22 0015 00038 ADDRESS PENDING CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 22 0017 02251 PINE RIDGE U CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN P 0 BOX 249 LONG LAKE m 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 34-118-23 22 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNFD CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 34-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 24 0001 02120 NAYZATA BLVO H HILLIAM HEAR ETAL HILLIAM H HEAR 36 HACKBERRY HILL LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAffE/ADDR 38 34-118-23 24 D058 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SIDNEY B A BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B A BARBARA REBERS 3525 HEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 72 34-118-23 13 0018 01977 WAY2ATA BLVD H P S A P A GOSHGARIAN PAUL A PATRICIA GOSHGARIAN 5965 LAKEVIEH DR MOUND MN 55364 72 34-118-23 13 0071 01964 NAYZATA BLVD H STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE 1964 NAYZATA BLVO N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR O^HER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 72 34-118-23 23 0009 00520 BRIMHALL AVE EARL N DAY A SOttS INC JAN PROPERTIES INC 2815 MCKENZIE PT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 72 34-118-23 24 0002 02073 NAYZATA BLVO N GREGORY M SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACiOR INC 2073 H NAYZATA BLVO P 0 BOX 697 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0015 00512 VIRGINIA AVE T J A C M KIELEY THOMAS A CARA KEILEY 512 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 23 0023 02225 NAYZATA BLVD H PERRY'S VENTURES INC PERRY'S VENTURES INC 2205 N NAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0)13 00522 VIRGINIA AVE J J A S M RUFF CHERYL LYN PUFF 522 VIRGINIA AVE LOTiG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0025 02045 NAYZATA BLVO W D CREAR A M B CREAR DAN CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 72 34-118-23 23 0053 02205 NAYZATA BLVD N PERRY'S VEhrrURES INC PERRY'S VENfURES INC 2205 NAYZATA BLVD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0014 00522 VIRGINIA AVE J J A S M RUFF CHERYL LYN RUFF 522 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0026 005<»5 VIRGINIA AVE D CREAR A M 8 CREAR DAN CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 a i '■’•’''i. .V I*• > # /.'A,-'' J A'l( 0* p RUN DATE 02/13/97BATCH 507 PROP AODR QNNER NAME TA)CPAYER NAME/AODR 38 34-118-23 12 0003 00690 BROHN RO N KATHRYN OUNCANSON K t A C OUNCANSON 690 BRO* I RD N LONG LAKc. MN 55356 MEWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHN^RS LIST 38 34-118-23 12 0004 00650 BRONN RO N TANA R SEIBOLD TAIU R GARRETT 650 DROVM RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 21 38 34-118-23 21 0002 02160 WAYZATA BLVD N HILLIAM H NEAR A HIFE WILLIAM H NEAR 2160 NAYZATA BLVD 8306 LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NATC/ADDR 38 34-118-23 21 0015 02109 SUGARNOOD DR DAD AHLERS DAVID M A DIANE R AHLERS 2109 SUGARNOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0016 02107 SUGAP>IOOD DR T J A V A SMITH THOMAS J A VIRGINIA A SMITH 5455 BRYANT ST MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 38 34-118-23 21 0017 02105 SUGARNOOD DR REBERS CONTTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 i; > ^ *.. \* PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 34-118-23 21 0018 02103 SUGARNOOD DR S M A A M LASKY STUART M A ANN M LASKY 2103 3JGA!1'KX)D DR 0) >10 MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0019 02101 SUGARNOOD DR M L A J L DAVENPORT MILES L A JANET L DAVENPORT 2101 SUGARNOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0021 02102 SUGARNOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 •• ••! . . / PROP AOOR ONNER HAfC TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 30 3A-118-23 21 0022 02104 SUGARNOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 HEBSTER AVE ra>LS MN 55416 3B 34-11B-23 21 0025 02110 SUGARNOOD DR C TAKACH A M G TAKACH CSABA A MARIA G TAKACH 2110 SUGARNOOD DR LONG LAK m 55356 SB 34-118-23 21 0023 02106 SUGARNOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 38 34-110-23 21 0026 02112 SUGARI>X)OD OR J R A S N CAMPBELL JAMES R A SUSAN N CAMPBELL 2112 SUGARNOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0024 02108 SUGARt'IOOD OR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 NEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 38 34-118-23 21 0027 02114 SUGARNOOD OR LEGEND HOMES INC LEGEND HOMES INC 21301 CC RO 81 P 0 BOX 290 ROGERS MN 55374 ’V-:. . • s» 1.1. V.., "l V’-S'W.I PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 34-118-23 21 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR MOODS HOMEa<MERS ASSOC SUGAR NOODS H0ME0M4ERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 NEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 38 34-118-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO SUGAR I’lOODS HOMEOIINERS ASSOC SUGAR I'tOODS HOMEOIINERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 NEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55416 38 34-118-23 21 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 RUM OATfc 573/97 BATCH 507 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR i PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR [ • 72 3A-118-23 2A 0027 00535 VIRGINIA AVE MARGARET E HILKES MARGARET E HILKES 535 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 3A-118-23 24 0036 02069 HAYZATA BLVO H HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL 2069 I’lAYZATA BLVD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0046 02025 SMAUGKNESSY CIR RJR HOLDINGS CO INC RJR HOLDINGS CO INC 2025 SHAUGHNESSY CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0052 02085 DANIELS ST QUENTIN P NENSTROM ET AL LAKE ENGII4EER1NG INC P 0 BOX 787 2085 DANIEL ST LOT46 LAKE MN 55356-0787 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OI>MERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 23 0028 AVE 72 34-118-23 24 00525 VIRGINIA GUY H FELDMANN GUY H FELDMANN 525 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0029 00515 VIRGINIA AVE 0 A C SMEBY OHEN H SMEBY 515 VIRGINIA AVE LONG LAKE MINN 55356 1 72 34-113-23 24 0039 02045 SI.AUGHNESSY CIR JAN INVESTMENTS JAM INVESTMENTS 6341 K1N6SVIEN LA N MAPLE GROVE MN 55311 72 34-118-23 24 0040 02065 HAYZATA BLVO H JOHN B DRISCOLL JOHN B DRISCOLL C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST 82100 ST PAUL MN 55101 72 34-118-23 24 0048 02073 HAYZATA BLVO H GREGORY M SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 W HAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOX 697 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 24 0049 00540 VIRGINIA AVE PAUL S GOSHGARIAN ET AL P S A P GOSHGARIAN 5965 LAKEVIEH OR MOUND MN 55364 D TOTAL BATCH 507 000^6 1-^ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATI MlMii) *•. ^ "r''334.52MEAs.; ' « % rA fl N X \ -324.01- N 02®19 ’00’ / - 8S ^ ts* /188.93 M N 02*19*00" V \ \Xfe, \ \ 3/1 5 ' J 02®19'00 ” E — 231.71 meas.^,^\ TORRENS CASE Ntt 17100 H 232.24 \~z.__1_____ -221.67- --------'s I______5 01»41*54* Wr I l 242.07 ’ !j____________S 01*41*54' W r 23235 ---------- •50^32 i ^ 8 bw 238.7? -------- — Jlh •> .- I ffs <f/l-----------iLi»aiIsCg ______/ —*^j2**f '^5 \ \5«!.55 _______- 434.83- \ |-4o-r -40-1" 199.55" / ^!S'8 1-------------NjBi:4tai* i_ 190.62 8 N 00^*23* W 211.33 ___ . A •• - 51.36 -g 8 A - 22^r56" Y< _I _____!Mi.0Q_._________J BROWN ROAD NORTH It --697.38-- ^ w ________iiiiO'^!_i!QA!)_ Ji3iiI'i(_'_rtl563.39z.I1_________«■ ' X Si 00'22 ’23" E ------- 1545.24 ------- - -1110.00- -Js Olgu. s 9 • •V Aj'O)//- cV TORRENS CASE 0l?5•^7 nSTtiw* • i f" ^1- °----------------Ia1--~~ ^''334.52meas^ I n''o2®19 ’0] ^ I IE'"' Of / L.*! / N 02®19’00" E ------231.71 meas.^^^'x TORRENS CASE NO. 17100 ''Xx U^24 \ :=ri3:^ 3i -221.67- r 53 i §8g ^ 2 11 % S! I Sl* V •fe /I ’ 1 5s ......................... 5 01*<r54*jy ir '242.07' ^ fliMiai*."_ jf^i ■ *25235 --------^1 5 ■/ t 3? -*<^-; ^ ll^----------------HJiiiAijai’L- >. III 25a57 I * • t r t [ I I-----------JLPIUllSCj________/ •/ .-40-r I -40-I 'l»».55' / 1-----------------N 01»41'54* ,£_________I 1S0.82 8 _xr t N 00^’23* W >L_4—r------- 211.33 -274,67- ~ 434.S3- I__________ .1 L - 51.36 ^ 8 A - 22*5rS6* ______ZiiL0(L^___________ t t ? 17 \ t Jf. r - ^a!2BROWN Ir . ROAD NORTH I ' 'I \ X « T ------ 1545.24 ------ ^____ - -iiiaoo- - Cl ” Cl . ( ^ t% #% I • •• • »« »« t * U4I l«l • • *# • t 4 • *« ••#« « o • • • *•# • * %# -697.58- - «%•• i»# 1 **»«•* 4 4 4 1 '-1■^iA5B3J59---• -8«.*s'^6 O* ■f t. i 1 e B-l RETAIL SALES COMMERCIAL • •• • . . •• • The following property in the east 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23: That part lying within the Corporate Limits of the City of Orono and South of a line •.drawn 1,17 0 feet South. of and.parallel to.the.North line of .. • • * # the said East 1/2 of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23."^ • **’ “The" following’property in the South 1/2 of Section 17Township’ ' • • • • • . * • • « ; 117, Range 23: (a) South 295 feet of the East 132 feet Lot 5) Block 9, of the Townsite of Langdon Park; (b) Lots 13 and 14, Block 7, Navarre Heights; (c) Lots 1-7 and 22 28, Block . ' • • • • ,•* »*•••• •• ‘ ’ 6, Navarre Heights; (d) Lots 25 - 28, Block 5, Navarre Heights;. (e) All of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park lying West of • • • . • • • the center line of County Road No. 19; (f) That part of Government Lot 6 lying in the South 1/2 of Section 17, Township 117, Range 23 • 0 described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of Navarre Lane at the extension of the North line of Lot 5, Block Townsite of Langdon Park; thence Southwesterly along the center line of Navarre Lane a distance of 378.30 feet to the center line of• • ♦. *. County Road 15, thence easterly, alo.ag the center line of Qounty. ^ .. Road 15, a distance of 560.62 feet; thence Northwesterly to the ■ point of beginning. ’ ' V • • . •** • »VJL*• • • V. .. / Q(M- F ORDINANCE NUMBER 64, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO BY LISTING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY REZONED PROM RR-IB TO R-lA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: Section 1. The municipal code of Orono is hereby amended by amending the official zoning map and zoning use district boundries for property legally described below: That part of ^a property located in the east half of the northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23, described as follows: That part lying north of a line drawn 1,115 feet south of and parallel with the north line of the east half of the northwest quarter of Section 34. To be hereby rezoned from the RR-IB Rural Single Family Residential District to R-IA, Single Family Residentail District. Section 2. This ordinance shall be published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper and shall be effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of October, 1988. Publish in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of April 3, 1989 CITY OP ORONO 2750 K*ll*y ParlnraK P*0. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Phono (612) 473<7357 Fax 473* 0510 NOTiee Tho Planning Commission win hold a public hoaring in Iho Counci Chambors ai 2780 Kelloy Paifcway on Monday, March 17. 1997 at 7:45 pm on tho matter of ^niGcation 62224, the proposed rezoning ot portions of properties located at 2080, 2160 and 2190 VtByzata Boulevard from RR>1B One Family Rural Residential District to B-1 Retal SalM Business District or R-iA Single Family Residential District. The property lor rezoning is legally described as: That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34 Township 118 North. Range 23 West lying north of a Rne drawn 1.170 feel south of and parallel to the North line of said Northeast Quaner of the Northwest Quarter, and lyino south of a line drawn 1,115 feet south of arid parallel to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. CrtyolOfono By: Planning Comm^ston K^ichael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Mwflfw Affidavit of Publication Stale of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE UKER. Mound. Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A,02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed hiimipn which ivatta^ed was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and w^s printed and published once each week for successive weeks: It was first published Mon^y, / day of /fnjlfl}!the 21. and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, Subscribed and sworn to me on this •'Pisn HOLM NO*. -UBLIC - MNNE90TA MV COfviM. EXPIRES 1*31-2000 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: Si2.20 per inch, (2) Maximum rale allowed by law for above mailer: S12.20. (3) Rale actually charged for above mailer: S7.00 per inch. Each additional successive week: S5.05. m m H m m m m m m m s H- 3.5 Property No. 4 Introduction - This 45 acre grouping is currently under two ownerships with the majority of it zoned rural residential single family. Approximately 10 acres abutting Highway 12 are currently zoned B-1 residential business district. All but approximately 3 *cres of thxs are under a single owner. Typical concerns for this property include access to Highway 12 and North Brown Road together with the concern for safety at the North Brown Road and Highway 12 intersection. Discussion of Alternatives - Alternative No. 1 - Present Zoning If this property were to develop as it is currently guided and zoned» it would result in a narrow strip of commercial uses along Highway 12. However, since these businesses will be restricted from direct access off Highway 12, some form of frontage road will need to be provided. If this area were to be served by a frontage road adjacent to Highway 12, it would represent an expensive solution to this problem since this road would only be developed on one side m •• •p.® mr ipfit ii* ; . • ' • I- ^ fsX. Jy ♦ ^ • ••••••«•••• •••*•••••• •• •••••••#• •• ••••••••••••« • •••••«••••••• • •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• » • • • • • • • • • • • a _ • iillliSssssssp M • Area 4 & 5 Fig. 30 Alternative No. ? - Alternative 2 would allow for business/co^ercial abuttino Highway 12 to be servos k„ y a remote frontage road that would would provide for .ulti-residential with tbe bulb of the northern Site developed at the unsewered 2-acre residential. Connection Of the Single fanil, fo Pine Hidge hane is optional, and would he Glinina^ed from considernt--inneration in exchange for frontage road between North Brown Road and Willow Drive. < 'o Fig. 31 Alternative No. 3 ~ Property Owners Proposal -At the beginning of the process, the owner submitted a scheme for development of the property, which was subsequently amended by the owner during the process which provides as shown in Figure 32 for:> : Bit Fig. 31 A) A combination of land 2 acre single family lots on the north portion utilizing municipal services. The two acre single family are used to buffer the 2 acre unsewered lots to the north and west. B) The southern portion does provide for a remote frontage from Brown Road west to the western edge of the property. • Mr f.<L JT'i'? I'fV-1 \ / -I—TN *» 1 ImiEiiu! StONEY REBERS tMT4 VK NORTH r [•/.At:. TJ€ II \ i Property Owner Proposal Area 4 Fig 32 1 Proposal Fig. 32 i Recommended Alternative -The recommended alternative, which is includes a further extension of the limited/office commercial business district back from Highway 12, with a remote frontage road on the back portion, of this district similar to figures 31 and 32. Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the existing intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed. Configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of development. Frontage road access to Highway 12 could either be opposite Brimhall Avenue in Long Lake, and/or on Willow Drive opposite the frontage road between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The property north of the commercial area would be single family with sewer and water planned for the area. With sewer and water services available to the property, the owner could submit a 1 and 2 acre mixed single family density alternatives for Council consideration. The maximum allowed density acceptable would not exceed that outline in the alternative 3, subject to utility availability, appropriate density, buffering, etc. The residential area would be served by a cul-de-sac or circular road off Brown Road with no connection to the west if the frontage road is installed. ----- To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator March 14, 1997 Subject:#2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Supplemental Information - EAW Transmittal - CUP Review Process EAW Process Undenvay The Spring Hill Golf Club Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was distributed for public and regulatory authority comment on March 10. The 30-day comment period will end April 9, after which the City will respond to all comments received and make a formal determination whether an EIS is required. A copy of the EAW is attached for your use. It contains a wealth of supplementary information which should help in your review of the Spring Hill variance and CUP applications. CUP Review This memo is intended as a brief update to the February 5 memo, which identified a number of issues for discussion in relation to the requested CUP for golf course use. At the February 18 public hearing, Planning Commission heard a presentation by the applicants and received a number of public comments. The hearing was continued to the March 17 meeting pending further staff review of newl j submitted information. Staff and the City Engineer met with the applicant's engineers and environmental consultants on February 26. The stormwater plan, wetland impacts, bluff impacts and other issues were discussed. Since the February 1 8 meeting, additional information has been submitted, including: Revised site plan dated 2-25-97 Architects plans for the maintenance facility dated 2-18-97 - Wetland Impact Review Sheet Revised Grading, Drainage, Wetland Mitigation Plans Sheets 1-12 and 2-25-97 revisions of Sheets 10-12 Bluff Impact Overlay (slope analysis) Also received from various sources since February 25 are the following: a. February 3 draft Park Commission minutes - Re: trails at Spring Hill Road b. February 26 Memo from applicant's attorney - summarizing issues identified in Feb, 5 staff memo • 1 Zoning File #2209 - CUP Review March 14,1997 Page 2 d. March 6 revised letter from DNR regarding Big Woods Impacts - acknowledging the Big Woods remnant is within the Spring Hil! property rather than adjacent to it (This is included in the EAW) March 10 letter from Paul Bruer, 275 Hollander Road, requesting groundwater studies re: impact of proposed golf course on local water supply March 14 letter from City Engineer Work Session Recommended Given that the March 17 meeting agenda has 12 items, and given the complexity of issues surrounding the Spring Hill project, it would be advisable for the Planning Commission to spend some time reviewing the application Monday evening, then continue the hearing to a work session later in the week (the earliest possible date tliat could meet notification guidelines would be Friday) or the next week. On Monday, it may be advisable to concentrate on the variance issues (March 13 memo and exhibits), then take up the remaining topics associated with the CUP at the work session. The following items are being included in the packet you receive March 14; February 5 memo and exhibits February 18 supplementary packet (handed out at Feb. 18 meeting) EAW with Appendices 12-sheet large size (folded) grading/erosion/wetland mitigation plan package 5-sheet large size (folded) Architect's Feb 12 site plan and Feb 11 maint. facility plans March 13 variance memo and exhibits This memo and items a., b., d. and e. noted above. Staff will provide additional information regarding certain CUP issues prior to the work session. « MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 3, 1997 .........a. (#3) OPEN SPACE REPORT - WILSON AND MCDERMOTT Wilson asked the Commissioners to review propert>' in the northeast quadrant of the City where the Spring Hill Golf Course is proposed for development. She suggested considering a possible trail connection from the two SNA (scientific and natural areas) properties (Bruce Dayton) with Wolsfeld Woods. Wilson said she has spoken with the golf course representatives who indicated they are not interested in this proposition. However, Wilson said a bike trail has been platted out in the bike trail maps along East Long Lake Road and Spring Hill. The trail construction would allow this connection to be made between these two significant properties. Wilson noted the golf course will be constructing a tunnel. Although they were not interested in the trail going through their tunnel, Wilson suggested the grading of a trail coincide with the tunnel's construction. Wilson said she would like to recommend to the Council to pursue this option. WTien asked where the funding would come from, Van Zomeren noted that the Spring Hill Golf Course is seeking conditional use permits from the City. It may be possible to attach.* conditions that require trails. The County road (Cty Rd 6) has a 60' right-of-way easement. Gappa said the area is both steep and contains wetlands. He said it was the intent of the golf course to provide buffering in this area without disturbing the wetlands. He saw the only possibility for a trail would be on the golf course property and could possibly be negotiated. White asreed with the importance of linking the two wooded areas to create a bigger impact. Iwe noted that the golf course developers need to be notified early so that they are aware of this issue. White moved, Beal seconded, to recommend a hiking trail be considered for construction between the SNAs Da>lon property and Wolsfeld Woods in the planning of the Spring Hill Golf Course along with co-use or a second unoerpass for safe access. Van Zomeren reported that the CUP application will be heard at the February 18 Planning Commission Meeting and will inform Gaftron of the recommendation. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. {U4) UPDATE ON TRAILS IN DICKEY PROPERTY - GREG GAPPA Gappa reported having met with Moorse and \'an Zomeren regarding the trail on the Dickey property. The Council has requested a public hearing be held this spring in order to hear citizen's input before further proceeding. k.i 02/^6-^?14:08 FfiEGRE fiKD BENSON - 612 546 5065 NO. 316 . C02 , 1,O. MEMORANDUM TO; Michael P. Gaffron DATE: February 26,1997 Marshal Braman Kenneth Adolf Tim Johnson Aidy Hunter FROM: Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. RE: Orono Approval Process The Spring Hill Golf Club CUP has had introduction at both the planning commission and council level. Given the discussions at several meetings, I believe that most of the issues have been identified. It may be advisable to give some thought as to how all of the issues can be addressed. Frankly, one of my objectives is to avoid duplication among the several entities involved. For example, does the conditioa and nature of required improvements for Spring Hill Road require planning commission action? Is this a portion of the project which could be delegated to the engineers and staff with council action with minimal or no involvement by the planning commission? With these procedural issues in mind, I have prepared an outline of the issues which have been identified. Much of the outline is taken from Mike Gufiron s February 5, 1997 memorandum to the planning commission. I have combined in some cases and added new issues in other cases as the'/ have arisen in the process. My purpose is solely to provide a basis for delegation of specific responsibility. Substantial information on some of the issues is included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet as finally approved by the council. I have marked on the outline where the EAW adds relevant information. TMC TMC/cfk Enclosure M1.0Z3 2929.01 02^^7 14:09 FREGRE AND EB'ISaN -» 612 546 9065 NO. 316 D03 2/26/97 i ORONO ZONING ISSUES Zoning Conformity. a issuance of Conditional Use Permit (see 7 below). b. rezoning of portions of site from RR-1B-1 (conference center permitted) to RR-IB. 2. Legal combination of separate tax parcels. 3. Environmental Imracts a. c. d. e. g h, bluff alteration (variance fequired). wetlands alteration (variance required). big woods [EAW]. wildlife habitat and movement. surface water runoff qualfy/quantity [EAW] septic ^stem usage. ground water usage. fuel and agricultural chemicals storage. Infrastructure/Comprehensive Pl^^ining . b. c. d e. f. g- h. 1. clubhouse access location [EAW]. maintenance facility access location, traffic volumes [EAW]. Spring Hill Road condition. Tamarack/6 intersection [lEAW]. Spring Hill (east)/6 intersection [EAW]. trail system utility needs. tunnel under County Road 6. 5. Consideration of Alternative SitcUses. a. private course vs. potentizj public course. b. tax base implications. c. park fee implications. ; i 02^26/97 14:09 FREGRE fiND EENSON -» 612 546 9065 NO. 316 P04 Other Impacts. a. b. c. d. e. f. f. g- archaeological/historic sites. aesthetic impacts [EAW], maintenance building compatibility. golf course maintenance and operation activity [EAW}. club house specifics and amenities. special events. seasonal use. lighting plan. 7. CUPA^ariance Review . a. land alteration CUP for eHcavation and grading b. wetlands variances [EAW]. c. oversize accessory structure vanance. d. building and fire code issues. 8. Land .Alteration CUP - Conditions. a. construction hours. b. construction access. c. construction practices. 9. Other Issues. a. b c. d. relationship with Medina permitting process, relationship with Watershed District permitting process, relationship with EAW process Division of tasks; Council Plajfiing Commission Park Commission Staff Engineer Other schedule. Ml.-OZJl'SiO.OI I -2- d 10 March 1997 mar i? ^ «0 ^ Mr. Michael Gaf&on Planning Department, City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaflron: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of the proposal for the Spring Hill Golf Course. As a homeowner on the eastern end of the proposed development site (275 Hollander Road), I have a concern relating to the hydrologic impact of the development. In the proposal materia! mention was made of the current Spring Hill Conference Center’s well’s ability to pump 500 gallons a minute, and the need for two additional wells to be drilled for maintenance and outbuildings. My specif.c concern is the effect on the local aquifer that the irrigation demands of a golf course would require, especially in drought conditions. After a brief consultation with a local hydrologist, I am informed that there are modeling studies which can be performed using existing hydrologic data, which can predict to some degree the impact of differing levels of water demand in different climatic conditions (drought). As a resident in the neighborhood of the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club I request that these studies be undertaken by the Spring Hill Golf Club to determine, in advance, the impact of the proposed golf course on the local water supply. Sincerely yours. 275 Hollander Road Wayzata, Minnesota PFB/tt BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^ m Bonestroo Anderfi'k & Ivlf Associates Engineers & Architects ^612 6361311 03/14/97 10:08 0 :01/03-N0:405 Bonestroo. Bosene. AnOemt Aitoc^etcL me /j ar> Afnrmst^^e Acfon Opportun.t, £mp,oyer Br,nc»p^S Otto G Boneitroo. PE • ioicpn C AnOerM. P£ . Men^in L Sorviifa P( • P.rh^fd E Tofn#r P£ . Qlenn P Cook PC • Thomei E No/ei Pi . Boherr Cj Scnun.cm PE • Jitry A Bourdon P£ . Boberi W »oieoe P£ sne Suijn M Eoen.n C PA Sen,or Coniuu^n AssoaMP PnnepAts Howerd A SjKiford PE • Ke.rn A Gordon. P£ • Jtoben B Pf«rferre p| . ^cnaro W foster. PE . Da..d O Louora Pf . Bober, c BwsseA. Ai A.. A4arA A Han,on PE Michael T Rjiutmann PE . Ted K r.efd Pf . Kenneth P Anderson. PE . Mark t toiM PE . S»(jney P Mhllijfmon PE L S • Bobe^t T Kotim;th Off/ces Si Paul. Bochesief Vl^iumar and St Cloud MN • Meouon wi e. March 14.1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 139-2209 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the site plans and drainage submitted for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club located north of Spring Hill Road and east of Tamarack Drive in the cities of Orono and Medina. This letter addresses the specific engineering issues as they relate to the city of Orono. 1. Drainage: The stormwater quantity improvements proposed for the golf course appear to be acceptable from an engineering standpoint. The hydraulics and hydrology are consistent with the routing calculations and drainage patterns that are being prepared as part of the City's Storm Water Management plan. There are several areas storm sewer lines are directed towards wetlands but stop short. A specific example of this would be a stretch of storm sewer on hole no. 17 that is directed to the top of a rock wall near the no. 15 tee box. The storm sewer lines should be extended to the normal water level of the wetlands or ponds. There may be a need for a drainage culvert along the north side of CSAH 6 to direct drainage past the tunnel entrance. A field survey of existing roadway culverts in the area should be done to determine their condition. This development proposes to utilize existing culverts for drainage. If the existing culverts are damaged or deteriorated they should be replaced. 2. Wetlands: The proposed wetland impacts and mitigation appear to be acceptable and consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act rules. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District a.s the LGU for Orono should have final approval power for the WCA wetland impacts for the project in both cities. They should include the City of Medina in their mailings so that they can comment on the Wetland Replacement Plan Application. 3. Water Quality: Additional information should be submitted in regards to the stormwater quality improvements. A turf management program should be established to reduce the amount of excess nutrients leaving the site. The program should be aimed at minimizing the amount of fertilizer applied. This can be accomplished by taking soil tests and applying only the specific nutrients that arc indicated as inadequate. The applicant should provide additional information or studies to support/validate the water quality assumptions used in their report. Also, the type of grasses proposed on the golf course should be identified as they will have an impact on the nutrient budget. 4. Access: The intersection of Tamarack Drive and CSAH 6 is of particular concern due to the poor sight lines and the high speed of oncoming traffic. Safety improvements may be needed in the area of the intersection which may include turn and by-pass lanes and a lowering of the nearby crest vertical curve. Also, an investigation of the need (driven by safety considerations) for an exclusive left turn lane for westbound traffic on CSAH 6 at the east intersection with Spring Hill Road should be made. This turn 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113-3698 ■ 612-636-4600 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 03/14/97 10:08 0 :02/03 NO:405 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, City of Orono Page -2- March 14. 1997 lane will likely be required in the future, now may be the time to have it constructed. The City may wish to request that Hennepin County review the possibility of initiating a safety improvement project on eSAH 6. The proposed tunnel should be looked at carefully to in light of potential future design changes to CSAH 6. The plan shows a minimum cover over the tunnel of 2 to 4 feet. Plate beam guardrails with end treatments should be necessary to construct the tunnel as shown on the plans. Hennepin County should review the plans and provide comments. The construction of the tunnel will require closure of CSAH 6. A detailed cetour plan should be included in the plan. The access to the maintenance facility should be located further north near the crest vertical curve on Tamarack Drive. 5. Traflic: The trip generation rates in the EAW show a daily volume of 250 and a PM peak hour volume of 50. Trip Generation Report published by ITE reports that daily trips would be 675 and PM peak hour trips would be 60 for public and private golf courses. Given the limited membership proposal, the projected traffic volumes stated in the E.AW are acceptable. The structural integrity of Spring Hill Road and East Long Lake Road are suspect and any increase in traffic will have an adverse effect on the roadway. The increased intensity of use associated with the golf course will likely require complete structural improvements to Spring Hill Road in the near term. 6. Easements: Drainage and utility ea.scmcnts should be provided 10 feet wide along all right-of-way lines and 5 feet wide along all other lot lines. Drainage easements should be provided across all drainageways. ponding areas and wetlands. Maintenance of all drainage facilities should be the responsibility of the development. A future trail is planned along the ca.st side of Tamarack Drive in the City of Medina. An additional 10-foot wide easement for trail purposes should be provided along the east right-of-way line of Tamarack Drive. Additional right-of-way may need to be provided for future improvements at either of the two intersections on CSAH 6. 7. Big Woods; A significant portion of the site contains good quality Maple-Basswood Forest (Big Woods Subtype). Much of the ecological value of this forest community is derived from the high diversity of plant and animal species a.ssociuted with it. Many of these species require large, unbroken tracts of forest to meet their specialized habitat needs. Any impact which increases fragmentation (e.g., construction of fairways) has the potential to reduce the quality of this forest community by reducing species diversity and encouraging introduction of exotic plant species. In addition to Maple-Basswood Forest, this site also contains a number of wetland communities. Transition areas between wetland and forest communities are particularly valuable from an ecological standpoint. This is due to the high diversity of plants and animals which tend to occur along the gradient between wetland and upland areas. For this reason. Maple-Basswood Forest areas adjacent to wetlands are particularly important and should be avoided if possible. Maintaining a buffer around these wetlands has the added benefit of protecting the quality of the wetlands communities. With these concepts in mind we offer the following specific comments: Reduce fragmentation of the Maple-Basswood forest to the extent possible. It would be more desirable to preserve 307c or 40% of the site in one contiguous block and concentrate impacts on the balance of the site rather than routing fairways through the entire site and trying to preserve thin strips of Maple-Basswood Forest in between. 60NESTR00 AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 03/14/97 10:08 0 :03/03 -N0:405 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron. City of Orono Page -3- March 14.1997 Avoid routing fairways along the wetland edges. These areas should be protected as wetland buffer areas. Do not “weed out" native shrubs and understory trees within remaining Maple-Basswood areas. Doing 80 will encourage mortality to remaining trees through such factors as wind and increased susceptibility to insects and disease. 7. Steep Slopes: If the proposed retaining walls will exceed 4 feet in height an engineered design should submitted for our review. Any disturbed areas exceeding 3 to 1 slopes may require an erosion control blanket or other means to reestablish an adequate ground cover. 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.PF r Cc: Mr. Loren Kohnen, City of Medina i t To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator March 13, 1997 Subject: #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club -Supplemental Information - Variances The intent of this memo and attachments is to review and provide staff recommendations on the variances requested for the Spring Hill Golf Club: Oversize Accessory Structure (Maintenance facility) Wetland filling and excavation Bluff impacts Additional information regarding the CUP for golf course use will follow in a separate memo. Lut of Exhibits Oversize Accessory Structure: A - Revised Site Plan Dated 2-25-97 B - Pages 2-3-4-S of Architects Plans Rcvd. 2-18-97 (in 5-sheet large folded packet) C - Code Section 10.03, Subd. 9 Wetland Impacts: D - Wetland Impact Review Sheet Submitted 2-25-97 E - Wetland Location Map (Staff Sketch) F - Appendix C of EAW (See EAW) G - Sheets 6-7-8 of 12 (in 12-sheet large copies folded packet) H - Revised Sheets 10 & 11 of 12 Dated 2-25-97 Bluff Impacts: I - Sheet 12 of 12 (in large folded copies - also 11x17" attached)) J - Excerpts from Bluff Slope Depiction Maps Hardship: K - Zoning Code Section 10.98, Subd. 3 Following is a detailed review of each of the variance requests. I, Oversize Acccsssory Structure The proposed 10,000 s.f. maintenance building at the NE comer of Co. Rd. 6 and Tamarack is by Orono code definition an Oversize Accessory Structure (OAS), and requires a variance because it is larger than the 3,000 s.f limit for any single OAS. The OAS ordinance was established to limit the impact of large accessory buildings in "R" districts. Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13, 1997 Page 2 by regulating their size and location. Minimum setbacks were established along with restrictions on building height and footprint area based on lot size. For lots of 9.01 acres or more, the largest individual accessoiy building footprint allowed is 3,000 s.f As a size comparison, the Orono Police Department building is about 7,000 s.f, and our Public Works building is about 25,000 s.f Because a footprint area variance is needed in order to construct the proposed maintenance building, the City can condition variance approval on whatever measures are necessaiy' to mitigate the negative impacts of the OAS. These negative impacts appear to include the following: 1. The proposed maintenance facility grading plan (Exhibit A) appears to eliminate virtually ever)' existing tree within a 400' arc in the NE quadrant of the 6/Tamarack intersection. While the City does not have a specific tree preser\'ation ordinance regulating this non-shoreland location, this clearing would appear to be not in keeping with the Council ’s recent tree preservation policy adopted by resolution (Exhibit S of Feb. 5 memo). 2. Even without this clearing, the structure will be very' visible to trafilc traveling along County Road 6, given that the top of the proposed berm along west and south boundaries w ill be approximately 18’ below the top of the building. Creation of the berms may result in as much loss of natural vegetative screening as it creates by raising the grade at the site perimeter. 3. The nature of activities associated with this building may result in noise, odors and other impacts on the immediate neighborhood, typically from equipment, deliveries and employee traffic. However, the.se impacts would occur at this location regardless of the oversize nature of this building. Staffs initial reaction is that this facility should be located at the center of the property rather than adjacent to its boundaries. A similar case is the Woodhill CC maintenance facility built in 1988. That was an 11,000 s.f building located about 150’ from their west boundary, tucked into the north side of a hill in the w oods, invisible to all but the immediate neighbors. Applicants have stated the proposed location is necessary to provide easy access and to avoid impacting the course layout. However, given its location at the midpoint of the two-mile stretch of County Road 6 in which structures are virtually invisible from the roadway all summer (unless you turn your head to look for them), this building would be very much ’out of place’ in the context of its surroundings. How can the visual impacts noted above be mitigated? How will the building be screened so as to be invisible from a distance as one travels eastbound/westbound on 6 or southbound on Tamarack? Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13,1997 Page 3 The submitted sightlines (Exhibit B) from the roadway adjacent to the building may not give a true representation of the visual impact this building will have in the area. Staff Recommendation 1.The maintenance facility OAS should be relocated to some site nearer the center of the property where it will not be visible from outside the property boundaries. 2.If this is not feasible, the applicant should at a minimum provide additional natural screening that will make the OAS completely invisible from the public roads in the area. To this end, applicant should provide a landscaping plan showing what existing screening vegetation will be destroyed and what new natural screening will be established to accomplish this. The nature of such screening should also keep in mind the mitigation of noise/odor/activity impacts of the OAS, if possible. 3.Planning Commission may choose to withhold a recommendation for approval until it has reviewed such plan, or optionally it may condition an approval recommendation on staff review' and approval of the plan. II. Wetland Impacts There are 21 wetlands on the property, of which 17 are in Orono and 4 in Medina. Six of these 17 are Orono-designated wetlands per the 1974 City inventory, and range from 0.7 to 3.5 acres in area. The other 11 are smaller wetlands delineated by applicant's consultants per theWCA rules, and range from 0.02 to 0.55 acres in area. Orono-designated wetlands (#2,4, 5,7, 12, 15) acreage: 9.48 acres Orono non-designated wetlands (#1,3,6, 8,9,10,11,18,19,20,21) acreage: 1.83 acres Total Orono Wetlands 11.31 acres Summary of proposed Orono wetland acreage impacts is a net gain of 1.72 acres: C esignated Non-designated Total Wetland Filled 0.95 ac. 0.27 ac. 1.22 ac. Wetland Created 0.88 ac. 2.06 ac. 2.94 ac. Net Result - 0.07 ac. + 1.79 ac. +1.72 ac. Eleven of the 17 Orono wetlands will be changed: 5 will be enlarged (#1,2,9, 11,15) 6 will be reduced (#5,6, 8,10,12,18) -■i ; ■ ^ [i ■' Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13, 1997 Page 4 A Three Orono-designated wetlands are requested to have a 26' setback variance (#2,5,12). In Medina, 0.23 ac. of wetland will be filled, 0.18 ac. created, a net reduction of 0.05 acres. Total wetland filled in both cities is 1.45 acres. Applicant's wetland mitigation proposal includes a number of items: 1. Create 2.51 ac. new wetlands from upland areas. 2. Create 0.61 ac. NURP ponds from upland areas. 3. 3.51 acre Public Value Credit for converting from Type 2 to Type 3 by impoundment in wetlands #1 and #17 4. 0.64 ac. mitigation credit for placing 0,64 ac. of upland into permanent protective buffer easement Total new wetland = 2.51 ac + 0.61 ac. = 3.12 ac. This yields a 2.15:1 mitigation ratio (3.12/1.45) Total mitigation credit (as proposed to MCWD per WCA rules): 2.51+0.61+3.51+0.64=7.27 ac. Proposed final mitigation ratio = 7.27/1.45 = 5.01:1 A summaiy' of the impacts on each Orono wetland follows. Orono-designated wetlands are in bold. m Area Impact Notes Result #1 0.55 ac.Enlarged to 1.55 ac.Also credited 0.36 ac. PVC*+ 1.00 ac #2 0.79 ac.Enlarged to 0.95 ac.Part becomes NURP 3; 26' var. req.+ 0.16 ac. #3 0.00 ac No Impact (This is a channel between #1 & #2)- #4 0.85 ac.No Imp&vt Must maintain 26* buffer, not 16.5*- #5 1.92 ac.Fill 0.88 ac. Excavate 0.84 ac. Create 0.15 ac. Filling north end Excavating in basin to make NURP 2 New wetland from upland • 0.88 ac. \ ^ + 0.15 ac. #6 0.31 ac.Reduced to 0.18 ac Filling 100' of drainage ditch - 0.13 ac. #7 1.72 ac.No Impact Must maintain 26' buffer, not 20*- #8 0.04 ac.Reduced to 0.02 ac.Filling ditch, adding culvert - 0.02 ac. #9 0.15 ac.Enlarged to 0.91 ac + 0.76 ac. Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13,1997 Page 5 #10 0.03 ac.Reduced to 0.01 ac.Filling ditch, adding culvert - 0.02 ac. #11 0.12 ac.Enlarged to 0.42 ac.Becomes NURP 1 + 0.30 ac. #12 0.70 ac.Reduced to 0.63 ac.Filling to widen fairway area Needs 26' setback var. - 0.07 ac #15 3.50 ac.Enlarge I to 4.07 ac.+ 0.57 ac. #18 0.10 ac.Reduced to 0 ac.Fill small narrow wetland to create fiurway - 0.10 ac. #19 0.03 ac.No Impact - #20 0.41 ac.No Impact - #21 0.09 ac.No Impact - 11.31 ac.+1.72 ac. •PVC = Public Value Credits for converting from Type 2 to Type 3 wetland Discussion of Wetland Impacts Orono's wetland ordinances are contained in the Floodplain and Wetlands Management section (10.55) of the zoning code as well as in the Shoreland Ordinance (10.56). Variances to the wetland filling/excavating/structure prohibition in 10.55 Subd. 8 are allowed in "extraordinary cases...as will not be contrary to the public interest" and per 10.55 Subd 25 A(6), allowed when they will not be "inconsistent w ith the objectives of encouraging land uses compatible with the preserv'ationof the natural land forms, vegetation and the marshes and wetlands". In the Shoreland ordinance, grading or filling in wetlands must be evaluated in terms of its effect on the functional qualities of w etlands including : - sediment and pollutant trapping and retention - storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage - fish and wildlife habitat - recreational use - shoreline or bank stabilization - noteworthiness/special qualities/historical significance/critical habitat, etc. Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13, 1997 Page 6 Wetlands #2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are within the designated Shoreland district. Of these, #2 will be enlarged to become a NURP p>ond; #4 will not be disturbed; #5 will be filled at the north end to create fairway, and excavated and enlarged at the south end to create a NURP pond; #8 and #10 are drainage ditches with no significant wetland values and will be filled and culverted; #9 will be enlarged to 6 times its current size; #11 will be enlarged to 4 t'mes its current size and become a NURP pond. Applicants have done a good job of mitigating the proposed wetland impacts. It is staffs opinion that the proposed changes to the wetlands have been thoroughly thought out by the applicants with an attempt to negate any adverse wetland impacts by creating additional wetlands in appropriate locations. They have integrated the wetlands into their stormwater management plan in a manner that will enhance the quality of water leaving the site. Perhaps the only question remaining is whether the golf course layout could be revised to avoid changes to certain wetlands. The most significant impacts appear to be the 0.88 ac. filling in #5 and the 0.07 ac. filling in #12, both for the purpose of making fairways larger: From the proposed course layout, the fairway lor Hole #5 will be bisected into two sections if the filling of wetland #5 is not allowed. Some fill would still be needed to create a walk way/cartpath through wetland #5. The fairway for Hole #7 (paralleling Tamarack Drive) would be constricted if filling in the east side of wetland #12 was not allowed. Staff Recommendation 1. Applicant should address what specific revisions could be made (or have already been made during the planning process) to the course layout to minimize the wetland impacts, especially to wetlands #5 and #12. 2. Planning Commission must detemiine whether the requested variances are supported by valid and adequate hardships. 3. If Planning Commission finds adequate hardships to support the variance request, staff recommends approval as proposed, based on the applicant having provided substantial mitigation resulting in a net gain in wetland acreage, and based on appropriate integration of wetlands into the stormwater management plan, subject to the following conditions; a. Use of proper erosion control methods during construction. b. Wetland mitigation subject to MCWD approval and in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Corps of Engineers Section 404 Clean Water Act requirements. Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13,1997 Page 7 III. BlufTImpacts Steep slopes along the south central and southeast portion of the property meet the City's Shoreland Ordinance definition of'bluff features, and are in the Shoreland District. Both areas will be severely impacted by grading for construction of the golf course as proposed. 'Gravel Pit' Area The old gravel pit at the south center of the property is a bowl-shaped feature approximately 300' in diameter, carv'ed fitom the hillside by a past mining operation. While to some extent this is a man made feature, it exists today as a bluff rising some 85' above the east end of Long Lake, and is a prominent feature of the landscape as one travels north along East Long Lake Road. The proposed golf course grading will remove all trees from the southerly 2/3 of the bluff impact zone. A wooded area of approximately 1 5 acres will be completely regraded to accomodate the 5th Hole, with 3 tees at the east rim, a cart path graded along the south side, and an additional tee at the west rim. Applicants propose to save existing trees at the rear slope of the gravel pit, but virtually j*'!'irees will be removed fromthe west, south and east side. Tifis wholesale regrading of a bluff is far beyond the seope of anything the City has seen occur in applications. The accompanying loss of vegetation, slope regrading, and chanv x in the clioiacter V the shoreland as well as that of the neighborhood is not, in staffs opinion, jhat can be readily mitigated. The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") contains a number of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which this proposed land alteration would be inconsistent, as follows: A.General Land Use Policy No. 6 on page 4-13 indicates that "Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas whether bluff, beach or flood plain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in the shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited ..." B.General Land Use Policy No. 13 states "Future developments must enhance the environment. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general i Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13,1997 Page 8 respect for unique site features always produce more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density". C.The Environmental Protection Goals on page 3-20 state that "Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preser\'ed insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged." Code Section 10.56 Subd. 16(I)(2) clearly prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within bluff impact zones in the Shoreland Overlay District. Subd. 16(J)5h prohibits the placement of fill or excavated material in bluff impact zones, w hich w ill occur as part of the regrading. At a meeting between staff and applicant's engineers on 2-26-97, staff indicated the bluff impacts as presented appear severe, and that applicant should determine ways to minimize these impacts. Proposed Access Road Area The proposed new clubhouse access road on the east leg of Spring Hill Road w ill encroach slightly into the bluff impact zone, and significant tree removal plus some grading w ill be necessary in this area. The grade changes and tree removal appear to be of a much lesser magnitude than in the gravel pit area, although it appears that this area will also undergo a degree of intensi^'e vegetation clearing to accommodate the road. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff recommends denial of the variances requested for intensive vegetation clearing in the bluff impact zone associated with the gravel pit area, based on inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the resulting changes in character of the neighborhood, especially as viewd from areas south of the property. 2. Staff recommends approval of the variances required for intensive vegetation clearing in the access road area, based on the impact being of a magnitude and location with less visual impact as viewed from a distance. 3. In both cases, the hardships appear to be self-imposed and are a result of the proposed layout of the course rather than due to any unique character of the property. If this was a new’ housing Zoning File #2209 - Variances March 13,1997 Page 9 development, it is unlikely the City would allow wholesale clearcutting in a 1.5 acre area of protected bluff impact zone. Such a development would most likely be designed to protect these features rather than regrade them. Summary The three variances requested must, by Orono Ordinance and State Statute, be supported by fmdings of hardship. The zoning code states that the Council "shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter". 'Undue hardship' is defined in Section 10.08, Subd. 3 (Exhibit K attached). Planning Commission should review the variances requested for this project and determine whether sufficient hardship and justification exists to grant them. Any recommendations for denial or modification of plans should be clearly identified to the applicant, since denial of certain variances could result in tlie need to modify the course layout significantly. DENOTES WETLAND FILL AREAS DENOTES WERAND BUFFER • * i \NO. 7 • * i . t V V : f % #*• >iK)POSED( ’^RWAY[ i I f M t • i * • i t I i /1 !/7 ^ ' I I ^1002-^.5.--'^ / I / / w \^s&, //:<ss lORARY ROCI ■RUCTION W/3SP.Y 98S.37 N RIPl m»va >»:xX n w Cl} \////. • t Qt: i I m- '/'I <i f \ I g{!i'»P' Ti *•> s 1 IJM TC\9R^^®8*^ iNVfessastS-—. c/ REUr LOCATE STORM SEWER ^l^GNMENT AND OWE DRAIN' TO. WETLAND 5, s I 0 \ \ i // O MAINTENilMCE FACtOTY I I 1^^V jyi f ft ■mh^ (!' > ;iAB ELEV-994.p1|^ I * /' * ik I proposed ORAINFIELD I / \ PATH I \ \ h- I / ‘\ I / • I str tcNc V Uf i V Sf? 1 " M\ ^ ^ # / fi □ □ oTj^*p crm m«•v** - GRADE TO DRAIN REMOVE-CULVEI >' _____ C- S 10.03 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Pla.med Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1, Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure” is defined as an accessory structure of foot- print area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrxctions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure {excluding non- encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) S 10.03 2. Oversized Accessory Structures regulated by the following table: are Lot Area Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f.2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s. f .2,400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f.2,800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f. 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f.4,800 s.f. 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f. 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f.5,600 s.f. 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f.6,000 s.f. * Excluding non-roofed* tennis courts» pools, paddocks, arenas 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a) No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30' or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivirlon approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be re.noved if no principal structure has been constructed. ORONO CC 255-1 (8-14-89) S 10.03 ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted; 8-14-89 D. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary high water mark on the lakeshore and the allowable building line. 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Item 1 above shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date: 2-14-74 ORONO CC 255-2 (4-1-84) I I ! . J S 10.03 • E. Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 10. Conditional Use Permit Required. All acces sory buildings on through lots located in "R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. Subd. 11. Dwelling Use Prohibited. No cellar, basement, tent, trailer, or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling. ORONO CC 255-3 (4-1-84) SCHOELL & MAD80N. INC. ENQNEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES lOSOO WAYZATA BOULEVARO • SUfTE 1 • MINNETONKA. MN S5305-15S5 CBiai 840.7801 • FAX C8181 848.8088 February 26, 1997 City of Orono c/o Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55391 Subject: Spi ii .g Hill Golf Club Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed are the following: 1. Three sets of full size revised plan sheet Nos. 10, 11 and 12. 2. Revised tabulation of all wetlands identifying the impacts, mitigation provided and the requested variances from the standard buffer widths. The revisions to the plans and tabulation refined and clarified the wetland impacts. The wetland fill area increased by 0.04 acres which consists of two ditches, portions of wetland Nos. 8 and 10. We initially intended to request exemptions for these ditches, but given the small area, we now feel it is more appropriate to simply include the area as wetland alteration. Please contact me with any questions. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj enc. cc: Andy Hunter Tom Crosby Tim Johnson J AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Wetland Impacts for Spring Hill Golf Club Wetland 1: Size: 0.55 ac. Type: 2 (PVC conversion ofType 2 to Type 3 PfA/Q Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: City: None Mitigation (1.0 ac.) Impoundment for Public Value Credit (0.36 ac.) A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained around the wetland including the mitigation area. Orono Wetland 2: *Citj ’ Designated Wetland Size: 0,79 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. City=26 ft. i Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: Citv: None Excavation for NURP basin 3 (0.55 ac.) The wetland buffer will need a variance 11 ft. for a length of 85 ft. along the proposed NURP basin due to the clubhouse driveway. The driveway cannot be shifted west because the length as shown is necessary to maintain driveway grade at a maximum of 10 percent. Orono Wetland Excavated= Upland Con\ersion= (968 Contour) 0.71 ac. 0.53 ac. 0.16 ac. Wetland 3: Size: Type: Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. drainage channel 1 Impact: Fill: Buffer: City: r None The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained Orono L i Size: 0.85 ac Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained OronoCity:2<J» e' *City Designated Wetland 1.92 ac. 2 Wetland 5: Size: Type: Buffer Requirement: MCWD=20 ft. City=26 ft. Impact: Fill: 0.88 ac. Other: Excavation for NURP basin 2 (0.84 ac.) Buffer: A 26 ft. buffer will be maintained around the NURP basin except for 340 ft. on the north side along the proposed fairway where a 5 ft. width is proposed. Citv: Orono Wetland 6: Size: Type: 0.99 ac. Wetland Excavated^ 0.84 ac. Upland Conversion^ 0.15 ac. Contour) 0.31 ac. drainage ditch Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: Citv: 0.13 ac. A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained will be maintained except for the 100 ft. width of the fill area and the cart path. Orono Wetland 7: Size: Type: Buffer Requirement: MCWD=20 Impact: 1.7zac. 1 ^ c ^ 1 fj^ Fill: None Buffer: A 20 ft. buffer will be maintained around the entire wetland basin. City: Orono Wetland 8: Size: 0.04 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: 0.02 ac. Buffer: A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained around the remaining basin. City: Orono Wetland 9: Size: 0.15 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement; MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: None Other: Mitigation along the e'"5t end (0.76 ac.) Buffer: A 16.5 ft. buffer will .laintained. City: Orono ac. Wetland 10: Size: 0' Type: 2 drainage ditch Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: Citv: 0.02 ac. A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained around the remaining basin. Orono r Wetland 11 : Size: 0.1 ' ac. Type: 2/3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: City: None Excavation forNURP basin (0.12 ac.) A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained around the NURP basin except for 300 ft. on the northeast side along the proposed fairway, where a 5 ft. width is proposed. Orono MURF Basin 7= Wetland Excavated= Upland Conversion^ 0.42 ac. 0.12 ac. 0.30 ac. Wetland 12: Size: Type: *Citj’ Designated Wetland 0.70 ac. 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Ciu-=26 ft. Impact: Fill: 0.07 ac. Buffer: A 26 ft. buffer w ill be maintained except for along the 260 ft. wetland fill line, Citv: Orono Wetland 13: Size: 2.59 ac. Type: 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=25 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: None City: The 25 ft. buffer will be maintained except for 150 ft. along the west edge where the cart path passes through the buffer. There is no other reasonable route available. Medina Wetland 14: Size: 0.81 ac. Type: 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained around the entire basin. City: Medina Wetland 15 fONR 8;^7\\": *City Designated Wetland Size: 3.50 ac. Type: 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWT)=25 ft. City=26 ft. Impact: Fill: None Other: Mitigation alo'-'g southern end (0.57 ac.) Buffer: The 26 ft. buffer will be maintained around the entire basin, inciuding the mitigation area. Citv:Orono Wetland 16: Size: 1.79 ac. Type: 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=20 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 20 ft. buffer will be nv.-lntained around the entire basin. Citv: Medina Wetland 17: Size: 9.87 ac. Type: 2 (PVC conversion of Type 2 PEMB to Type 3 PEMQ Buffer Requirement: MC\\*D=35 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: 0.23 ac. Impoundment for Public Value Credits (3.15 ac.) Mitigation (0.18 ac.) Buffer: The 35 ft. buffer will be maintained e.xcept for appro.ximately 165 ft. along the mitigation area, where the buffer will only be approximately 17 ft. wide. No butter is proposed around the approximate 450 ft. of the wetland till area. Citv: Medina Wetland 18: Size: 0.10 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWT)=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: 0.10 ac. Buffer: No buffer proposed; fill area City: Orono Wetland 19: of Size: 0.03 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained for the entire basin. City: Orono .t4 Wetland 20: Size: 0.41 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained for the entire basin. Citv: Orono Wetland 21: Size: 0.09 ac. Type: 2/3 ditched Buffer Requirements: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained for the entire basin. Citv: Orono 1 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; 1-22 (Orono City designated wetland: 0.95) Medina: 023 Total 1.45 ac. Type 2 PEMB: Type 3 PEKfC: Total 1.35 ac. Q.IQ ac. 1.45 ac. Proposed Replacement Ratio: 5.0 T.I % On 'vl 9 tai 8 r ^ • S’/ ' - I-'' ^vmimwnmauuiuiRVUmumniimumi\nnimmu\uinnp.n UUUl) iunu\(n uuuuu uunuu IMUU»U ,iuyuimu\uuruir 'nvuumnnnfuur uuuiuuuuu nuu\lmifn\mimuinufup lUU nni nun ii^un^ummnuuuhun' lUnuMinuumutninmnmu^nufum immm A’.lKftl luuuvnm i M u n MII n km ni u u i<m u tu n u n u M n n tn n imiJUiiLimi II u n m u n mjiiiiLiitii iiiiuiiiiiiiiiriiiimiiii miniimiiiiriiViiimiinmiiiiiiimmmuniiiiiwiiiifiuvv^iiwiiiifiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiii^iiiiviiiiuiiiiwiiiiviniui iiiiiiiiiimirtimluiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiir ^____ rnilmit^niifimn-^ lo’^mi iuiiiu4iiiiiiiiiiimiii4iiui[iiiuum<ii.^ikii 11111 j 1111 iiiinini iiiiiimiuiiM iiiiiuiiinim iifiiimiiiikiiiiMii iHimiiiniipiii lUlll ll^llllflllll IliTTnTU iiiiniiii miiiiku III! iiiiniiii miiiifu iidiuiiuvuiiuiiiiumivmii , , ..jiiniiiiiniK... iiiii^mifiiiVnimiMiiifmir miijiiiiup.imniuiiiuiiiii iiiiiiiiiiimii iiiirtiiiifmii^ iiindiiiiiiiiiuiiiiKiiiimi iiiijiiiiii|iiiii^iiiij,iiiii^ iiii\ii iiiiii iiiiiniiigjiii iiiiniiiimiii 11411 mil null mil imr mil 1^1111^11mmmi IIIINIIII minim iiiinim nnnnn>,f n IIHIIII vi limn II u II iim n m n m II mill n m II IK III ikin I m II114 III IVIII m III IMIIII m II mmn|inii^iinvnm|mij(nuj|nm nnnnn**n miiii.fiiiiiliiiiiliinMiiiiliiin^inifn milimnmimummi Mnnnnnn ‘nnnnn inn ‘mil mil m•r 11411111(11 im.iiinnni^nn mninfiii iiimiin nil 4 nil nil 11111.4 nm I 8 I \ f ’ 4 4 411 4 4 mi i I ?a !I I I *•.. .*in>-¥. l:-'' § I. 1 i! t^< If »\ k w' I I t ‘ \ \ ] 11 ' / • » I ^ I K) * 'In'® I »:!•/» '(\ ' vl lu\' \ M 1/ V I I//'>'» I ii ✓ V 'iOO • \i « > r'« ! f ’•If •‘If i I I I / •/ P fv« ■' Kl - 11 • •J ^ •J • I < If ' / '\ \ 1-*mmf-rn \ I I t I ' « \ 4 I b, /£. ’Xi' *' ' 'cXV'i ' / \ \ X 1V V /'7-r.7 J ' V..i\\.ta-' - ' ■ • >L- // 't « \ I \ I rv \ ' N I ' I ' \ ' N .55lO \ ^ \ » *, V' ' / ’ * i 'J ', I' S » i s • m :i , Co V 1 «• I . V. iN i \ »• " i ..................... V V V V N C4tn r • r ^ \ r 01 \\ • • / / /// / h 'I>!i / / ' III II y_____-V- / '}■' >11 •'' \m I 7 mww I' V -i- \ y^Jr<\C 1 A«! N------- \ /V \ \ \\X :S,^i / ( / / /• \ •■•• i 7 >.\n'^S\ \ ) *v \ \ \ \‘•v .A \# // / r3 / f;:ii * I kA \ / / / /^ /!r^ yk/^ £" ff4 % * / \ \\vv^k..*' 1) V nil i/A \ III nun! IB f i //• I // iL I I ' >',\ I'l" ,'M''&y,':;sf- k'A t / / / / I \ \ I 1 Mr''' tell l(',' '■ '! '"i!,'! 1: 7 1'\ \ A / \\I \ 1 ill !l"' I'XtV'tl \ \ "x J N \ \ '\ \ Ml IV III-' IV I 'll i\'I! i\l'!i''! •Ijiii Iiiiil'i) !i['''j'‘\i'\\'>___ I! 1' !*. 111' '111--------- , , I • : ■/ / / / / ; \ \ \ I » *1 / / -'// I / \ / y I / \/ y / \ \\\ ^70\ \\ V ' \' \ \ / * - / y \W'^''i\ \ 'N\ \ / V i V \V wwvW"'''' ^\ * \ i I osgS mo SO Sr •n>" o so 9 COm (O >4 r j cCD 'S.r» g 3r-m Oso o zo >zo (Om *0 >om o 3D O >zo m > in mm Om •Dr > 9 > Om o 9 L I-' ,■/ '3* h t * * t ' ' ' k . ^ ; k / ^ » ^ \ / y I I ■///y^'-y///'/// ■ I I I I I I I fy / I / / / I ■I /// V'//y''',%___w 1 I 'sT I / [ (/ / /• I, Vjfjf, : s L.A » j / ■X \\ N ^c ( \ \ \ \ y \ \\ s^- yli' %0\'\i - -rv ^ JSp-A%c.3 O X \\i\C^.A \ \ / \ /'/ / ./ / / / / . ^ ^WwS la ..... / /V. ’/v . Ji' % A ^ 1^. '•.«* «k» •• Ir. i 9 ^ v' V? Hi *\ '\'\’^ !'1 1 v'Hp ! (i'qf\ \ .iWuMi ; V // / r> \w \ VI1^''' "I %\ilY \ iiTri' I I V'ill I III I t V- 'i'i!!i:ii’.!i',lx_-- // \ ^ N \^Vx \ \ ^\ w ^ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ rN\ \ \ \ Vi 'aV \ ■^^ .7 7 P ‘ L / k I / / MJ / / / r^ ^ ^ j 11.11 fy'"/ ! / / t f ^ —z / / \ / / ^ / /t / / / / \ # \ \ / / ( ( \ ' \ \ 1 / / \/ //' n' / \ / \ _\\\'Xo\\\V\\\\ \ \\ N V \ “S \ I \\ '-%b: / \ y \ V- y / V \ v<N>\ \ \ -------^ —r“*/ \-ov<x' / /r X / \ >9' y 6- NX^X.N^S*' \ V X 'N ' WNV \ \ ■W' - '' ,-.S;: —•« / / \^\\ \W\\\^ \ .\\\\s^ NV'lxV X X \if^A'w\. ' #v-\:Mni \ — \ \ V V.\:Vr \ ^•iir) &I1S ^ ' ll^ Si^, "" *■ 1 . ’-.Vy.^4pM \ / \: K \ irair=ai K r' § 10.08 v’ithout impairing the intent and purpose of the Zoning Chapter. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as it may deem advisable. The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. B. The Board shall hold hearings as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subd. 2. A notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at least ten days before the day of the hearing. Ary party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. 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 each owner of affected property and property situated wnolly or partly within 150 feet of the property that requires the variance. 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 nature shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. C. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Council, the Board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The Beard shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including the final order. Subd. 3. Variances; Issuances. A. In considering applications for variance, the Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Board and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Before granting a variance, the Council shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it js demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. ORONO CC 265 (4-1-84) § 10.08 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable jse for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter, 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located, 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property, 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code, 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 266 (4-1-84) § 10.08 B. The Board or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances to insure compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent properties. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this Chapter in the district where such land is located. Source* City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 4. Variances in Border Areas. The Zoning Chapter seeks to regulate land use throughout Orono so that the location of the various zones will be compatible to each other and to existing uses and regulations. Where property in the City adjoins property in another municipality which is subject to regulations substantially different from those applying to the City property/ so as to make strict enforcement of all the City regulations as to such property unreasonable, the Council may take into account the location of the property and the regulations of the adjoining municipality in considering application for variances hereunder. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 5. Variances: Denial. Variances may be denied by motion cf the Council and such motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission . Source; Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 6. Variances: Failure of the Board to Act. If no recommendation is transmitted by the Board within sixty (60) days after referral of the application for variance to the Board, the Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation . Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. Variances: Violation of Conditions. A viola tion of any condition sot forth in granting a variance shall be a violation of the Zoning Chapter and automatically terminates the variance . Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO CC 266-1 (4-1-84) To: From: Date: Planning Commission Mike GafFron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator February 18,1997 Subject: Additional Information for # 2209, Spring Hill Golf Club The following items received since ihe 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 Feb. 13 m< mo 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 otherwise) 11x17" color map of the golf course as proposed Feb. 18 letter from Bruce Carlson, area resident, in support of project The following items were received today 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 are 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. - V'.-, J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Bonestroo tfosene. Anderlik ana Associates. Inc Is Affirmative Acfon Squ^l Opportunity Frrployer Principals Otro G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C AncJcrItk. PE • M,^fyin L. Sorvaia. PE • 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 Eberlin. C PA , Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R Pfefferie, PE • Richard Foster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I A • Mark A. Hanson, PE • Michael T Rauimann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud. MN • Mequon. Wl Engineers & Architects February 2, 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 received FEB I 0 mi CllV v/r- GriCNO Re: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 139-2209 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the information submitted for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club located 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 supported. 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. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 1 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 • 612-636-4600 •’I1 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Enolnecrs & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderhk ^nj Associates, tnc ts ^n AffirmMive Action Equkil Opportunity fmptoyer PnnctpAls Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C AnderJik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • G'enn R Cook. PE • Thomas E Noyes. PE • Robert G Schumchi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA . Senior Consultants Associt^te Pnne Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfeffer.’e. PE • Richard W *^oster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I.A • Mark A pg • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester, Wiiimar and St Cloud VN • Mequon. Wl February 6, 1997 Mr. Loren Kohnen, Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamd, Minnesota 55340 V» , ors Re: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 190GEN Dear Loren, We have reviewed the information submitted for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club 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 a 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 Wetiand 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 majoriiy 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 Wetiand Repiacement Flan Applica:ion. It is not appureni 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 nght-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 Mr. Loren Kohnen, City of Medina Page-2- February6, 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. Tlie 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 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 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! I POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICM & Ka UPMAN, LTO. OKNVKM. COLONAOO TKi. S0S-S99-1200 Miami . ruoniOA TKL 909-990-00S0 Piper Jaffray Tower. Suite 3300 222 SOUTH N inth Street Minneapolis . Minnesota 35402-3330 TEL 6 12-333-4000 • FAX 6 12-334-8888 WASMINOTOR, D.C. Til 202 924 SOOO IN7g.mNATlOfiAL AAFtLIATION: SIUINO, CHINA Tcl 01 lt6l-9lSS2il Thomas J. Radio , Esq. DiflECT DIAL (812) 334-2653 February 7, 1997 received FfB J 0 1997 CITY OF orjo.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, I 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 permit, 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: (I) 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^/97 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 is 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. Slat., § 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. i 057/14133027 2/7/97 >1 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. Very truly yours. TJR/jbm t 057/i4133027 2/7/97 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafaycuc Road St. Paul. Minnesota 55155-40JT?" Mike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 1997 CITY OF ORONO February 4, 1997 Dee< 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 Survey 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 wildflowers and native grasses, and eliminate forest interior habitat that is vital for many songbirds. DNR Informaiion: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY; 612-296-5484. 1-800-6570929 An EqujI Opp‘**’^uni!y Employer Who V'jIucs l)i%crsilv Printed on Recycled Pjjkf Conlaining a Minimum of lOQ Po\l-Consumer Waste I If it would be helpfal, 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 F?ritage Program i 1 J vlE_piXA» • ' “ :4 « • ' : ’ame Lake ''p994, - . I • C H « ■ - — I ‘wofsm 95, ..r _»»• •. ... . ...^ .... fOJS - - •:;e£.*....• - T- • ■ik. I r * a*« V 9 y r.|w • • • • * -s, V* * 2 ___ , •••" • m~ ——- *■ m _ ” Jr •, w X a • _. - • 25 • . _ A____ ‘ ' at' ---a ^-----------3--- ^ Lijdxa^ Lak^^, * * • *i;^' ^ •'.•': , ' j^ 1 / - . *v • •' \. ^ A / *• •• • ^ * • I • • : : : * _ :| y J - * \ )^;___________9^?. ■ - * ' ; ,l ^ '^j• X —^ «»• • A n # 'V HBOliJ^ 2.b A,iD ioeht-6H Ai<r- tracts 9 A I ' • • MAPLE-BASSWOOD FORESTS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY: A THREATENED HABITAT June 1995 ne-hundred fifty years ago, Big Woods forest V-r covered close to one-half of Hennepin Counry. 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 subuiban development. In 1856, when John Brunius and E. N. Darling of the United States General Land Office Survey divided Hennepin County into sections to sell to farmers, 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 distincave 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.The original extent of Big Woods in Hennepin County (shaded), as interpreted by Frances J. Marschner using Public Land Survey records from 2853-55. The Minnesota County Biological Survey has found that less than 1% of the Big Woods remains in 1995. Much of the Big Woods, or maple-basswood forest as it is now often called, was cleared for farmland in the early decades of Euro-American settlement It is hard to give precise figures for how rapidly this clearing took place, although aeri^ photographs bcw rSuccd^to Jpatchworkof S^acre parcels. What is very clear, however, is that in the decades following World War II the remainder of the county’s maple-basswoc^ forest hw been steachly eroded by spreading suburban development In fact more than 10% of the maple-basswood forest remaining in the county is slated for development within the next few months. While much of rural Hennepin County is experiencing high developinent pressure, forest^sites appe^ to be especially targeted because they make shady, secluded and scenic lots for new homes. The distinctiveness of a 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 condiuons ch^ciOTsnc of the shady interior of the forest are altered. More sunlight reaches the forest floor and the shade-tole^t species typical of the forest are replaced by species more typical of open habitats and forest edges, ms forest fralnentation also promotes displacement of native forest sl^bs and herbs species such as the ornamental shrubs common buckthorn and Tat^an honeys^kle. fragmentation leads to a decline in the diversity of native forest shrubs and herbs^cause the smaller populations that remain are more likely to be destroyed by pollution and physical daimgc. These inchw herbicide- and fertilizer-laden runoff from lawns and erosion or compacaon of soils d^ng construct!^ The end result of development, even where patches of trees are spared, is conversion of the maple-basswood forest into a degraded woodloi with houses in it. 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 deem^ worthy of protection by citizens or local governments, most of the remaining unprotected forests will be develop^ over the next few years. The citizens of Eden Prairie last year overwhelmingly approved a referendum to raise $3.5 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 are 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 provide 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 cidzens 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 effons this summer. Hopefully the information gathered will help to preserve a few more acres of the Big Woods that once covered Hennepin County. mm mM maple-bas.VAfcod fotest Plii 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 received f EB 1 ^ W97 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 IE 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. 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 31. 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 artificid bluff created by the excavation of the gravel pit. 4. Wetlands (page 3). More clarity v/ill be provided on the wetland impact. The report is correct that approximately 1.41 acres of wetland will be filled in 1 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 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 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- t • 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 attendeint 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 pa»1icipating in costs of upgrading the road and would prefer that sucli costs be performed * y 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 6V 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 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 7). The tunnel will be a prefabricated rectangular concrete box culvert approximately 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 basis comparable to that of other private golf courses in the two communities. 17. Aesthetic Impacts (page 81. 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- 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. Litthtine: 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 (page 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 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 waic** 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 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- MEMORANDUM TO;Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning and Zoning Adnninistrator 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 zind 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 i rtmTs^.TiTti rtTCtltl ^TiTtlil RitiEimiiiwMlI«il<LtJ rtTiKt FiTilW*rtTiwt] rtitft rtT«TtBCt] itT'-WM hUWMUTt^^ MlCIt ^ii«t WtTiTil rtic« Riiirt] r*KT|TtBt ^ITtl [iEm niioct rticvti tWtViliRt r«Tiv« nVtlKnriTiT^ 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 (peiee 6V 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 'veddings, 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 leyel that Medina would receive the same trail system treatment as would Orono. Because neither the Wolsfjld SNR nor the Wood-Rill SNR permits bicycles or horses as a matter of state lavy, we belicye 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 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 7). The tunnel will be a prefabricated rectangular concrete box culvert approximately 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 use' 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 basis 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 entraince and nc 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- 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 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 Tpace 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 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. 2 ^ • 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 teiTOS 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. MI:022S009.03 -6- J r ■ 8CHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10S80 WAY2ATA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA. MN 5530S-15S5 canal B4S>7Bon • fax csnei bab ^bobb 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 fairway on the west side 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 pages. The wetland areas altered by filling are 1.18 acres in Orono and 0.23 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 . 1 SCHOELL & MAD80N, 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 & MA080N, 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 equipment will be stored in this secured building. The fertilizer building will store minimal 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 fertilizer storage is identified on the site plan. 7. Provide grading plan that is consistent with the parking lot 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. SCHOELL & MAD80N, 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!; Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: Wetland 2: Size: Impact: City: Type: Wetland 5: Size: Impact: 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. Excavation forNURP basin 3 (0.55 ac.) Orono 2 NURP Baxin 3 = 0.71 ac. Wetland Excavated^ 0.55 ac. Upland Conversion= 0.16 ac. (968 Contour) *City Designated Wetland 1.92 ac. Fill (0.88 ac.) Excavation for NURP basin 2 (0.84 ac.) Orono 2 NURP Ba.sin 2 = 0.99 ac. Wetland Excavated^ 0.84 ac. Upland Conversion^ 0.15 ac. (905 Contour) Wetland 6: Size: Impact: City: Type: Wetland 9: Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: 0.31 ac. Fill (0.13 ac.) Orono drainage ditch 0.15 ac. None Mitigation alond east end (0.76 ac.) Orono 2 Wetland 11: Size: Impact: City: Type: Wetland 12: Size: Impact: City: Type: 0.12 ac. Excavation for NURP basin (0.12 ac.) Orono 2/3 NURP Basin 1 = 0.42 ac. Wetland Excavated= 0.12 ac. Upland Conversion= 0.30 ac. *City Designated Wetland 0.70 ac. Fill (0.07 ac.) Orono 3 Wetland 15 (DNR 837 Wl: *City De.signated Wetland Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: Wetland 17: Size: Impact: Other: City: Type: Wetland 18: 3.50 ac. None Mitigation along southern end (0.57 ac.) Orono 3 Size: Impact: City: Type: Total Mitigation: 9.87 ac. Fill (0.23 ac.) Impoundment tor Public Value Credits (3.15 ac.) Mitigation (0.18 ac.) Medina 2 (PVC conversion of Type 2 PEMB to Type 3 PEMC) 0.10 Fill (0.10 ac.) Orono 2 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) 0.23 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 \ J L HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250*250-500*500-1000* FXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCO'v'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •O -r B 2.Co,*Lee>X 100 PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House_____________X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Drivewav X X D. Sidewalk X X \2.ote E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE \'2.oo - B ‘Lf^.'LoO X 100 2.L>,*2.Qg 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 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ 75-250 ’ ^250-500 ’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________ Leng’Ji 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 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House____________X Length Width X X X B. Garage X C. Drivewav 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 ++X 100 \-2 \ v.s \'Zt>o \2*n«po 4^24 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 «/0 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 .1 HARDCOVER CALCtXATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250’250-500’ FXTSTINn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length WidLh X X X B. Garase C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B X 100 PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House X Lcri2th Width X X X B. Garage C. Drivcwav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE €?€^0 -5- B X 100 500.1000* SF. 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. \.%r*k,.LpCX^ S F. B (/is -% 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 t l<>eoS.F. B ^ n.'L ■ \ X32/14/'97 11:0'F(:€GPE i^iD EOISON 6124730510 MO. 028 POi FAEGRE & Benson llp 2200 N orwest C entw . 90 Somw Seventh Street Minneapolis . MlKSESOfA S5402'3901 ■mBPHONE 612 Jse-Mce PACSIMO lE 617 336-3026 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET Minneapolis Fax Center (26th Floor) Facsiniile No. 612/336-3026 THIS TELECOPY IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOV ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HERto. inOTIHED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING 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; /! 0Z> Q .m. (Minneapolis) Number of pages (including this From; Thomas M. Crosby, Jr.____ Telephone Number: 612/336-3127 To: Ms Jeanne A Mabusth City of Orono Fax No.; 473-0510 Phone No.: 473-7357 Message: The Watershed District 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 resolution is now probably not appropriate given Thursday s meeting. Attached is another suggestion. I assume Orono will want the Watershed to do its job with dispatch. If you do not receive all pages, please call the Fai Center at 612/336-3932 or Carmela Koehler at 612/336-3879. 02^14^11:07 FhE'3PE E€t4SOM - 6124730510 MO.023 002 2/14/97 Orono Planning Commission RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City or Orono hereby grants preliminary approval to the re^juest for a conditional use presented by the Spring Hill Oolf 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 the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director, have been satisfied. 3. [Other terms and conditions of the Planning Conunission.] M 1:0224079 0 J i b2/14/97 11:08 Ff€GRE AMD BEMSOtl -* 6124730510 U2/13'J6:54 1997 FROM: 612 546 9065 TO: 61Z3363948 FRW :fCH06U_ 8. M0D30N 612 546 9065 1997.C2-13 PASS: 16:30 HO. 028 •633 P.C*2 12 003 Gray FresnwaMr Ccmw Hwys. 15& Id.Navarn Maa: 2S00 Shjdywood Road 6(cei!iior.MNS&33l-4S7l Ptone; (412)471-0590 fax;(612)471-(P^52 Email Wsb Sm: w«»w.mnwaterih«(| org Baird of Managan: John C. Thomaa Piafiidant P|>rwla G. Bdxt Vic* Prisideni Monlu Cds8 Sacmiary Tboffimv.UBoumy Tniaurer C WoMrowLove Thomas Maple. Jr. MalQOin RoiO IMstrlCl onici' 4ugin« n. St'oinmen district Oircctor &uHhM M. WMdniao Asst District Director Ninehaha Ore Watershed District bt^rovinsQuality uf Wgta. Quality of Life February 12,1997 Mr. Ken Adolf Schoell & Madsen t02SU Wayzaca Blvd. Minnetonkii, MN 55305 R£; MCWD Permit #96-25. Sprinfi Hill Golf Club Dear Mr. Adolf; We have received the peraitt application for the Spring Hill Golf Club. There are a few items needed to coiyiplete the review process. Those items are: • Cross section, construction specs, disposal sites, and vegetation restoration plan for the wetland eitepvations • .An Amended erosion control plan showing the dimensions of the silt fence trench (6” x 6”) and tiae 24’* driven stake depth -5 u Documentation that the proposed project has received preliminary approval from the municipal govemmcnl(S) 0 PiMurt OB neycwd dpr ««Nlt 39% Ito eORMliBr «I0U 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. (y?im Hafner District Technician 0Ivl4/'97 11:0:3 FhEOPE hMD BEHSOH -* 6124730510 r 0.0I“3 t?iD4 I W C iCA iflft !. 0 1/31/97 Orono Planning Commission RESOLVED that the Planning Commission 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 Mirmehaha 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 raised in the Minnehaha Water Shed District Report or the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process which the Director of Planning and Zoning of the City of Orono deems appropriate to bring to cither the 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.] M10224079.02 FEB-18-97 TUE 15:56 NORTHCO CORP FAX NO. 6128201620 P. 02 Bruce M. Caiisuu 591 North Stream Road Wayzata, Minnesota 612-476-1775 Febivjary 18, 1997 Planning Coinmisstoti Chy of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Spring Hill Golf Club Item # 2209 Dear Commissioners; 1 am a resident of the Spring Hill Road area of 0» ono. My home is directly across Spring Hill Road from the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club that is the subject of your public hearing this evening. I am writing this letter to fully support the construction of tltis golf club. I ant delighted with (he prospect that the Spring Hill Coiiferencc Center site will contuiue to be used for low density recreational open space even though I 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 unic][ue nature of the site. I am aware that accc.5S 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, Bruce Dayton s gift of land to the DNR and the addition of tlris golf club to our area will cause our neighborhood to become a truly unique and beautiful rural residential ens ironincnt. Please accept this letter as a strong personal endorsement of the Spring Hill Golf Club project. Very Truly Yours, ruce M. Carlson \ if FEB-18-97 TUE 15:56 NORTHCO CORP FAX NO. 6128201620 P.Ol NORTHCO real Estate Services Fax Cover Sheet Confidentiality Notice; The document(j) accompanying tlm fax contain confidential infornution intended only for the use of the recipient named. If yoti have received this fax in error, please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange for the return of these original documents. Problem with this trammission? CaD 612.820. 4900 V iking D p.ive Edina . MN 554.^5-5314 Tei: 612.H20.1600 Fax : 612.820.1620 To: Compifiv: ^ ‘Osro Dare:Time From Ton)(including tl\i5 cover pare) Message: To: Planning Commission Chair Lindquist Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator % Date: February 5, 1997 Subject: #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road - Conditional Use PermitsA^ariances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District, 2-acre RR-lB-1 One Family Rural Residential Subdistrict, 2-acre Application Summary: 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 Cit>' 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 additit nal 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 Staff) F - Project Narrative G - Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Calculations Narrative/Tables H - Preliminary 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) Zoning File #2209 Febmar>^ 5, 1997 Page 2 N - Maim. 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 - Preservation 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 Histor}' 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-acrc 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 cent'^rr." as an additional permitted use. Zoning Conformit>’ 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 Zoning File #2209 February 5,1997 Page 3 a structural setback requirement; Principal structure: 100' from any abutting lot in an 'R' district Accessoiy structures: 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 somewhat 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-1B and RR-1B-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 sit currently zoned RR-lB-1 be rezoned to RR-1 B? 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 accessory 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 uce 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 Februar>' 17 meeting: 1. Environmental Impacts a. Alteration in character of a bluff tvariance 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 inventory maps, and two of these will be partially filled. Wetland delineations were completed late in 1996 by Schoell & Madson, Inc. and arc reported in the EAW appendix l . The plans submitted arc 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 w'etland #5 which is a City-protected wetland. The NURP detail on Sheet 10 does not define the existing wetland boundary, but from Sheet 4 at a T'=l 00' scale it appears that the entire north end of tliis wetland will be filled to create Fairwav #5. This apparently is confirmed on Sheet 7 which shows in a black blob the area of wetlano il. A second area of wetland filling in Orono w ill occur north of County Road 6 in two strips adjacent to Fairway #7. More filling of wetlands w ill 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. More clarity should be provided as to the actual impact on each wetland. c. Big Woods alteration, and conversion of woodlots into linear strips (City does not have a tree/w'oodlot prcser\'ation ordinance at this time). The Big Woods impacts are detailed to some e.xtcnt in the project narrative and in Appendix B of the EAW document. 1 he City has adopted a resolution to preserve natural and rural vistas (See Exhibit S). 1 Zoning File #2209 February 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 prc ^osed use will , e lOSS 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 staff Section 111 below under Stormwater 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 within the defined Shoreland District within 1000’ of Long Lake or Lydiard Lake, and therefore are subject to Shoreland zoning regulations including hardcover limitations. WTiile it is unlikely that hardco' er excesses will occur, applicant should define the various hardcover zones or a certificate of survey and submit hardcover calculation worksheets for the site. f. On-site septic .system usage . 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, which is far in excess of the volume expected from the proposed level of golf course use. The maintenance facilit likewise intended to be served by an on-site sewage tratment system. WTiile the site plan ind; s a proposed site for a drainfield, no site evaluation report has been submitted, and staff is advi„wd that no soil testing or design work has been done. Absent a complete sit.- . .’eation and design, the City has no assurance that the drainfield location as proposed is sui* lOiC, and if a different location is necessary', this could have impacts on tree removal, the grading >*.an, etc. Applicants must submit a complete site evaluation before the City can approve the maintenance facility area site plan. g. Oroundwater usaee . W'atcr 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 agricultural 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 V f fc' 2. romprehensive 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 cf 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 this 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: The 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. - Tamarack/6 Intersection: 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. 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 northw estw ard to County Road 6 and w estward. 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 ns part of a subdivision, but no such pi ovision 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 andfuture'. The City has no municipal sewerAvater 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 sewerAvater needs via the use of septic systems and wells. - Proposed tu inel 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 have 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 w ith. Also, the Park Commission at their February meeting asked whether 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 permitted uses for the site include continuation as a conference center; redeveloj * .nt into single-family housing on 2-acre lots; 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 ofprivate 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 tax base generated by the various possible uses of this propert>-. 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, ill parcels within the site are currently taxed. 3. Other impacts a.Archaeological/historical sites: Two areas of archaeological significance were found through a Phase I 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 m a change in character of the existing open space. The plan submitted docs 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- vegetativc screening, it is unknown whether any of these arc proposed. c. Preservation of open space character, maintaining natural rural vistas: The City Council recently adopted a resolution to preser\'e 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 preser\'ation goals are being met? d. Architectural compatibility with surrounding neighborhood: No elevation views of the maintenance facilities have been submitted as of this writing, but staff is advised these are underway and forthcoming. The 60' x 160' maintenacc building is mji 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 either 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 0wurs of operation, odors, noise, etc.): The City 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 February 5, 1997 Page 9 f. Golf course amenities: The clubhouse will contain 4 guest rooms as well as kitchen/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 iot 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 activities might occur at the site? i. L igluing: A lighting plan should be submitted. III. CUP/VARIANCE REVIEW: OVERSIZE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE; LAND ALTERATION ISSUES ConstRiction of the proposed golf course w ill require the following City approvals identified by the applicant; 1. 2. Land alteration CUP for excavation and grading in excess of 100 cubic yards (Section 10.03 Subd. 19-21). Variance for filling/grading/excavating within City-profected wetlands and within 26’ of wetlands (Section 10.55, Subd. 8). 3, Variance for fill/e.xcavation in a bluff impact zone (Section 10.56 Sub. 16(J)(5)h.). Oversize Accessory Structure Variance To date, staff has found one additional zoning code variance required in regard to the proposed buildings. The proposed 60’ x 160' maintenance building footprint " of 9,600 s.f. exceeds the allowed individual accessoiA' structure footprint area of 3,000 s.f. i. 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 accessory 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 mo^•ement of earth in order to create fairways, tees and greens . The total cubic yardage of cxcavation/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. Tlie 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 11 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.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. 2.Applicant shall take whatever steps are necessary to minimize odors and dust during the construction process. 3.Given the vjUestionable 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. 5. The developer shall maintain local roads in a clean condition. 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. 6.Applicants shall adhere to the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in I Jrhan 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 information in support of the applicants conclusions. Highlights of 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 the site will also be used as an irrigation pond. Water pumped from the well wlil 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 o: nutrients contained in the runoff water. Nutrient budget analysis indicates runoff quality w ill be improved as compared to existing conditions. Stormwater flow rate modeling indicates the tees, greens and fairways will increase runolT volumes by 120% to 175?/o over existing conditions, but routing of runoff through the combination of w etlands, 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-ycar 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 wetlands -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 staffs assessment that the plans as submitted contain an abundance of detail and are difilcult 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 Fcbruar>' 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 Lake Fire Department ser\ es this area of Orono and will be requested to review the site pk..i 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. Submit plans that provide clarity to the actual bluff impacts that will occur. 2. Provide clarity to the actual impact on each wetland. 3. 4. 5. 6. Define the various hardcover zones on a cert'fcate f survey of the entire site and submit hardcover calculation worksheets for the site. Submit a complete sep^-c system site evaluation and -'esign for the maintenance facility. Address chemical storage on the site. Provide floor plans and elevation vie%vs and site landscaping/screening plan for the maintenance facility'. Identify the 40' x 20* building referred to in the narrative. Zoning File #2209 Februarv' 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. i Ji o o n.r'. i? // v-«. *4i h r - “ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application # Date Received //^*//^7 Amount Paid A PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Mil) Road Type of Application to be Filed CVJP ~ Last A /jli^vAiiOAt f CUP ~ Gctf Cooy^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) -/looa.Qfy)*^ , OOOW 4 GOOSx3-Mi-ooo;,. coo'^ i a6*//i-a3*<«<t>O0O3 < 'Coov ^*'®*"*• PhoneOiome)______________ Name Sdvin ^ llill Gotf C/ub_________ Phone (work)______________ Address 0^ tWcinc/T-_______City MfHUgA.fy>u <. Zip <r«r4<?Z. - SlOC> XDS OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 47T - Z(ffZ3 Namey\^)f^y^ <^Tteg4.iOE^T-) Phone (work) AHHrp«:c dnr\ nc. CiAddress 5)/^ JTr>g> <^^AJrg/g. Pec ' ity _Mf2L^ Date Property Acquired hiiW **T7-Afyn~>g»p>»nfeo ec^^i I (^ (do not) also o\vn the adjacent parcels of land. ziP554(}2 _. __(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _$250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ^ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ? _ $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District RR* /S“l Present Use of Propert>-______Residential ^__Other (specify) C'CN'h^i VAC^A/t* REQUIRED SUBMITTALS i 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certifed Property Owners List of owners within 350', kbels and plat rrap (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depariment of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyoi) - refer to handout fur surv'ey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with ar> interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovvTier(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 SLTPLY 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 tliat 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 expenses incurred m review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true/and jjlopteci to the best of his'her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date /' ^ *7 OWNER’S SIGN.\TURE^ 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 Couiicil members for^rposey^Cr investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are heid on the third Ntonday of each month. Applicants mutt be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Comm; sion and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make anrangemems tc have r»n authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^4. B tmtm 9%/u/n BATCH BOS fSlOCBlN CaMTf MOmTY XNTMNATXON SYSTIM MOKRTY QMCRS UST BCPORT NO. BXAlMOi BAOt 11 U6-h raOB ADMI CMCR NANC TA>7AYfR NANC/AODII SB tS-llB-tS 11 0002 OOOSB AO MISS UNASBIGNfO S?RI1B HILL LAND LTD RTSI* SPRING HILL LTD PARnCRSNXP R4B LAAC ST I SUITI 220 NAYZATA 104 BSSfl M 2S-1U-2S 11 0001 OOOIB AOOItfSS UNASSXOICO BURT N A JCA»f4i t CORNXN BURT N CORNIN 400 1ST AVe N APT 224 MPLS m BS401 10 2S-110-21 II 01125 MP4TCR OR R N AMIS JR • 6 R iYNlN imS R M AHXS JR A 0 R LY?1AN AHXS 1911 REI04000 PfJfT IVLS 104 BS40S PROP AOOR OMCR NANC TAXPAYCR NAMC/AOOR SO 25-110-21 12 0002 00010 ADORCSS U4ASSICIC0 BRUCC N A JULXC J STCXNCR BRUCI N A JULXC J STIINCR 144 I06CNOOO AVC S NAYZATA 104 SS191 10 25-110-21 12 0001 00700 SIXTH AVC N BRUCC N STCXNCR TRUSnC BRUCI N STCXNCR 700 SIXTH AVC N NAYZATA »04 BS191 10 25-110-21 IS 0001 00625 SPRING HILL RO V Z I C T HA»f 4 VAN ZANOr A CLIZABCTN T NA»04 425 SPRING HILL RO NAYZATA r04 55191 PROP AOOR CMCR NANC TAXPAYCR NANC/AOOR SO 25-110-21 11 0004 007Z5 SIXTH AVI N SPRXIB HILL LAND PARTNERS SPRING HILL LA»0 PARTNERS 44S LARC ST C SUXTC 220 NAYZATA m SSS91 10 2S-110-21 14 0002 0044S SPRXIB HILL RO HAS SrORCR JR HARRY 0 STOKfR 44S SPRING HILL RO NAYZATA >04 55191 50 25-110-21 14 0001 00445 SPRIIB HILL RO R J NXGQII A H I NXOGN RICHARO J A NARY I NIOON 445 SPRXIB HILL RO NAYZATA 104 55191 PROP AOOR OMCR NANC TAI9AYCR NANC/AOOR SO 25-110-21 14 0004 0C591 NORTH STRCAM RO B A C CARLSON BRUCC H A CAROLINA C CARLSON B91 NORTH 8TRCAN RO NAYZATA >04 55191 10 25-110-21 14 0004 C0541 NORTH STRCAN RO JIM LAZCAR JONATHON A MilBY LAZCAR 541 NORTH STRCAN RO NAYZATA >91 55191 10 25-110-21 14 0007 00521 NORTH STRCAN RO G L A S L HOPCIUN G L N0FF>1AN 541 >43RTN STRCAN )UYZATA 104 SSI 91 PROP AOOR OBCR NANC TAXPAYCR >ONC/AOOR SB 25-116-21 14 0006 OOSSl >B6TN STRCAN RO 6 L NOfP>UN I S L MJCFNAH OLA SUSAN HOfPHAN 541 >BRTN STRCAN RO NAYZATA >04 55191 16 25-116-21 14 0009 00016 AOCRtSS ItlASSXCNCO 6mjCC N CARLSON IT AL 5IIUCC N A CAPOLXNC C CAALSON 591 NORTH STRCAN ROAD >UYZATA >94 55191 16 25-118-21 14 0010 00016 AOOPCSS IMASSIGNCO 6RUCC N CARLSOri IT AL 6RUCC N A CAROLINE C CARLSON 591 NORTH STRCiN ROAD IttYZATA >04 5S19I PROP AOOR OMCR NANC TAXPAYCR NAIK/AOOR 16 25-118-21 41 OOOr OOlCO SIXTH AVC N DOUGLAS DAYTGI4 C^AL DOUGLAS J DAYTON 100 CO RO >0 4 NAYZATA 104 55191 16 25-116-21 41 0005 OOSiS MOLLATOCR RO 6 C A N N VACCR GARY C A NARY H VACU 111 NOLLA>«CI RO NAYZATA >94 55191 16 25-116-21 41 0006 00145 SPRING MILL 40 T 0 CCL0>«AI#4 A J A CCLDNAIM TERRY 0 A JULXC A FCUmA>f4 145 SPRHBNXLL RO OROTB 104 55191 Rtff4 DATE 01/26/97 BATCH SOS H06ICPXN COUNTY PROPCRTY XNr0RHAT10l4 SYSTCH PROPIATY C»t4eRS LIST UPORT NO. PX4S54dl PACE 12 PROP AOOR OMKR NA>C TAXPAYCR NAMC/AOOR 16 25-116-21 41 0009 00115 HOLLAIBCR RO N N ERICKSON A N 0 ERICKSON NALTCR M A >4ANCY 0 ERICKSON SIS HOLLANDER RO NAYZATA >04 55191 16 24-118-21 11 0001 00013 AOORCSS UNATSXOCO JOHN C SCHUCn I >Urt J0lt4 I SCNUCTT 1205 TAMARACK OR LONG LAKt NN 55154 16 24-110-21 11 0002 00016 AOORCSS UNASSJGNCO 0UHCAI4 N OAYTOI 0U>ICAN N 0AYTCP4 445 C LAKE ST STC 220 lUYZATA >94 55191 AOOR Q>4«R NANC TAXPAYCR >U>C/AOOR 16 24-118-21 11 0007 01111 TAMARACK OR S L A C A iROtUN SIOICY L 6RCM4AN JR 17I0S 24TH AVC N PLY>CUTH >94 55447 16 24-116-21 II 0006 01099 TAMARACK OR CHARLES C OUllUVAN CHARLES C DUtlAVAN 1099 TAMARACK OR LONG LAK2 >9« 55154 16 24-116-21 11 0009 01045 TAMARACK DR SAL PCTCRSON STEPHEN C PCHRSON 1045 TANARACK DR LONG LAKC >94 55154 PROP AOOR OMCP NANC TAXPAYCR NANC/AOOR 16 24-116-21 14 0005 OllSS SIXTH AVC N C N A H S SPOCCR lOSON M A HARRICr B SPCNCCR Ills SPR1>B HILL RO LONG LAKT 104 55154 16 24-116-21 41 0002 OOOIS ADDRESS UNASSIONCO SPRING HILL LAND LTD PTSP SPRX>B HILL LA>0 LTD PTSP 4h5 N LAKC ST SUIT! 220 NAYZATA >04 55191 18 24-116-21 41 0001 01101 NXLLOBROGK 0R 0 M A L C 6RUCSKC OCRALO A LOIS SRUCSKC 1101 NXLLOeROOK OR OtONO >04 55191 PROP AOOR G49CR NANC TAXPAYER NANC/AOOR 16 24-116-21 41 0004 01I7S NXLLOmOGK OR R C A S R KRUCOCR RICHARO C A SUSAN K KRUE02R 1171 NXLIOICROOK DR NAYZATA >04 5S191 SO 24-116-21 41 0004 00016 AOORCSS U4ASSXGNC0 0 N A L C SRUCSKC OCRALO A LOIS SRUCSKC 1101 NILLOIBROCK DR ORONO >04 55191 16 24-116-21 41 0007 01150 NYNONCRC RO KERN N HOPPE KERN N HOPPC 1150 KYNOENERC RO NAYZATA >91 55191 P^^> OCR rH(«l NANC . A>r.‘.V£R NII«/AD0R 16 24-116-21 41 0006 01160 IfYNONCRC RO V A V KXH VOUNORl A YOUNGSUN RZH 1100 MYNO>«RC RO NAYZATA >94 55191 IS 24-116-21 41 0009 ones HYNONCRC RO R V NASOII A N J NASGN ROlULO V A MARTHA J lUSON lies >fY10NCRC RO NAYZATA >94 55191 16 24-118-21 41 0010 01145 HYNONCRC RO 6 K HOIB ARK HONG BACK R HO>B 1145 NYNOMCRC RO NAYZATA 104 55191 PROP AOOR OHCR NAIK TAXPAYCR NANC/AOOR 16 24-118-21 41 0011 01145 NYN0I1IRC RO SUZAMB H JACKS0I4 SUZAIMC H JACKSON 1145 NYIBNCRC NAYZATA >94 55X91 16 24-116-21 41 0012 00016 AOORCSS U4ASSTGHIB KEAN N HOPPC KERN HOPPC mo MYNOXRC RO NAYZATA >94 55191 16 A4-116-21 42 0002 00016 AOORCSS UNASSIOBO CONLIY 6R0GRS CONLCY BROCKS 400 BARCR BLOG MPLS >91 5S40Z Ml OATf Ol/tt/f7 VlTCM Ml NEftMXN COUNTY MOMRTY INTOIlHATiaN SYSHN MO^IRTY OlfCO LIST Rcmr NO. mssMi PA6C 11 P9» AOCM OM«R KMi TU9AVCII * ;iAHi/A00« sa C4-lli*21 41 0001 DOOM AOOACSS LNALSIGNED CONUY MOOM CONICY MOORS 400 SARtS SlOO MOtS 104 IS40< IS 24-llS-tI 4t 0004 DOOM AOOJUSS UUSSXONCO CQNLIY MOORS CONLEY iSOORS 400 SARIS SLOO tt*LS MN S5402 IS C4-llS-tl 42 OOOS OOOIS AOOACU UNASSIONf 0 CONLEY SROORS CONLEY MOORS 400 OARER SLOG HPLS m SS402 SROO AOOR OMCR NAME TA)9AYER NIMi/AOOS IS 24-11S-21 41 0001 OOOIS ADDRESS (S4ASSXeCS CONLEY SROORS CONUY SROORS 400 OARER OLDS HOLS Ifl S1402 IS 24-lXS-tl 41 0004 0112S SRR1J« MILL RO NILLARO C SNULL 111 IT AL MILLARS C SMULL ms SRRINO HILL RO MAVZATA ffl IS191 IS 24-118-21 41 OOOS Slots SRRXfS MILL RO N S I C SROORS TRUSniS NARtCY S t CONLEY SROCRS 400 RARER SLOO NRLS 104 S5402 RROR AOOR CRtCR NAM TAJ^AYER NAME/AOOR IS 24-11S-2S 44 0002 004S1 SRRINO MILL RO M 0 SURJbR JR • L n DUHLAR NILLXAH S OUNLAR JR 9S1 SRRINO NILL ROAD NAYZATA m SSlfl t4-llS-21 44 0001 SRRINO NILL RO SRSXNB NIU LAM LTO RTSR SRRINO NILL LAAO LTO RTSR 44S t LARI ST SUITE 220 NAYZATA Ifl SSlfl IS 24-nO-tS 44 0004 OOOIS ADDRESS UNASSIONEO SRRINO NILL LAND LTO RTSR SRRINO NILL LTO RARTNERSNIR 44S E LARE ST SUITE tIO NAYZATA Ifl USfl RROR AOOR OM€R NAIC TANRAYER lURS/AOOR 10 IB-llS-tl 11 0001 OOOIS AOORCSS UIIASSIOSO SRRINO NILL LAM LTO RTSR SRRXM NILL LAM LTO RTSR 44S EAST LARE ST src tto NAYZATA M SSl^: IS IS-llS-Zl 11 0002 OOOIS AOORtSS lAIASSXOaO CO or NEltCRZN CO Of NEIMRZN IS 11-1IS-21 14 0001 OOfOO 010 L04« LARE RO SRUCt S DAYTON ORARENA COMPANY S140 NOANEST CENTER MLS Ifl SS402 OMER NAME TANRAYER NAHE/AOOR IS lA-nc-21 22 COOS OOTSS S^RDC NILL RO f MXMTOM set NXMTOri fRfOERICR NIK: CN 74i SPRING NIL I RO NAYZATA m SSit\ 00 24-110-21 11 0002 oooao AOORESS UNASSIMQ OIRCAN II DAYTON SUNCAN N DAYTON 445 t LARE ST SUITt ttO NAYZATA III SSlfl SO E4-11S-2S 24 OOOS 0120S TAMARACK OR JOM S SCMUETT ETAL JONN I SCNUETT 1205 TAMARACK RO LONG LAKE HXItl S5S54 RROR AOOR OfCR NAM TAMAYER NAME/AOOR SO 24-110-21 24 0004 OIZSS TAMARACK OR RAN S4RER RAMAl N SAXER 12SS TAMARACK DRIVE LOM LARE Ifl SSSS* TOTAL SATCN MS OOOB2 ftSucsir fvA NOTICE ; Bce.ClMi.scAJ Z\s'i-o FAittyiei^ vr. SS23/ RUN OAH 01/2R/f7 SATCN Ml NCIICRIN COUfTY RRORERTY INTOmAnOH mTEH PROPERTY OMCRS LIST REPORT M. RZ41S401 RASE 14 f CERTIFY THAT TNI FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AM TRUE UPRESENTAnON OF INFORNAnON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF TNI NEIMEPIN COUNTY OCPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON, TO TNI REST Of irr RNONUoct am seuef. DATE F r9 r « • * i if .11. - - y ': ■• v-^'* ^ *.■' ■^Z'jJ » PROJECT NARRATIVE SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 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 Medina is well underway. Initial Invitations for 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 be very sensitive to environmental concerns and the preservation of natural wetlands. THE oOLF 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 envirorimentally sensitive designs. The golf course routing plays through this natural site incorporating the 23.6 acres of wetlands Into its design. The Spring Hill grif 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. 1 i 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. GOVERNANCE 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 facilitv 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 the 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 encased 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. * 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 liouse, 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 CITY OF ORONO The approvals required from the City of Orono consist of: • Rezoning from RR-1B-1 to RR-1B (rural residential). r► • Conditional Use Permit for land alteration with variances for alteration of protected slopes and for alter:^ition 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 AG iCIES 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 Floodplain Review Grading and 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 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 wetlands 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 be 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. The 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 fainways, 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 crossings on County Road 6 and Spring Hill 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 culv^ ts. 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 sewsge 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. 1 VII. WATER SUPPLYWater 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°' ® of 500 gallons per minute and it is proposed toUtilize 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 proposal and feels that it enhances the quality goals and objactivos of tha City of Orono. Your accaptanca is raguastad. .i\ BUSH. WALTER L.. JR. (Assistant: Beth) Office: Attorney Home: 5200 Malibu Drive 601 Lakeshore Parkway; #730 Edina, MN 55436 Carlson Center 935-7437; FAX 939-8943 Minnetonka. MN 55305 404-4933; FAJc 404-4949 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 4731-3301 339-7151; FAX 332-6280 Gf'iJlDL, GERALD J. (Assistant; Carol Meyers) C3: Gerald J. Gruid! & Associates Home: 11765 - 26th Avenue North 9999 Wayzata Boulevard Plymouth. MN 55441 Minnetonka, MN 55305 559-5878 0*2-0754; 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 Home; 4354 Fremont Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55409 Phone; not available MILES. PATRICIA J. Office: KARE11 8811 Olson Memorial Highway Minneapolis, MN 554i 7 797-7212; FAX 546-860? 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 NANNE, LOUIE V. (Assistant: Terry) Office; Voyageur Asset Management 90 South 7th Street; #4400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 376-4123; FAX 376-7007 SCHWALBACH. GERALD A. (Assistant: Suzy Jones 404-3382) Office; Superior Storage Home: 326 West Femdale Road 601 Carlson Parkway; Suite 350 Wayzata. MN 55391 Minnetonka. MN 55305 473-5019 (unlisted) 449-5755; FAX 404-3399 WRIGHT. MICHAEL W. (Assistant; Carol Graham 828-4049/Dee Martinson 828-4050) Office- SUPERVALU INC Home: 7766 Lochmere Terrace P O Box 990 Edina. MN 55439 Minneapolis. MN 55440 829-0884 (unlisted) 828-4048; FAX 828-8926 Home: 234 South Edgewood Avenue Wayzata. MN 55391 473-3557 Home: 6982 Tupa Drive Edina, MN 55439 829-0909 JX c% If if *- 7* / rt ‘i*■ r ^ -<■ ' i "i STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS SPRING HILL GOLF COURSE January 1997 PREPARED FOR:SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB PREPARED BY:SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL SUMMARY il.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 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 ancj 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 crossings on County Road 6 and Spring Hill 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 tc 100-year design storms without overtopping the roads. The proposed golf course construction will not Increase the flow rates to these culverts. i 1 II.NUTR.ENT 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 p.^oposed pollutant loadings were determined using MPCA procedures four.'J in ti.e “Protecting Water Quality in Urbr... .Veas” manual. The mca. .Mlutant 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 Runofi from Four Golf Courses in the Twin Cities Metrgpr tan Area. John M. Barten, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Septemt 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 1070 D 376 0.40 2.37 0.09 0.40 E 1,061 1.13 6.68 0.27 1.13 F 175 0.19 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 were 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 TSSrrotal Suspended Solids TP/Total Phosphorous TKN/Total 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 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 portion 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 (%) Outflovi/ (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. 1 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 Zn/ZINC 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 34 200 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. i 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 stabilize 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. III.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 Bi’.dget.) 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: r 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-ft 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)53.6%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. 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 2.0 1.6 1.1 984.9 984.6 984.3 NURP Basin 1 Watershed A 3.7 1.2 0.2 960.85 958.6 958.0 NURP 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 11.5 945.5 949.0 Watershed C Co. Rd. 6 54" CMP 977.8 52.0 22.0 980.4 993.9 Spring Hill Road 42" RCP 966.1 29.0 6.5 969.3 971.2 Watershed D Spring Hill Road 24" CMP 981.4 5.0 2.0 982.6 987.0 8 J Watershed E Spring Hill Road 30" RCP 946.4 18.0 7.0 948.4 951.0 Watershed F Co. Rd. 6 18" CMP 984.6 4.0 1.0 986.8 996.2 All of the watersheds were modeled for flow rates. Where appropriate, the hydrology v;as 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 RATE 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 9.2 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 1 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 v/etlands 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. I 1 The wetlands are incorporated into the hydrology model and the results of the modeling are presented below. TABLE 12 WATERSHED A WETLAND HYDROLOGY High Water Levels Outlet Elevations Existing Proposed Existing Proposed lOOYr 10 Yr 1 Yr 100 Yr 10 Yr 1 Yr Wetland 13 989.0 989.0 9e:‘.8 S89.5 989.0 990.5 990.5 989.0 Wetland 1:978.0 978.0 978.8 978.3 978.0 9788 978.3 9780 Wetland 15 976.0 976.5 976.7 976.4 976.0 977.7 9/6.6 976.5 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 Wetland 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 i t 71 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 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I f/1 / filr / / N \ \ \\'' \'' \ N ' f / \ \ \ \ \ \ ! I j [\W''\\' \ \ 'V I N \ \ / / ' \ ' ' \I I T ^1 I I I I ^'l ’/ I I \ \ \ ' \ IJ I I . \ \ \ \ \ \I \ \ '' ' 1 ' 1 i ! \ 1 ) riprap N \ ^ ,\ \ \ V. rNURP-.^ Jf >\M BASfN. 4'' 996 994 \ I \ \ \ / / / / 9^.^ s'rsi \ \ i 1 CMP /aprons / ^J' \ a: I \ / 'v"9! \ \ '^9^’ \*l i'f\ \V ' / V/ / 1 r J ' ^ n T ^ } /S cT3>1 \ 99^v 1 N_ J ^ — N 1 ^ ^ * / f 18.0 / / 1* I \ o \ \ \ 1 11 M 11 \ '*11 UJii! I H“ iiii ^^SQ_~~--r^-~ \ jVoi 'll' {'; "V' I'\ \>4. » \ 99JC0 \ ( \ t / y / \ .8 \ { / / / /\ proposed DRAINFIELD \ \/ / / / /' / \ \ /\ SILT FENCE fl / / l^Arrcc;cj---------- \ A \\ N \ S ' ^ OfiAC \ \ ^ \ ' lEiXJe, ATHloc / \ \ ;-v .i I I? 5 W 1 > J? t' ■W i 5 : » s I f 'I o o O Oa tJ o M Gq O ►-3 > o o II< I»I ?• •-« O as 03 os IS I li li I CP XDa:nrm Qon S 3: n5 n Oc O Q > na Oo P b> .C^ir ■- •’! # •' -Nr^ >\ >• .. »>"j ,v»u>y* w-> /% •>tr*-:VN \-V O Qo o-iO 3112 o ra Oo O o o (n > 3 .3 -- Hu es i i ^ o■"i SIS I i|l! CP lO r« Oan=ZI na; mn*-ii (h Qo Oo O Q > -B Qo» •o > -.rc« :5 I'S I-:: \ V. ■'V4 -'•■■ > 3 ■ ■' • • .'Si •.” •. ^ ,11:. <1 - --------------- ,.J, !!. •*’; 1^ ^ I' — o TO o ra Go O Qa t3 iO 1 I o o o ^ ! * as fs» s n 03 s SI 3! o*O c=:n Oan SB 3: ;on =E n Go Oa On :- I?. ?! I !• I V I-I • r -? \y '> -:; :‘r--# >- - o ID o z n Oa O Qo ■D ID O s -51 i 1. / ► 5 i o o S X »vi tio•A o D3 IS9 § 03 O C3 O CTI Oann; 3: b o*^n 3 n o» Oo Oa OQ > Oa ■a i> r»HT;. 4 . ; -\ m 5 ^ ^ ^■4 a-3. • o JD o om ae Oa • O > Qa TD O' O es 3| • I I^ P 3tt O O n a cs Bii * e i n Q 0» Q rc«t: NO»»TH X, 1 :: 1 th±l rr^T-] f-m--H--r ?' ’• H- !• T r 8:; Q Ob O Q I o b> y I Ui c •p m Q Ol fO at VJ at s o %q D5 > 0» 3 s 11iiiU';:::-... \ 0--;X/x'V/ "S / #• m? A • i --A miv.#-"^r r^-"' MC»'<4 V. I I I 1 I .|i IIiMi ? ^n P r- P MimV' 5* I 3 01K>o» xj OI I 8 to o32 I sv*—«»x-«||;;:5SS I H a! iias! I jj||I * MM «• ; 9!j3!,!.l!?f1!| a !!!! -•'♦•85S55J CKiiSiIit, hi i!; !!^E ! Bi 3 ll II I !!!!!!!^ ill!- I mh a?!3*h i i IasIsiH* II n! gm!!I i\ II I lillll! 3 r «r— - III-tA.i iim.i ju^d ) \ r\ sinn Bli r »# .«■; • i •. UL l*.V. l.V r. s w 8i \ w 0 JiS li I 7 ill??''i;i|5 * 1ii| i 1|l = pi Iticn;i I T5I n MA1€H LINE vj) A y O ‘ > J a I" 'I !" lilij 'r *■ I!!l2 ¥ It RJf 1 • 1 P ^ ■|!|^S’l«|l| I o• r jiin i 5 COo X -SO ! • m IIH Hi si!hi S ‘Ur** i X §? « SI zo mo si c»m <oto vj MATCH UNI O •I I I I i I i II ■ '! I" !!li{ i' S p;o IH * J I*. • .... • , t i ino z - o iiifl? hiM--s|l|i *U;|l» llh!| ‘^s I !"8 z o V._j C0 siSo i| *1M lO to >4 iV 1^' ■0aof.m 0 H Zp 01 K> <» (/) Imm-< O-n (/> Xmm -« (A >1 i! !i| IIhhUh ijih o • ; ! I i I i § f| d I [ ft r » >1« . y -* I • 8 m o MATCH LINE r- 89 IVM 101iiiii!-!'iji!l!'iil| it ' p omzo I I VJii/ i 5 iA O Z -ffaj Ssi*3i r '[Hi I iili I j!u s ‘'Mi!“i X o § o» giSo s • oISa CO CO (O >5 m o ;H*p j i !1 Htioo |j3w i i•9:3 f 1»g22C/J f-2I o ei 'k'l aUBr IR^f 2«f I il Q' }!M<' • i MATCH LINE I o • I I I i I i ................................................... oso I.' i I I ). i3« i| ^ 'i [ J 8 •cim rM i!iioPii?o COSrg-n 8 r 5N % I \ il U a *«• y V j I O •I ! l!Mi*‘|i|i I I I i I i iljlMII!! I|" |il|ii 8 m Omzo .7 irr/.x-', .♦ *' V.. , ■» ^•*c •camr*.lo tm , [ 1' ! '^9J^|1 nilH * Mljo *7i |5o “ri-' w “r2 . y 1 o» I Ul O - < ® ; * 2 M X O * < wi -4 5SS 5 i;K m lUi:s •“H (/) O X_ o fi mm — 3: »" ss ^ 5 «• ®* I*IIS ’’i o 2*2 5^ -S »n M » « 2 O (/) s *0 JO Oc_ rn 0H 2p O) K> 01 Nl O) Is cn Im m H o t/) Imm -i Ui \ (0 Voi go KmoSO II o a C0 <o«o Nj Xm q Om K MATCH UNE /•" ••' ftjlI 5l ■i’ TrfI'"■^X “ »** • I I Mi** •• •! m II i' ' C II ■»'»!»'*'«'4 cnTJ3. o,S : X '•9 ; 2- • Q §- *^_UR myt t «i 0 01 OBo (0 ^5_ 2 SniS2 ■sB^sisS?*issfl* Mk I 9m 13!! S S> ovS!^;S- »s ^ ■S|jSa8* H > 01 01 Q 0 01 o Q §! 1 9 ■ OI . VJ OI { - 1 8 1 StfVl S iM 3 PI filli'!* IS”ill im iiiii s»|i S!|Pj mh jIll* m «»p u ins 3 I R ^ar» X fii m^ o 3D 30 Z > “iS o C0'“ H O C 3D 3D > >1 go m CO Om O 30 Ozo If! »> < ^ < 9 li°o II D 30 smo H O z zzm 0)o H ‘ V*“ (0 "0 3D O O O Tl o c il ^ ‘A ♦ f I '-Ui .*>- -o 30m > 30 O Oz CO H 30 ■or- >z CO -tlo 30 1 < u Oo< > % % § 10.27 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-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 cr 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 5 acres 300 feet 100 feet 50 feet Side Yard . Adjacent to Street 100 feet Rear Yard 100 feet SBC. 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-lA" 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-IA" 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, sanitariums, 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. Source: Ordinance No. 185 Effective Date: 6-14-76 ORONO CC 288 (4-1-84) § 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-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. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed; Side Yard Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet Side Yard 30 feet Adjacent to Street 50 feet Rear Yard 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. aubd. 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) S 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 deem 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 dv ollings as regulated in the "R-IB" District. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. ORONO CC 290 ly/^ I *5 , .•»lO ,0’* 1.'-4. ' (4-1-84) SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT S 10.20 ex-U. o -2. ^ 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-1A" One Family Residential Districtf 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-1A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: -1 ^ 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 t.ie 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. 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— 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. .. V *4-: O'V ■■ / (r- ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) 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 OSES. 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 may 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 prmits 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 of the neighborhood and for recommendation in regard to granting such conditional use and the conditions thereof, if any, or for the denial of such conditions use. The Council may by unaniinous action waive reference tr xie Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-14-67 ORONO CC 267 (4-1-84) § 10.09 Subd. 3. Conditional Uses: App i.ication. Whenever this Zoning Chapter requires a conditional use permitr 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: A. setbacks noted. B. Site plan drawn at scale dimensions with Location of all buildings, heights, and square footage. C. D. Curb cuLo, driveways, parking spaces. Off-street loading areas. by shift. E. Drainage plan. F. Type of business, proposed number of employees 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. S 10.09 J. A landscape plan with a schedule of the plantings. 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. Cond Comn'i.ssion to Act. If no Planning Commission within application for conditional take action without further itional Uses: Failure of Planning recommendation is transmitted by the sixty (60) days after referral of the use to the Commission, the Council may 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 hearings on each application for a conditional use permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten (10) days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the date ?!stll taU%n identical notice to the owner and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible or mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine th names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and ^ the owners and addresses to whicn the attested to by the responsible person and shall be maoe a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to 9ive 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. At the public hearing Planning Commission or Council shall review the ^PP}^®®tion and the statements and drawings submitted therewith pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed 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 Placing Commission or Council may adopt rules for the conduct oi proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the qivino of oaths to witnesses and the filmg of written briefs by the Lrties. 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 th final action. ORONO CC 269 (4-1-84) "W § 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 Chapter 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 eac’. 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 i' 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) § 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 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, unless the actual land use is determined to be in violation of the terras 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 condicional use permit) the Council shall hold a public hearing on uhe continuation of the permit. The Council shall determine, after such public hearing, whether the continuation of the conditional use in question is consistent with the health, safety, and general 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 a 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 Cede 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 to the day of the hearing. When an amendment includes changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice%shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the day of the 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 waj 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 Plan i.ng Commission; (3) by petition of the owner(s) of their or adjoin ng property, the zoning of which is proposed to be changed. ^.n 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) SEC, 26, T, n 8, R. 25 S. t/2 SEC. 25. T. ns, f BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^ i Bonestroo Rosene AnderlikSi 1 vll Associates Engineers & Architects February 2, 1997 ©612 6361311 02/03/97 12:38 0 : 02/02 'NO:570 • P Bonewoo AndffUk ana tnc II An Aft»rmAV%c £^,*, Pr>nc/pAfi Orro 0 Sonejtroo f’E • Jotepn c Ano^rUk Ag • Milivtn I So'v<iM Pt - ».cn«fdE Tuif'e'. P£ • G*irnn R Cco^ R£ • Trom^s E \oy»l Pf . Rc&ea G Sir>umtPi PJ . Jtrr/ A eoufdon P£ • Rooeft W Poser^e •£ and Sus.vi M £fcer/.n CPA Sen.o^ Conso.t.%nti Associate Pnnc^pAis Howard a S^n'oM P£ . neirr a Oo^dc'^ P£ • RoDen R Pfef^erie Pt • R.cr.vd W »OStP' Pf . ?L . ?o::Rrt C Aufiek AIA . a H.>nvnr .c M*cn^e< T :fauun^^^n. Pf . Tea KF.e'a Pc • Kennet*! P Ancvrson Pf • Mart R Roi»s P£ • Sidney P W.ihamscn Pf t $. t Ro&e-t f Kotsm th OfffCei Sr Paii» Rocheittr U/it'ir^r Sl ClOud MS . AVquor' ri W-. ♦• t • i •fffy Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55.123 Rc: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 139-2209 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the information submitted for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club located north of Spring Hill Road and cast 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 supported. We will continue to review the preliminary grading and wetland mitigation plans in the meantime. Plea.se contact me at this office if you have any »^uestions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • 5t. Paul. MN 55113-3898 • 612-636-4600 r. ^ .Q interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning and Zoning Admin. from: Lyle Oman, re: Spring Hill Golf date: February 4, 1997 At your request I have reviewed the Spring Hill Golf plans for the purpose of determining if a fire sprinkler system would be required. The building has a mixed occupancy 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 would be required. The proposed maintenance building is classified as a S-3 occupancy. Mn. State Building Code requires a sprinkler system in S-3 occupancies with 3,000 sq. ft. or more. The maintenance building is proposed to be 9.600 sq. ft. Therefore it would also require a sprinkler system. from thedtskof. Lyle Oman, Building Official CityofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay Hn. 473-7357 Fax: 473-0510 Co^ .v:.»GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Februar\’ 3, 1997 Andrew M. Hunter, III Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. 5100 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Mr. Hunter: The city 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 expressed 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. Sincerelv, 1 Ronald J. Moorse Citv Administrator i t Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 e>^. s CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ® 2 A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A POLICY TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL AND RURAL TYPE VISTAS IN ORONO THROUGH THE PRESER\ ATION AND PLANTING OF TREES ^VHEREAS, a key goal of ihe 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. C^jran, Jr., Mayor 0^ m- T January 21, 1997 received JAN 2 <> '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 c and Tamarack is something we oppose. It would make an unsightly corner across the road from our property. That is a dangerous corner 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 machineiry 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 the top of a steep hill to get to the central buildings. We hope you will take these points into account in your planning. Sincerely yours. EWSpencer:Ip To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Plamiing & Zoning Administrator Date:March 10, 1997 Subject: #2213 Jim Zimmerman, 2745 Shadywood Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Heeiring Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Application: Request for CUP for construction of permanent dock on Lake Minnetonka. Pertinent Ordinance: Section 10.55, Subd 9(B-3): All permanent boat docks within the floodway require a conditional use permit. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Dock Proposal F - DNR General Permit #97-6098 G - Letters from Neighboring Property Owners H - Section 10.55 Subd. 26/ 1961 Boathouse Permit / 1961 Council Minutes Summar}' of Request Applicant proposes to construct a permanent boat dock adjacent to his existing boathouse located in the lagoon area. No City permit for a pcmianent dock has previously been issued for this site, and City airphotos indicate no pemianenf dock visible in past years, although a few pilings exist adjacent to the entrance to the boathouse suggesting possibly a past seasonal dock. The proposed dock will extend from the boat house entrance parallel to the shoreline, with a connecting walkway back to shore (See Exhibit E). LMCD staff !;ave indicated that their rules allow' a maximum dock width of 6', and applicant has revised his original plan for a 10'x32’ section down to 6'x32' parallel to the shore. This configuration appears appropriate given the orientation and layout of the boathouse, and given that the site is adjacent to a relatively narrow channel leading to the Narrow s docks located just cast of tho p ’-operty. Side setback is not an issue based on the site location. The potential for ice damage at this location is minimal due to the location in a protected lagoon. Zoning File #2213 March 10, 1997 Page 2 This structure will have no impact on the floodvvay of Lake Minnetonka and it will not increase the flood height of the lake. DNR General Permit The DNR has issued a 'blanket' general permit for certain types of projects which will not require DNR permits on Lake Minnetonka. These projects include seasonal docks, some permanent docks, boat ramps, and multiple mooiing facilities and marinas that meet certain criteria (See Exhibit F). The LMCD administers this general permit. Depending on whether DNR considers the proposed dock as "a single linear structure', it may require a separate DNR permit. Boathouse Non-conformity Advisory It should be noted for the record that the existing boathouse to which the dock will be attached, is a non-conforming structure under Orono Code Section 10.55 Subd. 9. Although a building permit w'as issued for its construction in 1961, the boathouse has been non-conforming at least since the Floodplain Ordinnnee was adopted in 1979, and perhaps much longer. This building is subject to the non-conforrmng structure limitations imposed by Section 10.55 Subd. 26. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed installation of a permanent dock adjacent to the boathouse for Jim Zimmerman at 2745 Shadywood Road, subject to applicant providing \vritten confirmation that any permits necessaiy from the DNR and LMCD have been obtained, prior to City issuance of the required building permit; and subject to no concurrent work on the boathouse allow’ed without a separate permit review and approval. • • Application if 3 Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND U PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address________^ ~7 ^ Type of Application to be Filed p Q c ^ •*? y .1 .• i.t • f • c^ *1 «. / Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)■2/ — //7 — 2.3 .3/ C/Co APPLICANT Name / ^ Address «ir City Phone (home) Y/ - // o c> Phone (work) 4^ P/ - Zip 8 8 I- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ Address City .Zip. Date Prgperlv Acquired (month/year) I (do)(fda=i^) 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 _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S200.00 Duplex Credit/BH.g _____S300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______S250.00 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 CHflNGE City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, W 55323 (612)473-7357 02/21/97 16:36!00 LPND USE APPLICATION 1 § 75.00 75.C 2213 J 21KRMAN 2745 SHADYUOO 1 B 0.00 0.( SUBTOTALTAX TOTAL SALE RECEIVED 75.( 0.( 75.( 75. ( 0.f PRD/TID - see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal 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 ______S3 50.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______SI00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule CLERKI03 TRANSI 3596 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, W 55323 (612)473-7357 02/26/97 11:02:44 UMD USE APPLICATION 1 8 100.00 100.0( 2213 J ZINCRMAN 2745 SHADYUOO 1 8 0.00 0.0C PRESENT USE OF PROPER'jl Y Present Zoning District _____ Present Use of Property ^ Residential SUBTOTALTAXTOTAL SALE RECEIVED CHtfCE CLERKt03 TRANSt 3630 100. O' 0.0 100.0^ 100.0 0.0 Other REQUIl^ SUBMITTALS 1. . Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3. ly' Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of 4. 5. 6. 7. 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 (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ___ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. 9. 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 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 cqvered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date 9 ) OWNER'S SIGN^alJRE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature ^ —----------- Date ^ ) Applicant must ha<^f all submipttls 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. i {44) PT CP LvT «i»r _jv •V'*." '^•R-fe-£-0P.5«» .] —: V^ X%>^5J-K ■'"<Z («. i#' > ^ /'A l?r>%''*. RUN DATE 02/21/97 BATCH 511 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST38 21-117-23 23 0014 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PHEASANT LAHN HOMEOHNERS PHEASANT LANN HOHEONNERS 2700 PLEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0005 02735 StIADYHOOD RD P C 1 B G CARLSON TRUSTEES PAUL C I BEATRICE G CARLSON 2735 SHAOVNOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 b020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THOMAS J CASEY ETAL THOMAS J CASEY 2785 SHADYHOOO RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PAUL C CARLSON ETAL PAUL C C/mLSON 2735 SHADYHOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 21-117-23 24 0061 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P THIMMESH THOMAS P HUBER 2615 SHADYHOOO RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 31 0003 02745 SHADYHOOO RD JAMES E ZIMMERMAN JAMES E ZIMMERMAN 2745 SHADYHOOD RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0003 02705 SHADYHOOD RO 6 0 A J M FOX GAYLORD 0 A JON MARIE FOX 2705 SHADYHOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0009 02775 SHADYHOOD RO B K OLSON TRUSTEE BO;>mE K OLSON 2775 SHADYHOOD RD EXCELSIOii MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED B K OLSON TRUSTEE BONI^E K OLSON 2775 SHADYFIOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0059 02771 SHADYHOOO RD R G A M J OGLE RICHARD 6 A MARLYS J OGLE 2771 SHADYHOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0062 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BOYD HITTMAN BOYD HITTMAN 2707 NORTHRIDGE DR COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80918 38 21-117-23 32 0004 02800 PHEASANT RD RALPH 0 BURGESS JR RALPH D BURGESS JR> CEO FOOD ENGINEERING CORPORATION 2765 NIAGARA LAN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 27 • j38 21-117-23 24 0004 02725 SHADYI'IOOO RD M 0 A R A MEEK MICHAEL 0 A ROBERTA A MEEK 2725 SHADYHOOO RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 38 21-117-23 24 0014 00038 ADDRESS UTIASSIGTCD DAVID C COOK DAVID C COOK 680 H HILLSIDE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 21-117-23 24 D028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES O GINTHER ET AL JAMES 0 GINTHER 3131 DARTMOUTH AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0060 02765 SHADYHOOD RD B L NILHELM S D I NILHELM BURNIS L A DORIS 1 HILHELH 2765 SHADYHOOO RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0063 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D MIEGEL A J MIEGEL DONALD R A JUDITH D MIEGEL 683 SULLIVAN OR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MN 55421 TOTAL BATCH 511 00017 F Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 January 31, 1997 Mr. Douglas Babcock Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 19 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 cW'i or- ORONO RE: GENERAL PERMIT NO. 97-6098; PERMANENT DOCKS, MULTIPLE DOCKS AND BOAT RAMPS; LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133P); CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES Dear Mr. Babcock: Enclosed is General Permit #97-6098, which authorizes the owners of Lake Minnetonka shoreline to do projects in the following categories: permanent docks, multiple mooring facilities/marinas, and boat ramps. The intent of this General Permit is to simplify permitting processing in areas where we have overlapping authority, and to avoid duplication of efforts. If a proposed project meets the conditions in General Permit #97-6098, and a license/approval is obtained from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the applicant will not be required to obtain a separate individual permit from the DNR However, projects that exceed the conditions in General Permit #97-6098 will continue to require an individual DI^ permit. A draft version of General Permit #97-6098 was circulated to oflBcial DNR permit application commenters and interested parties (see attached list) on December 17,1996. Comments received from the commenters and interested parties were incorporated in the enclosed permit. Very few comments were received. On advice of our Central OflBce, we are issuing this permit to the “Owners of Property on Lake Mirmetonka,” with LMCD as their agent. They felt this was more legally correct. Another change from the 12/12/96 draft was in item #1 of the “General Conditions That Apply To All Projects.” The underlined language shown below was added: 1.All appropriate licenses or approvals from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and from the City in which the project is located must be obtained prior to commencing the project. The LMCD may begin implementing General Permit #97-6098 immediately. As is noted in Special Provision 3 of Permit #97-6098, the conditions and provisions of this Permit are to be reviewed by the DNR and LMCD by September 30, annually. DNR Information: 612-296-6l.s?. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opponunily Employer Who Values DiversiU Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a ^1^ Minimum of I0*’r Post-Consumer Waste Mr. Douglas Babcock General Permit #97-6098 January 31,1997 Page (2) In addition, the Department b confident that our staff will continue to work together closely to ensure that the notification and implementation logistics work smoothly and that there is no confusion regarding the interpretation of the terms and conditions of General Permit #97-6098. We believe this General Permit will simplify the permitting process for Lake Minnetonka residents without reducing resource protection. Your effort in working with us to develop this procedure is greatly appreciated. Please contact me or Area Hydrologist Cdl Strauss at 772-7910 should you have questions regarding the terms and conditions of this Permit. Sincerely, Regional Hydrolo^st Enclosures DEH/CCS c:Cities of: Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Kfirmetonka, Miimetonka Beach, Miimetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, "N^ctoria, Wa3rzata, and Woodland Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durgunoglu Carver Soil & Water Conservation District, Rich Perrine Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Gene Strommen U.S. Army Corps of En^eers, Joe Yanta/Gaiy Elftmann DNR Fisheries, Daryl Ellison DNR Wildlife, Diana Regenscheid Conservation Officers, Mike Hammer/Tim Konrad Ecolo^cal Services, Wayne Barstad Central Waters, Jolm Line Stine/Bruce Gerbig/Ron Anderson Lake Minnetonka (27-133P) File GENERAL PERMIT INNESOTA PROTECTED WATERS PERMIT iPwmlt Number 97-6098 DivisioD of PiMMwi Id MbvMola StatuUc. Chapter 1030, and on tho baaia of diamante and informaSon oontelnad In Ifia parniH application, tetteft, inapa, and plana aytenUtad bf Prottcttd Watar County Lake Minnetonka (27-133P)Carver and Hennepin Atema ofPann/Oae rWqpho/i# Number ffnciud^ Atm Codo) Alt Owners of Property on Lake Minnetonka (612)471-9588Agent Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Addnat (No.« S0<m( HFD, Box No. City, Stato, Zip Codo) 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 19, Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Authorti%4 W9tk: Place permanent docks, boat rampa, and muWple mooring faciCt'es; al in accordance with the Conditions listed in Attachment A and the Special Provisions of this permit Purpose of Paniilr fi^lrsdoA Oefe of Permit Navigational Access / Use September 30.2001 Proporty Doaeribod aa: Various on Lake Minnetonka AddroaaotPmporty.ltNnown: NA At bidleatod Ai Conors/ Provision No. 11: The ordinary high water elevation of 929.4* (NGVD, 1929) In this General Permit, the following definitions apply: Termittee** means the state, a poBtcal subdivision of the state, a public or private corporation, or any person permitted by the LMCD to perform work in the pubic wateii/pubSc waters wetlands and floodplain within the jurisdiction of the LMCO pursuant to uniform DNRA^CD requirements, and the terms and conditions of this Canerai Permit "Agenf means the Lake Minnetonka Consenration District (LMCD). as the agency authorized by the terms and conditions of this General Permit, to enforce uniform DNR/LMCD requirements concerning permanent docks, boat ramps, multiple mooring facffities and marinas. This General Permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. Tb# pcrmltlM te not roteotod from any rotes, ragutettena, rsquirsmants, or alandante of any appHcabte fadscal, ttate, or local aganctes; including, but not limited to, U.S. Anny Corps of Enginssrt. Board of Water and Soil Raaourcas, MN PoOiition Control Agimcy, Mterihsd dtetrtets, water mansgemsnt orgaitoUons, county, city and kfMMNp zor^ing. This permit doss not retesas the psrmlttes of any pemut requirements of the St Paul Dtetrtet, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Corps of Engtesofi Centra. 190 Fifth Street Esat, St Paul, MN 56101-1638. Tha permStesihalrnake no d«iigaa,wihoU Witten parminionprsMoudy obtained from tha Lake MniwConka Corwsrvatten DMkl, in the dimsristerta. capacity, or location ' -ly Hems of work authorized hereurKler. Ihe pcrmlttM ihal grsrd aocsaa to the site at all resaonabte times during and after oonetructten to authorized repreaentativee of the CommteaJoner of Natural Reaoufcsa for inspection of the work authorized hereunder. This General Psrmt may be terminated by the Commtestener of Natural Resources st any Urns deemed neesMaiy for the conservation of wetarrasoufoas of the state, or In the Interest of public health and v^tfare. or for viotation of any of the provisions of this General Permit, unless otherwise provided In the Spectel Provtetena. The agent may raqueal an extension of time to this General Permit upon written requect to the Commissioner of Natural Rasouroes. ki afl cases where tfte permittee by performing the work authorized by this permit aha0 Involve the teWng. using, or danwging of any property rights or Intereda of any oth^ person or persons, or of any publicly owned lands or improvements thereon or Interests therein, the permittee, before proceeding, shall obtain the written consent of aB persona, aganclat. or authoritJea concemtd. and than aoquira all property, rights and Intareata needed for the work. ThisGenardPermlltpermlniveordy. No labffliy thatl be Imposed by the State of Minnesota or any of Ha ofTiceri. agents or emptoyeea. oftlciaily or personally, on sccourt of the (pantkig hereof or on aooount of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the permittee or a;gent or any of Its agents, employees. or contractors. This General tandlshal not be oondroed as estopping or limhing any legal claims or right of action of any person other than the state against the permittee or agtnl. Is agents, employeaa, or contractors, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omisalon, or as a^ping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the atate against the permittee, Ha agents, employeee, or oontrsdors for violation of or fallura to comply the permit or appticabte provtetena of tew. a. a 10. 1. 2. 3. c: by auOiofiy of tNi pirnil nor milHW finom any ottMT aoum. Om bakMV (aa Mioitad abova.) raauiing ton wok auOwtzad by Ihia parma ahaB baooma prolaclad wMtarm and M ooan and uroMruclad for uaa by lha pubOo. aa apadfM harain, ahafl ba plaoad on any portion of tha bad of aaid ^tan which Wm to v«vk autiiorizad by to Qarwal ParmI inaoim to drainino. filling or burrOnp of ¥Mdanda not aubjad to DNR Juffadlction. to ptfmmaa ahati not IniM laidar toparrrtil untf to pannlBaa haa obtainad official approval from to raaponalbla govammanlal unH aa raquirad by to Minnaaola Watianda Conaarvation Ad of 1991. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Notification of each license application proposed to be authorized by General Permit #97-6098 shall be sent, by the Agent, to the DNR Area Hydrologist. DNR Area Fisheries Manager and to the city that is the zoning authority for the project site. The minimum comment period will be 7 days for residential docks and 10 days for all other projects. The Agent shall send a copy of all Lake Minnetonka Conservation District licenses to the DNR Area Hydrologist, Conservation Officer, and the DNR Area Fisheries Manager for activities that would have required a DNR Protected Waters permit, but that meet the conditions of this permit. The following information. If applicable, must be included in the permit copy supplied to the DNR: permittee name and address; project location; brief project descripticr.; and resource name and DNR I.D, number (Including sub-basin number). The conditions and pi ;• visions of this General Permit shall be reviewed by September 30, annually, wth Input from both DNR ar«« the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Mutually agreed upon darifications, corrections, and changes can be incorporated in a modified permit. Significant changes or additions may be incorporated in an amended G^'neral Permit only after the copied parties on this General Permit have had an opportunity to comment. The DNR reserves the right to require a separate individual permit for projects that could meet the conditions of General Permit #97-6098. Cities of: Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound. Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay. Victoria, Wayzata, and Woodland Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durgunoglu Carver Soil & Water Consenration District, Rich Perrine Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Gene Strommen U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta/Gary Elftmann DNR Fisheries, Daryl Ellison DNR Wildlife, Diana Regenscheid Conservation Officers, Mike Hammer/Jim Konrad Ecological Services. Wayne Barstad Central Waters, John Line Stine/Bruce Gerbig/Ron Anderson Lake Minnetonka (27-1 33P) File Auth0tti»d Sfgnstu/9 y m*D9t9 /-3/'97 Dale E. Homuth Regional Hydrologist BY f DATE Ac?/-^7 ATTACHMENT A CONDITIONS FOR GENERAL PERMIT #97-6098 (Page 1 of 3) GENERAL CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. All appropriate licenses or approvals from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and from the City in which the project is located must be obtained prior to commencing the project. Erosion control measures sh^i: he adequately designed for the site characteristics. They may include staked haybales, diversion channels, sedii. ant ponds, or sediment fences. They shall be installed in accordance with "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota" MPCA, October 1989, prior to commencement and maintained throughout the project. Ail exposed soil shall be stabilized as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after the completion of the project. Soil stabilization shall t e achieved by mulching and seeding or placement of sod at the rates or manner prescribed in the above referenced guidance document on erosion control or by other accepted manner defined in said document. Topsoil should be used to re-dress disturbed soil areas and indigenous plant spedes should be used to revegetate distutbed areas whenever possible. No removal or destruction of aquatic vegetation is permitted unless an Aquatic Management Permit is obtained from DNR Regional Fisheries Office (@ 772-7950), or the removal consists of mechanical (i.e., not chemical) removal of submerged or floating aquatic vegetation that meets the conditions for not requiring a permit (i.e., mechanical removal of submerged or floating aquatic vegetation in an area of less than 2,500 square feet). Note; Removal of any amount of emergent vegetation is prohibited unless an aquatic plant management permit has been obtained from DNR Fisheries. Project equipment shall be inspected for Eurasian water milfoil, zebra mussels and other exotics and decontaminated prior to and following project completion and/or when equipment Is moved from one wate JOdy to another. Every reasonable precaution shall be taken to prevent inoculation of other waterbodies. ..'NR- Ecological Services (612-296-2835) may be contacted for information on how to decontaminate equipment. The permittee shall monitor all disturised areas for the presence of purple loosestrife and control the plant. The DNR aquatic plant manager should be contacted at 772-7950 for permit needs and additional information. The permittee is authorized to maintain the approved work to the dimensions in the LMCD license. Prior to commencing any maintenance work, the permittee shall advise the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District of the extent and method of maintenance. The maintenance shall not be commenced until permittee receives written approval from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The LMCD shall copy the DNR Area Hydrologist and the Conservation Officer on such maintenance approvals. The DNR Area Rsheries Manager will be given an opportunity to review the proposed plans to help ensure that no posted spawning areas or other significant fish or wildlife habitat is affected. Structures (docks, ramps, etc.) shall not be constructed with materials that would have a detrimental impact on aquatic organisms or water quality. Placement of structures not permitted. Placement of structures shall not be permitted where the structure: (A) Will obstruct navigation or create a water safety hazard. (B) Will be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat, or protected vegetation. Construction is prohibited in posted fish spawning areas. (C) Is designed or intended to be used for human habitation or as a boathouse. (D) Is designed or intended to include walls, a roof, or sewage facilities. CONDITIONS FOR GENERAL PERMIT #97-6098 (Page 2 of 3) NOTE: FOR EACH PROJECT CATEGORY. THE CRITERIA FOR PROJECTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A DNR PERMIT ARE SUMMARIZED FIRST. THEN THE CRITERIA TOBEMETFOR THIS GENERAL PERMIT ARE SUMMARIZED. PROJECTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PROJECTS THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT A DNR PERMIT. OR THE CONDITIONS OF THIS GENERAL PERMIT REQUIRE A SEPARA TE DNR PERMIT. SEASONAL DOCK PROJECTS No DNR permit is required to construct, reconstruct or install a seasonal dock or floating structure provided: 1. The stnjcture will not constitute a hazard to navigation or public health, safety, and welfare (as determined by the DNR): 2. The structure will not include fuel-handling facilities; 3. The structure will allow the free flow of water beneath it; and 4. The structure is not used or intended to be used as a marina (mooring of 5 or more watercraft). Note: A "seasonal dock ” means a dock so designed and constnjcted that it may be removed from the lake or stream bed on j seasonal basis. All components such as supports, decking, and footings must be capable of removal by nonmechanized means. Any proposed dock which does not meet the above criteria, must meet the conditions in one of the following project categories or a separate DNR permit is required. PERMANENT DOCK PROJECTS No DNR permit is required for permanent docks provided: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The dock is a single lineal structure with no appurtenances; Only one dock is installed per riparian lot; The structure shall not exceed six feet in width nor exceed 50 feet in length, or extend to a depth greater than 4 feet (bottom elevation of 925.4' on Lake Minnetonka), whichever is less; The structure will not include fuel-handling facilities; The structure vrill allow the free flow of water beneath it; and The structure is not used or intended to be used as a marina (mooring of 5 or more watercraft). Criteria for projects that can be approved by this General Permit: The preference is to have projects meet the DNR conditions for v^en a DNR permit is not required. However, it is recognized that site conditions vary and that it is not always feasible or practical to meet those conditions. 1 . Similarly situated docks in the vicinity have not experienced maintenance difficulty and the use of a seasonal dock is precluded because: a. long fetches would subject seasonal docks to damaging storm wave conditions: b. the number of public and private users is so great the seasonal docking equipment would not provide adequate stability. 2. Residential docks shall not exceed six feet in width or extend to a depth greater than 4 feet (bottom elevation of 925.4' on Lake Minnetonka). Commercial or public docks shall not exceed 6 feet in width or extend outside of the dock use area set forth by the LMCD Code. BOAT RAMP PROJECTS • No DNR permit is required to construct or reconstruct a boat launching ramp provided: 1.Privately owned ramps shall not exceed 12 feet in width, and extend more than ten feet beyond the ordinary high water elevation (929.4' for Lake Minnetonka) or into water more than four feet deep (bottom elevation of 925.4' on Lake Minnetonka), whichever is less. Excavations five cubic yards or less, and placement of up to five cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel, clean sand or small stone shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base or maintain use of the ramp.* CONDITIONS FOR GENERAL PERMIT #97-6098 (Page 3 of 3) BOAT RAMP PROJECTS (Continued^ 2. Publidy owned ramps shall not exceed 24 feet in width and extend more than 20 feet waterward of the OHW or into water more than four feet in depth, whichever is less. Excavations of 60 cubic yards or less, and placement of up to 30 cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel, dean sand, or small stone shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base or maintain use of the ramp.* 3. The ramp shall be constructed of gravel, natural rock, concrete, steel matting, or other durable inorganic material not exceeding six inches in thickness. * NOTE: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District may require a permit for the excavation or fill assodated with constructing or reconstructing a boat launching ramp. Criteria for projects that can be approved by this General Permit The preference is to have projects meet the DNR conditions for when a DNR permit Is not required. However, it is recognized that site conditions vary and that it is not always feasible or practical to meet those conditions. 1. The proposed projed must represent the minimal impad solution to a spedfic need with resped to all other reasonable alternatives. . w * » 2. The projed will involve a minimum of encroachment, change, or damage to the environment, including but not limited to fish and wildlife habitat, navigation, water supply and storm water retention. MMI TIPLE DOCK AND MOORING FACILITY PROJECTS fINCLUDING MARINAS! All multiple dock and mooring facilities (docks or mooring areas for 5 or more watercraft) require a DNR permit. Criteria for projects that can be approved by this General Permit: 1. The size and shape shall be designed in a compad fashion so as to blend in with the surrounding shoreline while minimizing the surface area occupied in relation to the number of watercraft to be served. If an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is mandatory, in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.4300, subp. 25 (i.e., construction or cumulative expansion greater than 20,000 square feet), a separate DNR perm.t is required. 2. L I From : DICK OGLE PHONE No. : 619 593 1229 Feb. 24 1997 8:29fr P02 FebAuoAJj 25, 1997 CtXj/ 0(J OKOno Mcfee Sa^fAon- Re: peAmanent dock at ZZrnmAmanii 1lcitd^nc.e Vta/i AW-. Ga^^Aon: Hau-ing had tlic. oppontuntty to Ac.v-icu) the. pZani ^OA the do eh tmpAovetnent that Ma. ZitmeAjmnn cotutdcAtug, 1 wouZd ttlie to expAeA-6 my ^uppoAt ^oa thU pAoject, We oAe veAy much -inteA(uted tti AjrpAo\ftng ouA neighborhood uohLch vkniid ccAta^inZy .LncZude upgAodlng the quaJbity /vc4 dock. Vick OgZz 277t Shadyivood Road ExetbiioA, MW 5535/ 03/11/97 10:07 FAX 612 3Jl 0323 FE9-2E-gr irm FroatCARQILl ZIMMERMAN GROUP 111 0ori3 T-rSO P.oz/Oz Job-740 Q-'Z. J February 25th. 1997 To: Jim Zijjpl^rTnan % From: Buxnie nilhelm Ownar - 37« Shad^ifood Read Bxealsior. MinneaetA Dear Jim: X underataad you ara plarming' co add a deck to your Boat House The puxpeaa of thlo letter is to advise you that aa owner of the property next door, it ie OK with us if you plan to mahe additions and iirprovaments to your boat Bouae. Please advise the local zoning and planning board that you have e\ur approval to proceed at your convenience. Regards Bumie Wilhelm 7 ml. fi-'l S 10.55 Subd. 26. Non-conforming Uses. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Section but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section may be continued subject to the following conditions; A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. B. No structural alteration or addition to any non- conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure. C. Any alteration or addition to any non-conforming use which would result in substantially increasing its flood damage potential shall be protected in accordance with Subdivision 14, Subparagraph E of this Section. - D. If such use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months, any future use of the building premises shall conform to this Section. The assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of non-conforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of twelve months. E. If any non-conforming use is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its assessed value, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Section. However, the City may issue a conditional use permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon the reconstruction, is adequately flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected in conformity with this Section. F. Uses or adjuncts thereof which are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as non-conforming uses. G. Except as provided in Subparagraph E above, any use which has been permitted as a conditional use shall not be considered as a non-conforming use. H. Non-conforming uses located in the Floodway District shall be eliminated or trought into conformity with the standards contained in this Section within a reasonable period of time as determined by the City, after a hearing for each such non- conforming use. The Council shall make its determination upon the basis of the normal useful life of any improvement upon the premises. In addition, the monetary value of any competitive advantage derived by the operation of such non-conforming use, by reason of the limitation on establishment of competing businesses as a result of this Section, shall be considered as a reduction of losses resulting from the requirement of termination of the use under this Section. ORONO CC 375 (4-1-84) VZLXAGS OF O5503?O jn/a iR2S3 C033ESECX/IT. u L* tVBX/r". Of STODIRO OWR2R P scaoea AD9SSSS PBOIfBKC. See. No. I PwctjiNa RTHO^V-**''* Koci I.A»D SS3CBS>T!C!1 SiaeofLel Land Sq. Ft EoTfltiea SUZ:.DLNG L0CAT1029 TXa.TnenTaoA Die. Sides DIa.Bae!c Sreiacggs cc:iS7?.ccr:o?i Frctao Mck.So!M Stoeee Eton*CesMi! Block FOOITjQS DepGi //4»//yC*3 Lk. DepCi WldCi BiCocrGtads FODIfDAIION Stee /.ddtaeacc&ib<^ielcii3B /V tw ^ ^6 a vEnaATsos AJfo lacsy P«centeq9 d non/\rea Vfld PwowtoeedlJ^tenocrtog llanos Stoo LecoBoB j V»T.^Tr?5 ^ CooBtraetSoD l^ocdUea C3??:C Yi«S3 S.*zo C!e!eeDe« FVen Vea ConatraetSea Gitrtad DrcdBcg* Beating ?03te SeoBB non SiM Sbo Spoeteg focn 2>epCi VVWft Length DliieiBeo n«a WeS lyjfxacnTnmUltliam CHl#C,’TfS Na FoundctSon HolgV Aboro foe! Typo ?:.!;^.:2rTG yzrrross S!a!a Lettts&y Bo&Tub SJiower ToGol Lerrc^ery yiOORS !i 1. Subriooriag JoL-sta Size 1 J Spedng Boeiiae Bridging STUDDD?GS RAFTSaS CEZLOKO JOISTS Slw>2. ■;< </ Spacing Plat«9 f'j Size T^y C Spacing / ( Spool / 2. Bradag u. Stee a- ^ Spacing ^ LongestSpan 2.*/ 5D0TS Sosement — 1st Floor — No. Size No, Size Stcdrwoy Stairway C?S’J!AT10N Colling Wells r*r NOTES: Bire^ /l4fwaj.. ^ *1 Signod o<^___ . Jl^ Rocolpt NcC_ll__________ TVstw ^X-vW^ a.*?-**_ rX'i^wMX^ M a. .-7,. r E!dg. Plumb. £_____finwogi« T#»»iwi <*<g THE SEWAGE SYSTEM rNSTAlIS) BY NAME. ADDRESS. Village of. h .County of .Minii. Village of Orono Crystal Bay,Minnesota. PJlnutes of meeting held In the Village Hall on February 13,1961,at 7:30 PM. Present: R.C.Bagley,Mayor,ProtemjK.Tumham,E.O.Wood,Trustees. G. A. Hanson, Assr. ;A.G. Stinson,Foreman; Gerald Ross,Chf. Police ;D.J. Russ ell, PlngCoc L.V.Ackman,Village Atty.:0.E.Johnson,Clerk,S.B.Belt,Dep.Clk. Minutes of meeting held on January 23,1961,were read and approved. Hr. Russ ell, of the Planning Commission reported on the recomendatlon of the Commlslon re request of L.F.Dressier Involving alteration of nouse on Lot 5, Crystal Beach.Subject tabled for consideration later. On motion of Turnham,seconded by Wood,recomendatlon of Planng.Com.was approved subject to approval of Hanson,granting building permit for D.R.Siford on Loti Lydlards Addition,for lot 80 by 600 feet. Request of S.C.Barber for building permits on L§ts 22,23 & 15,Rest Point Park was tabled for survey to be submitted at meeting of Feb.27th. On motion of Turnham,seconded by V/ood,request for building permit for guest house on Lot 6,Shore Hills,was approved subject to approval of Hanson. On motion of Turnham,seconded by 7/ood,building permit was approved for Lot 4, Block 3,Walter's Port Addn.,covering an area of 25630 sq.feet,for J.E.Bimzek, Jack Ekre appeared requesting consideration of the erection of a multiple dwelling In'the Navarre area on Kelly Ave.Subject will re refered to Plang.Con, Attorneys Ackman and Grossman and Adolph Fine confered witn the Council with reference to the Long Lake Country Club Addn.and the attorneys will endeavor to confer further in an effort to offer some solution to final conclusions and recoraendatlons Involving stablllbing and blacktopping of road to meet Council reoulrements and release of present bond filed for completion of road. Hugn Thorsen was present concerning the granting of permit Involving a boat house that had been started without permit at the Narrows.-ir.Wood was anxious to review the project before approval.and Tumnam moved that he proceed accord ingly and event of aoproval and* nayment of oenalty the oermlt be granted. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -—- - - - - - - - _ _ _ _—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -•* Thomas Traff was present for purpose of conference involving the acceptance of road In the traff Addn.on Co.Road # 51 at Crystal Bay. A conference will be arranged with him and Bnr Engr.ahd Foreman for further report. On motion of Turnham,seconded by Wood,approval was granted of tax forfeited land sale under Hennepin County Land Dept.List # fi06-C. Current bills under Verified Acets.# 1019 thru # 1048 were reviewed and approve There being no further business to come before the meeting same was adjourned. ^ * T^' [p TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator March 10,1997 SUBJECT: #2214, Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road—Variances-Public Hearing Application: Variances for average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 075* and 75'-250' setback areas and structural coverage are requested to modify an existing residence and garage Zoning District: LRl-C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre, sewered Pertinent Ordinances: LRl-C DISTRICT STANDARDS Section 10.25. Subd 6 Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet Lot Area=13,720 sq. ft. Lot Width=95.75 ft. Side Yards=l 1.4' on the north, 1 O' on the south Section 10.03, Subd. 15 Non-Encroachments. A. Chimneys, flues, belt corses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechnical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1.5 feet. The overhangs proposed for the garage/laundry room addition overhang 3’ into the required side yard. They will need to be reduced to 1.5' to be considered a non-encroachment or the entire addition will need to be moved north 1.5' to avoid a side yard setback variance. LAKESHORE SETBACK /. Section 10.22, Subd. 1, B., Lake shore 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 residence is more than 75' from the shoreline. The proposed additions to the lakeshore side of the residence encroach into the average lakeshore setback. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 2. 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 adjacent residences are located behind the 75’ setback from the shoreline. The average lakeshore setback line established by the adjacent properties shows that the proposed family room will encroach approximately 6' into the average lakeshore setback. The adjacent property to the south which would be most impacted by the family room addition has an upper and lower deck that is approximately the same distance from the shoreline as the proposed addition. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS 3. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lake shore Hardcover and Land Alteration Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback (sq. ft.) Hardcover Allowed (sq. ft.) Existing Hardcover (sq. ft.) Proposed Hardcover (sq ft.) Variance Request 0-75'4.095 NONE 667(16.3%)475(11.6%)475 (11.6%) 75'-250'9,625 2,406.25 (25%) 4,394 (45.65%) 4,844.5 (50.33%) 2,438.25 (25.33%) TOTALS:13,720 2,406.25 (17.53% total lot area) 5,061 (36.89%) 5,319.5 (38.77%) 2,913.25 (21.23%) The proposed modifications to the existing residence decrease hardcover in the 0'-75' setback by 192 sq. ft. or 4.6%. In the 75-250' setback, the amount of hardcover proposed increases by 450.5 sq. ft. or by 4.68%. Overall, the proposed modifications to the site increase hardcover by 258.5 sq. ft. STRUCTURAL COVERAGE Section 10.03, Subd.l4, Yards and Open Spaces, C., Lot Coverage In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessor>- structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Lot Size:Structural Coverage Allowed (15%) Proposed Structural Coverage 13,720 sq. ft.2,058 sq. ft.garage+Iaundry =1,056 addition=280 house= 1,357 Total=2,693 (19.62%) The proposed structural coverage exceeds the 15% limit. A variance of 635 sq. ft. or 4.62% is requested. The existing house and garage conform to the structural coverage requirements. i j List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Existing Survey Proposed Survey Proposed Elevations Proposed Floor Plan for Entry/Family Room Addition Note: The acknowledgement form from the adjacent property owner's has not been filed. Description of Request The existing residence is a rambler walkout with a detached garage. The applicant wants to remodel the existing residence by adding a family room and deck on the lakeside of the residence. The existing garage is to be removed and a new garage and laundry is proposed to be attached to the house. The applicant wants to modify the driveway to have better ingress and egress from their property. The applicant proposes to remove .some of the hardcover (shed and bricks) in the 0'-75' setback area. The rocks, walls and steps are proposed to remain. In the 75'-250 setback the applicant proposes to add a deck and a family room to the lakeside of the existing residence. An existing deck and brick patio would be removed. Rock gardens will be eliminated and sidewalks will be removed. A new double garage with a laundrj' room would be attached to the existing structure. A new sidewalk would be installed and the driveway would be reconfigured. The driveway also provides access for the adjacent property (ncrthside). The proposed changes result in increases in hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area and an increase in structural coverage. A variance is needed for the family room to encroach into the average lakeshore setback. To eliminate the average lakeshore setback variance, the 14' family room addition would need to be reduced to approximately an 8' addition. The proposed family room addition is more than 75' from the shoreline. Variances are also need to increase hardcover and structural coverage. Statement of Hardship The applicant has noted that the driveway is steep and located on a curve in the road (Shadywood Road). The driveway also provides access for the property to the north. Issues for Consideration 1.The applicant is remo /ing 192 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 0'-75' setback area and increasing the hardcover in the 75-250' setback area by 450.5 sq. ft. Additional hardcover such as the 33 sq. ft. patio could be removed and the size of the improvements could be reduced. 2.The structural coverage could be reduced by eliminating the proposed family room and reducing the size of the garage. 3. 4. The rocks and walls in the 0'-75' setback area necessary for erosion control on the site. The property is located on the curve of a heavily traveled county road. The steep slope from the road to the garage pad, visibility, and speed of travel make it difficult to safely enter and exit the property. X portion of the existing driveway must remain to provide access to the adjacent property. 5.The design as proposed with 3 ’ overhangs encroaches into the required 10' side yard setback. The overhangs will need to be redesigned to 1.5' or the entire garage and laundry addition will need to move 1.5' nortn so that the overhang encroaches no greater than the allowed encroachment of 1.5'. 6.The proposal is adding 44' of new structure along the property line for a total length of 74.5' of structure 10' from the property line. There is only one window in the laundry room to provide visual relief from the side elevation. Staff Recommendation The proposed design does improve the ingress and egress to the property from Shadywood Road. However, the proposed additions to the lakeside of the residence increase both structural coverage and hardcover. It would be difficult to ask the applicant to reduce hardcover in the 0'-75' setback as the existing hardcover is due to the topography cf the site to prevent erosion control. Hardcover and structural coverage in the 75'-250' setback could be reduced. The garage and laundry room addition could be reduced and should be moved 1.5' further from the property line if the 3' overhang is retained. The applicant also needs to submit the acknowledgement form from the adjacent property owners. U22lf Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shadywood Rd.~~Variances 3/17/97 pageX i Application it Date Received - Amount Paid ^ 0 * 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) “f .y »., . . * *• •• • •• • •♦I Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address C? ^ po "ts Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3/ ________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pr^erty Acquired JO-i ^ ^C>___________________________(month/year) I (do) ^o also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property'; Zoning District; residential other (specify). APPLICANT Phone (home) V2/ ^ ^ Name R>c/Na||r<J f<o -Zic-h^y___________ Phone (work) V 7 6 C3 ! Address; / Cg ££> Cit\'; _____Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address;City;.Zip;. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ oo o (attach additional s|ieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width t/^ardcover 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) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2.■U All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of ovMiers 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 Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surv’eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproduction. __ Topographic sur\ ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/a" 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 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant 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 e.xpenses incurred in review’ of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date ^ -^1-97 7 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. Date 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 February 21.1997 RE: Variance Application 2016 Shadywood Road FED# 17-117-23 31 0002 Legal names Richard William Kozicky, Married Carmen Maria Kozicky, Married .. j' n A' 7^' 4-r,• ! 4 i * Description of Request Remove Existing garage, sidewalk, patio, shed, deck, and miscellaneous hardcover Add Porch, deck, garage, foyer, laundry, and sidewalk Modify Driveway Hardcover No change in current total hardcover. Reduction of hardcover in 0-75 zone by 4.7 % Description of Hardship The driveway entrances are steep and located on a sharp curve on Shadywood Road (CR#19).This makes for a dangerous situation for both entering and exiting due to poor visibility on a extremely busy road and intersection, especially during winter with high snowbanks and ice. The north driveway entrance is a shared driveway with neighbors. RUN DATE OE/19/97 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME tAXPAYER NAME/ADDR V ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 17 17-117-23 31 0003 03746 SUNSET DR RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC 4300 BAKER RO MINNETONKA MN 55343 38 17-117-23 24 0026 01978 SHAOYNOOD RD MARTHA J HAENY MRS MARTHA J HAENY 1978 SHADYHOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0001 02000 SHADYHOOD RO ROGER KIRCHNER ET AL N/L JOHN C HELLS 2000 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0012 02032 SHADYVKX)D RD J A UNRUH A J M BURGESS JOYCE \JHR\JH t JAMES BURGESS 2032 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI935401 PAGE 1 17 17-117-23 31 0045 03701 SUNSET OR SUPERAMERICA GROUP INC SUPERAMERICA C/0 TAX COMPLIANCE DEPT P 0 BOX 14000 LEXINGTON KY 40512 17 17-117-23 31 0049 03746 SUNSET DR R 0 NAEGELE ROBERT 0 NAEGELE 3746 SUNSET DR SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 17-117-23 24 0027 01990 SHADYHOOD RD GREGG D KLOHN GREGG D KLOHN 1990 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 24 0028 01998 SHADYHOOD RD 0 A J SOLTAU DUANE K A JANET E SOLTAU 1998 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0002 02016 SHADYHOOD RD R H A C M KOZICKY RICHARD H KOZICKY 2016 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0011 02024 SHADYHOOD RO PAMELA J HILLETTE PAM HILLETTE 2024 SHADYHOOD RD ORONO MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0013 02040 SHADYHOOD RD D A J ZOSCHKE DAVID A JUDY K ZOSCHKE 2040 SHADYHOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF DATE 2-ZO-^X. ^ Q a C I i ^ •vi t- ■•■■'■I -'f. /V' • 'A ■ : V - -7 iSr* - i r;» I ^ (/ Jf; v.'V’f 'll- .'i 0 ‘ filWS iy/117/21 KOZtCKY.mOC M>VANCE SURVEYING d ENGINEERING CO. SMif.M«|r.NaMI MImmUMMSSMS nMf«ll)4T4 m« rM(«t7)474t24T DKAmn Nombcf 2S. I«9« DtCK KOZICKY B LBQALPttCMFTlOM; AB^ 1 ^ <-----^ #iirr*li IM W|imii^ ii tm MwlliBtiBilj tmmt iif I oi T. *«n l«A ilH| *r Wctf H« Bf iBl 2 IB • poto 1 12 «S fcai Iw iK cunw b T Ui I; iWM KtiitwBiHity Ib tl» Iril HO itpBn M mOmM Ib *c Aoit *f U0« MmmU; *mob MBiiOwtmity tlaat m»d A mb ib *b NBrOwrty hw af Ul 2. Ombm t■l^llllMil^p ilaat mU NatMf hM ib *b psiai b T Obsmbm ^ ■« h ^Omm t Mbmob *! IB *B piBi tenar BB OlB BI b T fBBBBi Ib Om OfficB B^ iM CoMiy lUciMBtf. BMlirfgm; •C B«r wi^BaB far OOi jail te Bf Mbbis : VRttBB af kaaai«y ttatt af On iBgal Omiipitaa pa« Bf asWat iBipwvamBtt BB Ombm O iBipaiiHB. M a» VBfiiyiat b M MawMBia la mA *B aamm af Ok fiapoil BOcMMOMBaarAalai. gTAHPAMPIVIAIOIJA VlhaaiMl/r »pipB«ilfcplBiikH4f OnriBtSiaic IkaBBt N ib b Ow f2)5. tti. if V U AHc«i aOlM iMUlllla iiiBBI hh 1. 2. 1. 4 CMTinCATlOM! I iMMOp CMliiy iMi Ms Mrvfy BBB pnpift^ Ojr BN ar aadcr aiy Obad Mpcfvblaa mO dM I fMAHlaaal EBi<Ba«r B r|pfa|lMNl^ao«]ror mb Ocm Im Laws b T *a SiaM af MiMNsau.ywfcMiaBal ffagiBiBf mJ B laoNfor Ib ^ H. NAar P E. A PS.r^fH5 KAIl; ONf INai EQUAU 20 fCCT r rt€ MB CM or 1 01 I 20 SCALE ■OBI • B7B4 LAKE Miruji: lOfiKA (omiM BAv) - ^ ■ 0 « y> O « • J • ti Q) ftS ■ I • M CS) «o • B • i» 0 M • t • M 0 B • I • 40 0 10 • IB • lao njij^ 0 Ii • It • at 0 14 a 4 • It 0 so S a 44 7 • I >«B 0 i a 4 • Ii 0 B a M • t 0 M a It - 141 0 ii a J • BB 0 40 a B • iBB AMiAi or 0 - iV IOC f *-}--)• • 40si «aiA% or it . ito* lo< VVi.. 7^ ) %....... •’fc. frjj-)a IJO • tBit Ml Ml / 404t • IB Jt ® ps : »). »i-j—ya a/ • IBM 0 ia i a ii 1 • 4ft • IBM to tuaviv i«4f or CMCJI.O/t ^UH^ I lo O N W Uiio 4>t4 4it4 / Hit 4S BSB |C'i=WS:;:iLvi iK “ #61071 MivTA i7nimi mzncY.DKxADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING Ca raninmtw lU DICK KOZICKY MtVPfH):>lni>«.WW CBAQEB l iwuinwcMmoN-. Ai «r ut 1 «< ui t t. 1WJ Mnar I*. WW )iB>»wwi>) I—«rui 1;«MM Sm*<?Wall«rfUl 2• H« >lU)N oc A oM I wM rirturty tai to ia priirt iftnltohn: dl to *tlMi t. MtaM's I li iM ftol iatoof « flit or of Ptotoi to ito OffiM if tot la* UUITATIOWfltoMQm: ^__ Ha toiii if ito totototo tor toii j* It to floltota: “ * iflMtoajrtoaiiftoii^rifltocr^i^y^^Mtoid.I. 1 S. 4. Itop toVtoUyiiiloll Miiwr^atoiftotloL at ftototd iwpat toi. to aa% tot eonan oftot itopaty. «3j.toi.irvii C4 ___IMbyctoriiytoa ■ FtotoMlMBlBl# , — or atoa ay totort a^ttototoi aa toa I tto fiofctoloMl Savtyor aitor tot IM of tot Sato of I Sgga; wmUfro kmirtml aMaFJ.toPXNa923S ONE INCH BQUAU 20 ffCT 1: n ,cI ... 'i • t .V. I . / « 1 .IK Mi cai qr iOM CNi • ftoit LAKE MINNETONKA mat mutcNa MOC RmCMD 0 - TS O i - It- 9€D IVMtoCD 0 • I • M 0 40 ■ ■ - 0 to • 1 • to 0 I ■ 5 • 40 0 >i > «i ■ 400- atoc «uto«p 0 JO »■ 44 3 - tJ4t 0 2 1 J - 4 0 • • 1 5 • t 0 ».t ■ 40 ■ 44t MOCK CAKXN NCMtoCD 0 ft ■ t ■ ♦§■ toot CtoOCM WOtONO 0 40 ■ t ■ Ht KTtALK MMOaS AlKAt V 75 - lar I9€i O toiS4« WM Q 3 ■ to - ftt O 12 ■ 17 • lot 0 ft ■ 20 • 2» 0 ti ■ fiat • iTiOj 0 3 ■ 11 • 31 (ULJJIZ), 130 - to25 Jtoli 3to33 /W2S - 3US ij.tw TO I Mr it cmc 1.025 SUtVlf 10 OMi. 475 475 / 40*5 - »• tl ® M IttO ORMTtAr UOOtoCD 0 tot ■ too ■■ too QtllAOr WIKMI) U720 tJtl 1MI / *t75 - 14 IS itottoM. fuiKT V vmrmrr a^nx • AOVAMCI aUtoCYWO i too Ma Mto75 961075R 1 10 V. Hl*J V^-^n. ^iCK^ V A F ^L^VA~ I si »/4*t 1.®' ] .1:4 1 !■! ■■! ’• T •_ J- J ..;\ T-• J &1 i ! IlfilAlk HfM AA«%«f> fc>\o& €rie TL^Ki I y4 •• I*, o^ % 1 4 r « I va »w. »*iw J^n*».x »t. MC u, i^ J ilLlX«X»x4 ' i □ilSill r*^ •' j r • * ’ t * ^ • ».« •*»T 9* ( i ' • . -% L_ . ^., 1 t t. ^ 4 I. ■ 4t OI <■ * <^A.R^r^^sj kio^i. I g ig^-< iip'r^TAi- b«.Y/'sMct n*«.*. a^#IC» »af IM • ^O. WA^^ A»4 g, f A •• .*«««•• /?\ - f ^ ^ T : • r c , ^ . -♦. \~~7 *.. <•. fr - S, -n TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator n. FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator March 13,1997 SUBJECT; #2216, Winston and Barbara Adams, 3195 Casco Circle-Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR- 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre, sewered Application: Multiple variances are requested for lot width, side yard setback, hardcover, structural coverage and average lakeshore setback to remove the existing residence and to construct a new residence. Applicant revised the application to include the pool and deck/patio area. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.25, Subd 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS-as proposed Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 23,281 sq.ft.90 feet 30 feet setbcc\ from street 10 feet Not applicable Not applicable The subject property is .534 acres and conforms to the minimum lot size of .5 acres. The lot width is 90’ where 100 ’ is required. The proposed site plan shows a driveway along the property line. The drivewa) encroaches into the 10’ side yard setback. No grading is allowed within 5' of a property line. Further, a driveway on the H2216, Winston and Barbara . idams 3195 Casco Circle-Variances 3/17/97 page-1 I i property line can create snow storage and drainage issues for the adjacent property. The driveway needs to be relocated at least 5' from the adjacent property line. 2. 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. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’6,774 sq. ft.0 484 sq. ft. or (7.14%) 484 sq. ft. (7.14%) 484 sq. ft. (7.14%) 75'-250’16,509 sq. ft.4,127.25 sq. ft. (25%) 5,941 sq. ft. or (36%) 7,196 sq. ft. (43.6%) 3,068.75 sq. ft. (18.58%) Total lot size: 23,281 sq. ft. 4,127.25 sq. ft. (17.72%) 6,425 sq. ft. (27.59%) 7,680 sq. ft. (32.98%) The proposed hardcover in the 0'-75' setback is 484 sq. ft. or 7.14% where no hardcover is allowed. The applicant proposes to retain the concrete steps to the lake and the existing boat house and deck. Building department staff have visited the site and have recommended that the boathouse and deck be removed because they are in disrepair. If the boathouse and decks w ere removed, the hardcover variance would be for 249 sq. ft. or 3.6% where no hardcover is allowed. The applicant proposes to increase hardcover in the 75'-250’ setback from 5,941 sq. ft. or 36% to 7,196 sq. ft. or 43.6% where 4,127.25 or 25% is allowed. In the 75'-250' setback a hardcover variance of 3,068.75 sq. ft. or 18.58% is required. The applicant could reduce hardcover in the 75’-250' setback by reducing the size of the structure and relocating and reducing the length of the driveway and parking area. The applicant could also reduce the patio and walkway around the pool. U22I6, Winston and Barbara Adams 3195 Casco Circle—Variances 3/17/97 page-2 3. Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 14, Yards and Open Space, C, Lot Coverage C.Lot Coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structure: 1. 2. 3. All roofed structiues which extend more than 6' above grade level. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which e.xtend more than 6' above grade level. Pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence. D.Tennis courts, pools, and paddocks or arenas, when such accessoiy' structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OVER 1,000 SQ. FT. Front Side Rear 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property 30’ minimum and not within the required side yard area i 1 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area 1 1 The proposed pool and deck is 1,507 sq. ft. in area. Because it exceeds 1,000 sq. ft., it is subject to the above yard requirements. The patio area of the deck is located 15' from the side lot line. It does not meet the 30' minimum setback from the side yard. The proposed deck and patio area also encroach into the average lakeshore setback by 29'. The applicant must move the pool 15' to the east or reduce the size of the patio and deck around the pool to less than 1,000 sq. ft. M221 6, Winston and Barbara Adams 3195 Casco Circle—Variances 3/17/97 page-3 STRUCTURAL COVERAGE ANALYSIS Total Lot Area: 23,281 sq. ft. Structural Coverage Allowed: 3,492.15 sq. ft. (15%) Existing Structural Coverage boathouse=235 house=3,272 garage=705 4,212 sq. ft. (18.09%) Proposed Structural Coverage boathouse=235 house=2,957 garage=800 pool= 1,507 5,499 sq. ft. (23.62%) Variance Requested 2,006.85 (8.62%) The applicant proposes to increase the amount of structural coverage on the lot from 4.212 sq.ft, or 18.09% (based on the interpretation »hat the existing patio and deck are not enclosed and not 6' above grade, if they are then structural coverage calculations need to be increased) to 5,499 sq. ft. or 23.62% where 3,492.15 sq. ft. or 15% is allowed. The applicant can decrease structural coverage by removing the boathouse, reducing the size of the structure and the pool and deck areas. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK <4. Section 10.56, Subd. C, 6., Average Lake shore setback No principal or accessoiy 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 proposed pool and deck encroach into the average lakeshore setback approximately 29'. An average lakeshore setback variance is required to allow the pool and deck to be located on the subject site as proposed. #2216, Winston and Barbara Adams 3195 Casco Circle— Variances 3/17/97 page—4 List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Application (Note: applicant revised original application to include a pool/deck area) Plat Map Property Owner's List Hardcover Calculations Existing Survey Proposed Survey Lakeside Elevation Floor Plans Acknowledge Form from Adjacent Property Owners Request for Early Review by City Council on 3/24/97 Description of Request The applicants intend to purchase the subject property and remove the existing structure to build a new residence with a pool and deck on the lakeside of the residence. Multiple variances are required to build the proposed residence as follows: A. A lot width variance of 10% to allow 90 ft. where 100 ft. is required. B,A sideyard variance to allow' the pool and patio area to encroach into the required 30' setback for accessoiy structures over 1,000 sq. ft. The driveway encroaches into the 10' side yard requirement. A hardcover variance of 7.14% in the 0'-75' setback area where none is allowed and a 18.58% variance in the 75'-250' setback area where 25% is allowed and 43.6% is proposed. D. A structural coverage variance of 8.62% is required to allow 23.62% of lot coverage where 18.09% is existing and where 15% is allowed. E.An average lakeshore setback variance to allow' the proposed pool and deck/patio to encroach 29' into the average lakeshore setback. Issues 1.The lot size is in conformance with the minimum lot size. There is adequate lot size to design a new residence that conforms to all of the zoning district's requirement except for lot width. #2216, Winston and Barbara Adams 3195 Casco Circle—i'ariances 3/17/97 page-5 1 2. The proposed driveway encroaches into the required side yard. 3.The pool and patio/deck area exceed 1,000 sq. ft. and require a 30' setback from the side lot line. 4. The applicant could reduce hardcover in the 0'-75' setback by removing the boathouse with decks and redesigning the residence, driveway, garage, and pool/deck/patio in the 75 ’-250' setback area. 5. 6. 7. The applicant could reduce structural coverage by redesigning the proposed residence and pool. The applicant needs to submit scaled elevations for all views of the proposed residence. The applicants have requested to be scheduled for the March 24,1997 City Council meeting. 8. The property is adjacent to a 60' public access point, Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should advise the applicant to redesign the structure to meet the Zoning Code requirements and to remove the boathouse to reduce hardcover. The hardships are created by the proposed design and not by any unique topographical features of the subject site. U22I6, Winston and Barbara Adams 3195 Casco Circle-Variances 3/17/97 page-6 Application # Date Received /ep-7 Amount Paid .(rt> 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 $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #29 - 5 y c.:f (5) 3 • # PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert y Acquire d i r.fSLj-r f K (month/vearl I (do) ^ n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. • Present use of projierty: )( residential Zoning District: 'LK-- ________ other (specify) APPLICANTrrjLu..Anx . ^ Phone (home) Sn ^ Name /3/^/^SA/e/i rrC>/^nn3 Phone (work) - 33'?^ Address: n46^4- O Citv:/$y^r/>^/W Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional s|ieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area X Width Hardcover _X—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:. ,.. _______^ . - . . • • • ^ ^ # I 'i’ f •. <( f (attach additional sheets if necessary) * Tpve (XpplvcOiAV ITCOIS^ +h^ 4^ppli4^bo ~k> include ^ podl/p^o -th* hordl if 14 !> ;e $ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be subinitt?d bv the application deadline date in nrder for vour application to be considered complete; 1. ___ Completed Application Form 2. ___ 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). 3. ___ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. 4. ___ Topographic sur\'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. 5. ___ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/z" x 11"). 6. ___ 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). 7. ___ 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 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. //-Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and flirther authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and^•erifi^tion of Jhis request. '(-DateOwner's Signature ______________________^ Applicant must ^ve all submittals into theC^fity 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, ple^e 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 r i i • WH DATE 02/E6/97 BATCH 504 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 56 20-117-23 43 0022 03205 CASCO CIR CONISTQN ESTATES INC CONISTON ESTATES INC 7 BROAD ST CHARLESTON SC 29401 36 20-117-23 43 0025 03185 CASCO CIR J PRAUS A C K HAVILAND J PRAUS I C K HAVILAND 3165 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OlWRS LIST 36 20-117-23 43 0023 03195 CASCO CIR ROBERT M A JUDITH 6 BOYLAN ROBERT M BOYLAN 3195 CASCO CIRCLE HAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0026 03165 CASCO CIR 6 K A D M CARLSON GERALD K A DIANE N CARLSON 3165 CASCO CIRCLE HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 8 36 20-117-23 43 0024 03165 CASCO CIR J PRAUS A C K HAVILAND J PRAUS A C K HAVILAND 3165 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 43 0031 . 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 504 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 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY Ti^TIOT^I, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF! DAIE^ PERTY Ti^TIOr^l, TC Icy 0 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________ X _____________ “ 500-11 Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk 5mii2s E. Paiio/Deck X X X X X X X X X X X X F. Landscape ______________ Underlain ______________ By Plastic ______________ Or Fabric G. Other ________________ x ____Bom House. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B 6ni4 xlOOI PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House __________________ X _ fi8ci n. 14 Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ^mviRs E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X 33S TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B XlOO 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. S.F. S.F. % 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. A S.F. B % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' AIIONl Cj5-25^250-500'500-K EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________ 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 Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B UD^3(y^X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck Fbou X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B X 100 'lOS i(di 3^*5 ^00 Up 50^ 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. w.C. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B •; LOT SURVEYS COMPANY. INC. tWSURVEYORS I V ft) 20 rtrr c.00 SURVEY FOR: STEVE BOONE fmu %m$mA»uMt to n u’T utAnounmirmAci* NiMifQ fT i-WiQrr ■ • WtQff OUVI«AT*I.WiQ n raoiAUA*ij9iiOfrawn —.tjtin n wwTAOi or NMO oow • ua fmmm tfyi \Poa AOfcA ---------------- ;■ .0^' PPOf^Seb 5Ut2\i£vY V cr • Oaitw fm Muin Sol • OvntM ¥m mum* r«i4 i-w mu * fn£mt^rn± • • m\bif X I (we) Adjacent Proper!}’ Owners’ Acknowledgement Form /a s of C/?Scj C/Kr L [print name(s)] [print address] ikAllS ha\ e reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to coialrm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. n(7^ Date / Property Owner ?7 Date I (we) [print name(sX [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Date Date 7 17 - If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 1 i Tracy T. Ingram Executive Sales Associate £X.hibi+ February 21, 1997 TO: THE CITY OF ORONO To Whom It May Concern: Winscon & Barb Adams, the purchasers of 3195 Casco Circle, Wayzata, Minnesota, are hereby requesting that they be placed on the March 24th City Council docket. Winston & Barb Adams sdi m mi9 A1 Excellence Lake Minnetonka 2477 Shadywood Road Orono, Minnesota 55331 Office: (612) 471-0722, Voice Mail: 472-9406 Each Offlca Indapandantly Ownad and Oparatad i I 1 ¥ ' i *• . *^* •4 'T {. ' '“1 ■ 1 4<i-'fc ' ‘ » ' ' •: ^ * - ] TO; FROM; DATE; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner^Zoning Administrator March 12,1997 SUBJECT; #2217, John Timmesh 1945 Fagemess Point Road-Variances-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT; LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre. Sewered Application; The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance, structural coverage variance, and a rear yard variance to add a 1 8' x 31' storage addition to the existing garage Pertinent Ordinances; 1. Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Y'ard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Y'ard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 22,564 sq. ft. (5,330 + 17,234) (.3° acres) 152.32 ft.61.4 ft.25.3 ft. proposed on east side, 51.7 ft. on west side 26.7 feet proposed (VARIANCE NEEDED for 3.3' encroach) not applicable The subject property is .39 acres which is less than the required minimum lot size. The proposed storage addition is proposed at 26.7 ft from the rear lot line and requires a rear yard variance. The existing shed in the northwest comer of the property encroaches into the side and rear yard requirements. It should be removed. The existing deck/pool and a portion of the house also encroach into the required rear yard, however at the time of construction (1980) the deck and the pool were in conformance. The street address file for this property includes a notation that the three-season screen porch was built sometime after 1976 without a permit. The applicant should not make any changes or improvements to the screen porch without obtaining a rear yard setback variance and a building permit. The property currently has separate tax parcel numbers for the portions north and south of the roadway. The parcels need to be combined into one tax parcel in order for the applicant to receive credit for the total lot area and to prevent the lots from being divided and sold separately. 2. Section 10.22, Siibd.2, Lakeshorc Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary o» 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 feel 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. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback flardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75’5,300 sq. ft.0 84 sq. ft. (1.58%) 84 sq. ft (1.58%) 84 sq. ft. (1.58%) 75'-250’17,234 sq. ft.4,308.5 sq.ft. (25%) 4,509 sq. ft. (26.15%) 5,067 sq. ft. (29.40%) JfsS sq ft. (i!3?%)4‘^.^ TOTAL:22,534 sq. ft. (Total Lot Area) 4,308.5 sq. ft. (19.12% of lot area) 4,593 sq. ft. (20.38% of lot area) 5,151 sq. ft. (22.85% of lot area) 8 *2.5 sq.ft. :3.73%) The proposed addition increases hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by j.23%. The existing hardcover in both the 0'-75' and 75-250’ setback area exceeds the allowed hardcover requirements. The applicant could reduce hardcover in the 75'-250' setback by eliminating the existing shed in the comer of the property and reducing the size of the proposed addition. 3.Section 10.03, General Provisions, Stibd 14. Yards and Open Space, C, Lot Coverage C. Lot Coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage bv structure: 1. 9 3. All roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade level. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level. Pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence. STRUCTURAL COVERAGE ANALYSIS Total Lot Area; Structural Coverage Allowed (15%) Existing Structural Coverage Proposed Structural Coverage Variance Requested 17,234 sq.ft.2585.1 sq. ft.house= 1,801 shed=83 pool/deck= 1,375 Total=3,259 sq. ft. (18.9%) house= 1,801 shed=83 pool/deck= 1,375 storage addition=558 Total=3,817 sq. ft. (22.15%) l,231.f' sq. ft. (7.15%) The existing amount of structural coverage is 18.9% where 15% is allowed and 22.15% is proposed. The amount of structural coverage could be reduced by removing the 83 sq. ft. shed and reducing the size of the proposed addition. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Property 0\vner’s List Hardcover Calculations Proposed Surv-ey Elevations Acknowledgement Form from Adjacent Property Owners Description of Request Applicant seeks hardcover, rear yard setback, and structural coverage variances to add a one-stor>' storage area to the east side of the existing residence. The proposed addition would be connected to the existing double garage and have a garage door. A driveway is not proposed to be installed in front of the proposed addition. A hardcover variance of 1.58% (84 sq. ft.) in the 0'-75' setback area and a 3.23% (558 sq. ft.) in the 75'-250' setback area is required for the proposed addition. A rear yard setback is proposed at 26.7' which encroaches 3.3' into the required 30' rear yard. A rear yard variance of 3.3' is required. The proposed addition increases structural coverage from 18.9% or 3,259 sq. ft. existing to 22.15% or 3,817 sq. ft. where 15% or 2,581.1 sq. ft. is allowed. A structural coverage variance of 7.15% is required to construct the addition as proposed. Issue.s The lot area is .39 acres, the minimum lot size for the LR-IC zoning district is .5 acres. The applicant should legally combine the two tax parcels into one parcel. 2 3 The shed on the property is encroaching in the required rear and side yard setbacks. The deck and pool area were constructed in 1980 and were conforming at the time of construction. The deck and pool area exceed 1,000 sq. ft. and are not in .onformance with current side and rear yard setback requirements. The three-season screen porch was constructed sometime after 1976 without a building permit. Any improvements to the screen porch require a building permit and a rear yard setback variance. The proposed addition will add an additional garage door facing the street. The applicant is not proposing to ad.d a driveway, however, staff is concerned that a future owner may increase hardcover by adding a driveway. The existing residence exceeds the hardcover and structural coverage requirements. The proposed addition increases both hardcover and strucVual coverage. Ate. 7.Staff is concerned that a future o^^•ne^ may want to add a second story over the proposed storage addition which would increase the visual impact on lakeshore views for adjacent properties north of the subject property. Staff Recommendation The applicant can reduce the need for structural coverage, hardcover, and rear yard variances by reducing the size of the addition and eliminating the shed in the comer of the property. The applicant needs to combine the tax parcels into one parcel to receive credit for the total lot area. Any future improvements to the screen porch need to have a building permit and a rear yard setback variance. Should the Planning Commission approve the addition, a condition should be placed on the approval that prohibits a future driveway to the garage door which would increase the amount of hardcover. * t < H22I7, John Timmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 3/10/97 page-5 Application if ! * j____ Date Received / 9>\ lO'^fOA Amount Paid 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 $2SO/00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) -’’r •■') “i ?? t M * it U . • 'y 8 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address / ^ V5~r/r RJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /(?^//1 ~ Q3' ^3 ~ OO f ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 3 ~ ^5 .(month/year) I (do) (do- not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___^other (specify) Zoning District:_____________________________________ APPLICANT Name *Jon 77u1 ; ^ m e. 6 Phone (home ) Phone (work) ______" Address: / 9 4^5* f~(x^ e.r ne, S3 F'/ AVtitV': O c?Zip: ^539f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /^- /S OOC Describe request in detail: /? /g c3/ a/fex.c.h^c/ (attach additional sjieets if necessaiyO VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) A HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance \%*ith Zoning Code requirements: Wrpu ^^ / 5 "To T^^JJy /7€-e.c/ ^f~orc<^e S Pa."for tn ho U ^ /uLUft fr)/\.r h/rt'& t-y ^ <nou>h /cu>-e.r ^ Sno<x)iyiO hi )e.^ ^ Mird ^<xt- e.7t.. (attach add'tional sheets if necessary) 1 REO JIRED 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. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv'eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy iVi" 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 vour 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. Applicant's Signature / Date Q.-zo^n 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 Signature Date 'Z '~Z<P~?7 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 ■•7 /e-;i7-23-(f 17- ll7-2?-2? 5? r" RUN OATE 02/12/97BATCH 506PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR 0HT4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST38 17-117-23 23 000601920 CONCORDIA ST JOHN E NEIST ETAL JOHN E HEIST 1920 CONCORDIA AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0011 01929 EAGERNESS POINT RO LLOYD DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 6015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS MN 55^19 38 17-117-23 23 0017 019^0 CONCORDIA ST ERIK A THOMPSON ERIK A THOMPSON 1940 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0011 01951 CONCORDIA ST J B NALDRON A L H NALORON JOHN B & LYNN H NALORON 1951 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0014 01925 CO^^COROIA ST THOMAS M KONAT THOMAS M KONAT 1925 COf^CORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 506 00015 38 17-117-23 23 000700038 AODRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYD H DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 6015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS MN 55419 38 17-117-23 23 0012 01937 FAGERI^IESS POINT RD R D ROBERTS ET AL RICHARD D ROBERTS 1937 FAGERNESS POINT RD ORONO m 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0018 01945 EAGERNESS POINT RO J P 4 P J THimESH JOHN P A PATTI J THINMESH 1945 FAGERNESS POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0012 01945 CONCORDIA ST R N RAGATZ A J I RAGATZ RICHARD N A JILL RAGATZ 5709 AYRSHIRE BLVD EDINA MN 55436 38 18-117-23 14 0015 01905 CONCORDIA ST N A C BERGLUI4D NORMAN TENNER BER6LUND 1905 C0(K:0RDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PZ4SS401 PACE 223d 17-117-23 23 0010 01921 FAGERNESS POINT RD 0 L PETERSON A E H PETERSON DARRYL L PETERSON 1921 FAGERNESS POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 0 i LSi ■1 38 17-117-23 23 0015 01932 FAGERNESS POINT RD BARRY J HARON BARRY J MARON 1932 FAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 S V V • rr»—' 38 17-117-23 23 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO J p & p J thim:iesh JOHN P S PATTI J THIMtIESH 1945 FAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0013 01935 CONCORDIA ST THOMAS N LYTLE THOMAS H LYTLE 1935 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 t • ** ^ I 38 18-117-23 14 0016 01950 CONCORDIA ST H F a K A PETERS HILLIAM F a KARAN A PETERS 660 SAODLEBROOK PASS CHANHASSEN m 55317 RUN DATE 02/12/97 BATCH 506 ery. k ’V?.t' 'J •.* .«LU u C*«>. A i f-. pi Av-^ '^n ts'--! I* ‘V-.» HENNEPIN COIAITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1AXS401 PAGE 23 the FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS nl S^^irll^cnic ?!?ARTMENT of property TAXATION, TO THE BESTOF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE ■ 4I * < HARDCOVERfALCULATiOiN WOKA^HliJ!;i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 25^00’500-!000' 77 T) ■ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X •• S P Leaidi .* Width • - S P X S P • X * w . • S F • B. Garage - x i S P • 7 V . C. Driveway 4* x 2J 1 •84 • ••• t S P u.-J ^ ■ V • X S F•• D. Sidewalk . x S F «• rv ■’r • V' *m S F E. Paxio/Deck x %w* r • S F rV ‘-J • X m 1 **.S F . ■» . ( 1 • F. Landscape x • S F ‘ • .1 -• -• • . . ,♦ ».Underlain x S F • .» if c: . By Plastic. . , x • S F T. . V *'> "•N • .VV* a* A 1Or Fabric *•• WaX a aa» a • • G. Ocjher x m:S.Fa • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + n •m • •84 S.F.A • SSja X100 S3 JO S.F.B /.SR % ‘ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X • • • • • • - aa , S.Fa # * , . . L<o|th X : Wldih • S.F. • • • • X m S.F. ..X •S.F. B. Garaxe x SB*•S.F. . .. • C. Driveway • * x •• ♦ S.F.i * • ^ S.F. ' D. Sidewalk x •• • S.F.f •S.F. E. Patio/Deck x •S.F.• • X .•S.F.0 F. Landscape x S.F. • Underlain • x m -S.F.By Plastic x wm S.F.• Or Fabiie ~t t ♦ » • .* ft G. Other’ x •, S.F. •m TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONB •, i trFr A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4- B •S.F.B X 100 % • • * •## • • * #•• • • • . . . • • • f « •! • •B# a « % •• ^ • • i ’ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 HARDCOVER CALCULATiU^WUKAbttEEi .• •« 25-500’500-1000' NC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lenfdi Width SHED • • B. Garage C. Driveway % X X 6.3 D. Sidewalk c • . «- E. Pocio/Deck f P^QIp X X X X X X • • • F. Landscape BgUgvCQ^^^e? ^^2% • Underiain /________. ^ By Plascic.i/^ Or Fabric •»' O. O.h.r'^S;'*^I?. S' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A —4Sa<> + B y?.2?4 X100 - PROPOSED hardcover IN 7,ni^ A. 'House * Lcnfih Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk • • E. Patio/Oeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic • Or Fabric 3/ X X X X • X X X X Ga Other i8ot S.F. H _l.S.F. — S.F. •S.F. JJAc 72 I37C » /4 S.F. • S.F. S.F.■ S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. t S.F. S.F. ‘ V S.F. ^-^^9 S.F. 17. 2 3^ S.F. •**> * ■ .if-; A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SS‘P S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .t ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - 9 / SS^ £ SOC7> S.F, TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - f 9. 2 S.F. B tl.l'iA' X 100 • ^ O _J h A B •• • • t •• # 69' to’ \ « \ /of**' \0'fC'^- \>V40 v\o' \ .6'^ ■WOOD ICTAtWB WAU MAva aool? I « \ ^ \ \RALROAD SPKE • « \ TREE ROOT \ \ \ r*^ .6ft' \ • 54 '9' a2'°2!A2'U V 0®%V.'<3’^9 e^r5^ci fNGt' 9^9A ut®* LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ! Lot 2, Block 1, EAGERNESS GREEN, including the accretions to said Lot 2 lying between the southerly line of UNDER THE LINDEN AVENUE as shown on the plat of EAGERNESS and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and between the southerly extensions of the Easterly and Westerly lines of said Lot 2 to said shoreline according to the recorded plat thereof. o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This su'vey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, shed, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- | date 2-17 "97 ^thb\[ f L b ,• } n i: .■r^- • : i" • .'1^ r7 ..•; yj Q Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form^ I (we) C-clIeii^. f^oLt^rfs of /?37 /^^er/tg55 Pt ^ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prope^ located at /^^rneS^ ^/^also referred to as Land Use Application No. Cl ^ /. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. g. . 7s,()LiL Property Owner Date Property Owner Date ************* A 1 (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^ ^ I TO;Chaii Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City AdministratorLiz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator aFROM:DATE; March 13,1997SUBJECT: #2219, Penny Saiki. 2874 Casco Point Road--VarianceS"Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre, sewered Application: The applicant is requesting a front yard setback to relocate an existing garage and reconfigure the driveway to include two curb cuts to improve ingress/egress. The relocated garage would also be located forward of the principal structure. An addition to the existing residence woui J be constructed in the location of the existing garage. Pertinent Ordinances: 1.Section 10.25. LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 6, Area. Height. Lot Width, and Yard Requirements DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet U22I9. Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road-Variances 3/17/97 page-] SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 14,686 sq.ft, or .337 acres IW approximate 30' setback from street: 20' setback from property line 8.5'on west side; Won east side 32'feet for proposed addition Not applicable The subject property is .337 uhich jj ' iss than the required minimum lot size. The relocated garage would be 30' from the street, however the property line is 10' from the street setback across part of the east half of the front lot line. Because of the unusual shape of the front property line relative to the street, the relocation of the garage requires a 10 ’ front yard setback. 2. Section 10.03, General Provisions. Subd. 9, Accessory Buildings, D. Location No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street.... The proposed relocation of the garage places the garage closer to the street and front property line than the principal structure. The relocated garage encroaches approximately 3' into the required front yard based on the location of the principal structure. 3. Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 12, Crowding Principal Buildings. No accessor>' building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory building. The sketch plan for the relocation of the garage indicates that the principal structure and the garage would be separated by 10'. The applicant needs to verify on the building plans that the garage will be located at least 10' from the house. #2219, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road —Variances 3/17/97 page-2 4. Driveways It is a City policy that each residence have no more than one driveway unless traffic and safety conditions warrant a second curb cut for ingress and egress. The applicant has asked for approval to have a second curb cut to allow for improved visibility due to the limited sight lines along the cur\ e on Casco Point Road. The Director of Public Ser\ices has reviewed the request with the City Planner/Zoning Administrator and recommends approval of the second curb cut. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J K L Application Plat Maps Property Owner’s List Legal Name Form Request for Early City Council Review on 3/24/97 Acknowledgment Form from Adjacent Property Owners Existing Sur\'ey Proposed Surv ey Drainage and Hardcover Hardcover Calculations Floor Plans Elevations Description of Request The applicant is asking for approval of a front yard setback variance to locate 20' from the property line and 3' into the required front yard based on the location of the principal structure and permission to install a driveway with two curb cuts. Issues 1. 2. 3. The lot area is 14,686 sq. ft. or .337 acres, the minimum for the LR-IC district is .5 acres. The proposed design does not require a lot coverage or hardcover variance.i The garage is proposed to be located 20' from the front lot line and to encroach 3' into the required front yard setback based on the location of the principal residence. #2219, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road—Variances 3/17/97 page~3 < I* 4.The applicant has stated that she designed the addition and patio area to preserve lake views down the driveway and to allow for light. 5.The applicant has stated that the natural area to the east of her property often smells like decaying leaves and she would like to relocate the garage and build an addition that allows air to circulate through the patio area. 6.The Public Services Director has recommended approval of the driveway to provide safe ingress/egress. 7.The applicant will need to verify on building plans that the principal structure and the garage are separated by at least 10'. Staff Recommendation To approve the application finding a hardship based on the unusual front lot line. d U22I9. Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road-Variances 3/17/97 page—4 • • Application ft c^3k)9 Date Received ^ ^ Amount Paid gjgjQ" CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Aj plication Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Varia.nce Fee $120.00 ftvV (no change from original application) ^ , Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 ' After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) V-: V • — PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Propert>’ Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3l ^ • : t 8 Attach legal description to application i^jiMncluded on required survey. Date Property Acquired, f not m( 57^ I (jskS (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___^other (specify) Zoning Districi: (month/year) APPLICANT ^ f. I Name i/Phone (home ) ^71 (7 *7 2- Phone(vvoric ) 47 ( Zip: S3^i OWTS'ER (if different than ap^ant) Name____________ Phone (home). Phone (w’ork)_ Address:Z Citv:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ JE oOO IDescribe request in detail: 3^ iS^TBA^m\\^ TX: /(TmiQN op pi^>p is vsev fok sw^ev'^ (attach additional sjieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width , ^Ws&e Setback; X Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS gets SO Keep A^s> WUM) uXG' *T5 wsf)f 16 6^ e/csr sice gp eicisr. RMW\ (^p^ow ob^urr (S’ u^QLJaixSoToox^-------- IF 6MAS ______AT eAcKcSwiHfrip Kgef r^Wr CO\ieUi&f WVK^ e (attach additional sheets if necessary) ‘ ’ S»f*» r 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 3 >C 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, ^^^80271).m mlUCo. ovj Certificate of Survey (signed by a lIcen^cr^fv^?fJV^^d include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. ' 4. - 5. 6. 7. 8. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor «S: elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. I his 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 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 reouested by the Zoning Administrator, ^agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered W original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application,'^nd 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 Signature Date '^•'20-^1 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 W <>9/^ ! 7 o?</ -^>7i:;M ■^13 /'^ / ys,y'■ ‘ ^''y,:S'/^ ■^/, ''L 10 —' i’O) /o lL\tVvs-' L*^ 4*1'*'m '%/^ y -./1 44 a- 7 / *" ^/ /r^?/$/L 4 i?// 7 i /^ys / \ /(9 )/> /. ^ .3A^4/|>2'44/:^ ?j7'jV7-r.4 fs/-^.^^'^// -/^ 58)a?^-4r4«y C -C'W 115 W' %'''-' "rv 4^ y (\6U/ XyV"^ni / ^>/36 X. /. ^N./'A' ,;o/ V '/5 / ; / X'iK U-Ji \ 4;^. IS4 ■>7'~"-~i^8H 7 F~ 7^5^ (26) V' V \50. X Vo'/ 7-^ ^..Xv.y^HO X /V447V' /4/X,\^\/_'4/'X ; \./ ,'IOO^fX'3'1 7 ''\ ^08 /' y? i \ -•■ / (55)/ x' »r.7 / \ ^ \ 99 / ,-V^ 1:3; \ /7V^// ^'%752)''-/\ / \/7vx //' 4y«)5®/ Vv X X/X;X(5i)/-' Bchibll- (3 X 94^ \ v^ ,'\rO ^,- X' '^/(‘>8).XxX| » A. . t \ ,-0 RUN DATE 02/21/97BATCH 513 i ' PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR ME»«PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIMERS LIST38 20-117-23 31 0004 03703 CASCO AVE CARLOTTA F GABLES CARLOTTA F GABLES 3703 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HEM^PIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 20-117-23 31 0026 02900 CASCO POINT RO D SIGAFOOS ETAL DONALD SIGAFOOS 2900 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0054 02879 CASCO POINT RD L D S K E ELSEN LANRE^X:E D A KATHERINE ELSEN 2879 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0058 03721 CASCO AVE D R NELTY A M M JIN 0 R NELTY A M M JIN 3721 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3138 20-117-23 31 0005 03709 CASCO AVE R PRESLER/E J PRESLER TRSTES ROBERT PRESLER 3709 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0022 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 20-117-23 31 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 20-117-23 31 0056 02871 CASCO POINT RD R E NOLFE R E NOLFE 2871 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0067 02868 CASCO POINT RD CHARLES F NELSON A NIFE CHARLES A LUCY NELSON 2868 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 002002874 CASCO POINT RD PENNY J SAIKI PENNY J SAIKI 2874 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0023 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PENNY J SAIKI PENNY J SAIKI 2874 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ’ \•' v; ' vV 38 20-117-23 31 0053 02695 CASCO POINT RO RICHARD 6 HELSTRON ETAL RICHARD 6 HELSTRON 2695 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA M4 55391 ‘J j * i 1,I 38 20-117-23 31 0057 02835 CASCO POINT RD ROSEMARY C IVERSEN ROSEMARY IVERSEN 2835 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 ■ .A. A "■.y* 'L 4 TOTAL BATCH 513 00014 O' -4- 0 MM DATE 02/21/97 DATCH SIS I t \ •J / . t' HE»fiEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QMSRS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5A01 PAK 32 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON, TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. . 4 . i DATE • on 0 I' 'K£'%iU)cryy *• i evh'fi^b ■ lTe^^ 0- 160U NAM& Cf Tfje^ f^sow WITH- lNr6ip5^ IM Vf^ pfofW is iSAiKi, A SlM(5'te^ P^0{.J. ..i ^/C2.i h'l J p-' hZ- cwf l/AM ^tAdmi , ftAMNiMS ADfVVif!\S1W^^ m' p^.' \Jh^tWd fop. lAKJO l/Sp ApfV'lQ^W 2-2. AT 9.^71^ pT PO (3AP^ UXATIOM IP \AfMAfce I s Apffovao l^4AUiM,OUSl/Y f>'^l TP^ piAN/7(Nj6 ^ /V\^^i(S- ofoccam'Sfiotv^ AT /vv>(pa-t n, V vV(9uuo /vpfj^Aip R, 86V1PVV /vr tvtP AVvpcH 2if^ OOVKfCh'b <r WcMC Yov > f O6C6WE0 felNbilf m 0 7 W7 Or OBONO Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Forirf I (we) Q^kcQr |>5LS ^ J VA ^_y of Q^«r;oO [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at '^'1^ Q{SCO also referred to as Land Use Application No. '2J2A^ I (we) understood that in e.xecuting this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use hut merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Property ‘^vner 3-r-c^ 7 Date - S' - ^ ‘~7 Date I (we) ^^ ^ of ^ Ci f C"' Pj) rorint narnks)! [print address] have reviewed the plzins for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located atfW______also referred to as Land Use Application No. 2l-^/ ^ . \ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. qM Property Owner Date ~ -5 - ^ -7 DateProperty 0wei If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. . .*.•*''■*• ‘ . T .V ; * •.—4 * -} ^tfi .14^ ------------ . V - _ / 1—j J /; /’4 w.' / //'/'i<Vf6i I I \ -f- \ ro ■X- / ^45 \ \ / I r , .iwr-'hT i i ^ y> \i^-.vi:. /• \ ■M l._ -k- ‘'^ I . /> ,’ ! / \ i '■00 • ' •. ' . **«'*‘V** - * r m •.• >*< 1 f V I ‘ c? \ {;4 t ' 1 \ i ■■‘^\1 •. ' <=ihS.1 fh I w w ^V5- + HWO^vep. V5M0 (■■■') '.w '^jAm - 1 >, ! 1 \ ■^1 ft'i a1 \ 4-— s t il .'j nH f I O 7L ITli i'- ----- :------1 — r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Jltii- March 12, 1997 SUBJECT: #2220 William and Karen Peters--Variances--Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore District, 1/2 acre, sewered Application: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct a new residence on a vacant lot. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 6,600 18,745= 25 'K sq.ft. (.5d acre) 201 feet 33 feet proposed 18 feet proposed Not applicable 20 feet proposed The subject property is 25,345 sq. ft or .58 acre which e.xceeds the minimum lot requirement for the LR-IC zoning district. H2220, Bill and Karen Peters 1950 Concordia Street 3/17/97 page-1 1 BUILDING HEIGHT Section 10.02, General Provision, Definitions, 13. "Building Height" The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes w'hich elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. The allowed building height in the LR-IC is 2.5 stories or 30'. The plans submitted show a walkout basement to the lakeside, a main floor, an upper floor, and an observatory. The proposed elevations do not include building height. The applicant should provide a grading plan to confirm the proposed height and perhaps reduce the building height by removing or redesigning the obser\atory to conform with the zoning district's height requirement. 2. Section 10.02, Definitions. 35. "Lot-Corner" A lot situated at the junction of, and abutting on two or more intersecting streets, or a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a continuous street, the interior angle of which does not e.xceed 135 degrees. The interior angle of this lot is 119 degrees. 3. Section 10.02, Definitions. 39. "Lot line, front" That boundary of a lot w hich abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the ow ner and filed in the office of the Building Inspector. Concordia Street frontage is 233.25' Eagerness Point Road frontage is 201' The front lot line is measured along Eagerness Point Road and is not dependent on the street address being on Concordia Street. U2220, Bill and Karen Peters 1950 Concordia Street 3/17/97 page-2 AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 1, B., Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: B. No principal or accessor>’ 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 proposed residence is 103 ’ from the shoreline. This is a comer lot. There is an adjacent residence on the east side only. Staff has previously determined the average setback line to be based on the adjacent property to the east. The line dra%s-n on the survey is based on staffs previous determination. The proposed deck is approximately 8' forNvard of the average lakeshore setback line. A variance for the 8' encroachment is required. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Proposed Survey Hardcover Calculations Elevations Floor Plans Photos Acknowledgement form from adjacent property owner s Staff Notes re; average lakeshore setback Description of Request The applicant proposes to build a new residence on a vacant lot. The lot has been vacant because a hazardous building has been removed from the site. The propo.scd design includes a basement, t\vo levels of living space and an observatory. A double garage is proposed with access off of Concordia Street. The applicant requests an average lakeshore setback variance to allow the proposed deck of the new residence to encroach 8' into the required setback. Building height may also be an issue depending on the existing grade. U2220. Bill and Karen Peters 1950 Concordia Street 3/17/97 page-3 1 t Issues 1 . This is a comer lot. There are two side yards and one front yard. 2 The lot size is conforming to the LRl-C lot size requirements. The proposed side yard setbacks exceed the minimum standards. 3. 4. The proposed deck encroaches approximately 8 ’ into the average lakeshore setback The deck would be located approximately 103' from the shoreline. The building height needs to be verified by the City's Building Official. If the building height e.xceeds 30' the proposed design will need to be redesigned or the applicant will need to request a height increase. 5. The lot has been combined into one tax parcel. 6.The proposed design is in conformance with structural coverage and hardcover requirements. Staff Recommendation The proposed deck could be rectangular instead of cur\ ed to avoid encroaching 8' into the average lakeshore setback. The house could be moved north 8' to pull the proposed deck area out of the average lakeshore setback area. The proposed building height needs to be verified. U2220, Dill and Karen Peters 1950 Concordia Street 3/17/97 page—4 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) Application ff Date Received^ Amount Paid Cj f*A ** .* V ^ ^ • I * ■ •? • 8 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address corOCo.^-p/A Tvs.e.&'r OJ 8 Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) |8~1\"7~Z3 W Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dal- PropertyAcquired______Cp/__________ I (do) n^ also ov'-n the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property: X* residential Zoning District: other (specify). APPLICANT Phone (home) Name i Phone (work)___Ss-j - 22.Z3 Address: 860 ’*S*dci\<^/Lo^\c City: ^Wt>iVAraso-j_______Zip: 0 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Btimated Constmction Cost $ 2S'o^o<>o,oi _ Describe request in detail: <;»uuT' uit>>c \f __fbfi ?c.oPor>eTt---- (•\ttach additional s|ieets if necessar>’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Hardcover 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: Tld ^ LOT*_13 T^ftv)6VL^ UllT)4r>v>lT~ T~ yK-C-Ari^T L-A>jr) Atsjp 'BO»-De^>-jg —Q-tsJ—— iHJP tr/vi.4g-P-Njg^s —Sg'V'^PA^krS— TD <;u tT^ -TH-i? L^O T. 44\^ d^le ^4-ML OvlgP— t ^ __1 ;r nor-occorvA\^\ KJ & (attach additional sheets if necessarj') 1 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. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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 Sur\'ey (signed by a licensed suiueyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/2" x 11"). List ol 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 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 corre^to the best of his/her knowledge. A L ,1/1 /)/} 7/ ^ Applicant's Signature ^Date >y2//^7 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 ai/d verification ^of this request. Owner's Signature Applicant must have 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 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 ■V RUM DATE OZMB/97 BATCH 505PROP AOOR 0I«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR n ■ PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY C^»^ERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 1558 17-117-25 25 0006 01920 CONCORDIA ST JOtM E HEIST ETAL JOHN E HEIST 1920 CONCORDIA AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 25 001701940 CONCORDIA ST ERIK A THOMPSON ERIK A THOMPSON 1940 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55591 38 17-117-25 25 0018 01945 EAGERNESS POINT RD J P A P J THIMMESH JOHN P A PATTI J THIMMESH 1945 EAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 25 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGt^O J P A P J THIMMESH JOHN P A PATTI J THIt*!ESH 1945 EAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA m 55391 38 18-117-25 14 0009 01965 EAGERNESS POINT RD G L EKLOE A C F LEE GARY EKLOE / CATHY LEE 1965 EAGERNESS PT RO HAYZATA m 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0010 01955 EAGERNESS POINT RO M S IVES A K F GEMPLER MARIS IVES A KARLTON GEWLER 1955 EAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55591 . ; 38 18-117-23 14 0011 • 01951 CONCORDIA ST J C MALORON a L H HALORON .*'?MN 8 A LYNN H WALDRON : lAi? CflNTORDlA ST HJK12-1A MN 55591 38 18-117-25 14 0012 01945 CONCORDIA ST R H RA6ATZ A J 1 RAGATZ RICHARD W A JILL RAGATZ 5709 AYRSHIRE BLVD EDIfiA MN 55436 38 18-117-25 14 0013 01935 CONCORDIA ST THOMAS N LYTLE THOMAS H LYTLE 1935 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 4 Sfl 117-23 14 0014 Ol':* CONCORDIA ST TW -r- sl.; M K(M«T THwHAS M KONAT 1925 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 30 18-117-25 14 0015 01905 CO^!COROIA ST N A C BERGLUtJO NORMAN TENNER BERGLUND 1905 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MT4 55591 38 8-117-21 14 0016 P itw xJMCORDIAST f I *! A PETERS WILLIAM E A KARAN A PETERS 860 SADDLEDROOK PASS CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TOTAL BATCH 505 00012 \ ^ ... ■ -. .3 I# *'V' ' o pf:*' \ \ ’■ RUN DATE 02/18/97BATCH 505 i •'•r•> ,/!* •/ >• *. ' • % V .• •, *■ If ••->• •' HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZ4S5A01 PAGE 14 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AG IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OP the HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. cC' ' ^ DATE -(22£2>- i ;=?.'“'ca "e : sl :^ve '' for BILL PETERS -0~S 23 AND 24. “AGERNFSS \NEP:N COUN“Y, V'NNESOTA ti i Z vA .•XX- * \ S0^ -• v^'.y :.v.'.,."‘'::J--%--• ' •-*' .•./•’rA'.A^ v.X.;? •ti, eV'- -.'.eY . ■; •• , *• • -f :*, .-.^- i .•.:e'., o' r.*l . \\7*Z* ‘ • V • ;. /-• 3* •#• V--.-# j» •/» -sr**: V- J-io'*:' ^ -4i *i r. » -yc* «2 ^*#1. r* r: •• •« cc»* *4. ::t . , ... • ^ . v<^»c:^fc t% %t.c '.••'• ■‘•Y • ■ ’■ **■■■ •'■’ '■ '""*«« *• ■»' • -■*•» 9=-w *■#<:* :9**4 •• »•• /*9JI >••• S3 .♦ <»C * • *« ‘ I# ' .a* s* c*i*C 9'* f ••'.'■■?. i:::r: -Ar;- '' * • --a*... t*?--;- rf -rs' s« ss;.- r^..* :ot.*rae -;,• >.r>f to »-a* nM«H\ m 51}••4U l< *4 k i‘.«*\ ComN & gronblrg . i\'f. Li.111'“L’a ^11; N,/ r ■i>3 f.im.it.HK \\inu« • l*H>»; Lik«*. \l\ '-»*%Vv ••i: <n JMl' I «in*t« fhji rS^ ^ J t\ ^ .• u%iii m» J f»%i «»*a^ 4«wl tiui lam^ Jait (t Lit I ^ *««ir\«n>« ^»^rf iN»- ns- xjn- •« _______________________________________________ VU»k ^ \l.*^v^4,i J«,iti^ NrfirNf fi*'' ” 44 » r«jo* IX* nsun ■ a \* nift HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’75-250*250-500*500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width S.F.© X X X \c»G .f.(D .F® S.F S.F S.F. B. Garage s ooS.F.f?) C. Driveway 2o X \8 3GO S.F.® X S.F. D. Sidewalk IZ. X H8 S.F.© X rr S.F. r ••E. Patio/Deck X S.F.® V* •*X S.F.® ^ •%♦ «• •21^4) F. Landscape X B S.F. /' - •Underlain X 8 S.F.* •By Plastic X 8 S.F. G. Other X 8 S.F. /■.......................... . -• . *• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. ^ • -4 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. /^7.‘ .7 A B JT338 X 100 =K % ^ ' : * V. .•% ^PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ’ f •>A. House X =S.F. _ s* i»Length Width X =S.F. X s S.F. X 8 S.F. B. Garage X S.F. C. Driveway X • S.F. X S S.F. D. Sidewalk X 8 S.F. X =S.F. E. Paiio/Deck X • gg S.F. X 8 S.F. F. Landscape X 8 S.F. Underlain X 8 S.F. By Plastic X 8 S.F. G. Other X gj_S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. A •B X 100 =% A B A B ^ o li&eTaum&eSf ENT(z.v FEoh CoNCo&oji^ ST. . •*' iV I. V U •; •■ ‘V 1 &MlNKerONKA PB5k5N. INC. OO W. 7AK. 210 Ow4«m«v MN »5917 IfVSnmV1—unit HIM------ f^'VxmsTom \OKHn IM ^KaLlLOPP IgL, PR J VSKa 10170 V\6^^J BHGCeJZ^ess PT PO. CLH qe.5 1D&> M (: w •. f .*• MlNNEf(3NKA t?E5l(5N, INC. 0O w. raik 5mu 210 Ow^^Mw. 5»M7 m * -74*10(di2> rtim B3H"‘ L-rr^rr.^:cw)ntrf [r»r»*i KVK^ & UtOFP iSsvfv P34 Cw» I— 1 Fi^liHI 1 V *5 SPtW> EL8\im'oKi Nliew TKOH AWAceKt ?i20^’6ay -TT ■S. MiNKCrONKA PB5k3N,INC.nwa ir.v, AILK ft Uim'P ao w. raiK 3t^ iuu 210 f?L<^l2> 5o PAX < 612) yocgMCggyywrf 00«7 IM IggKTIB^I "" fiowwBr”"”""ow Im i » r .• • "rf^ > • »•- it. •. aSSm-' f[ * L •»( J }l) f<- i ■ ■■• ■ ■ j-' ... : • ^ ••: ■ ,■ : - rJR— V •'* V' \ . "W \\ </ / . ^ « ,‘- ’ «: ■ c I .t-.‘A‘rw'~*i -| pfS9> SgB ^f|v t* •• ^^'W' W m 4 l>“ «v7> ' “r _ 'fert-T UVVS-.C- H10-. T^^;^,^^esV^\ W-'^ m - .-■•■•' '-.1« i''•.--• •'■^5-is I * -f ■ ? . ^ f •«* * I*;•V . I ?-v tr-mm S<.'' ;iM ■(?» if«i^ fl -'■ V ^((r-n-r Uto€ ‘FfLC:^ CPfTjt,i*Or l^e-RTf-S ' LOT » • t VM y.J)' ?vv.vfTM' , vt lf" ' ■•: ■,’^'- /'iv P:!’ i •• f- \ 1 '■ [ gflk’' ? , ,ii^ Bt\% '§M b »' I*' iVi I ■ij* L t trr It I R TT2-'^''/ L > T • <r '^O.-TVJ 7 h'Vr p t. fi-\ > »; -* (<.0 i ro-n£x-^ • • *'i ^: .■‘•^?2^fe ? -^n fl '■^ . 'I .* tir* »V KISVfe. .mm:'- '"M'j 5''*’' '■^■' ■A ,'•' . Is:^' -. ' •'’■ '.‘i ^ s- * ;•' . e L lv^Jt• ^c'RMetv'j ~r'“Viji T'a'PeVt-i'ier^v FAu-»_^ « •r n \■'•V To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the Peters property located at 1950 Concordia. We have reviewed the proposed sight plan and elevation drawings of the structure. The sight plan does indicate that the structure will projea into the sight line of our home as dictated by the Orono zoning code. However, based upon the tree line between the lots and that also there i* no lake view in the sight line direction, we see no reason the Peters structure, as indicated on the proposed sight plan, should not be granted the sight line variance. 2 - ao-99 Mr. & Mrs. John Thimmesh Date: 1 ' ?o>o^ r/V<a ^^TBACf^ F^fZ^ \j^ LOT FA^r^ft^T, r^ loT /fUL 17^'2^0 ’ *';>*?* f^r rO'-'(JT7/Jf'-^ L.--ti f f' ^-n 0' 6-10A^STAfV-p\^Ct^SS/0^3 Lor":s/Oe srpix^" /r' /aJ l^j^-lC V 25'^/o ^f-f''^tO'Je<i- 4lU?t ^7rO i^r. / ^ 7c- ^ rT'f0’/ve4i:’<«r- /\\\jb'' '>^'^ /"=:^ TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator March 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia, 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances- Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: To remove the existing residence and a construct a new residence. Variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and side yards are needed. A conditional use permit may be needed for excavation and fill in the 75' setback area. Pertinent Ordinances: /. Section 10.24, One Family Lakeshore Residential District DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS-as proposed Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 19,140 sq.ft. (excludes lagoon) .439 acres 80 feet Lakeshore lot 1.5'Lakeshore lot Not Applicable H2221 Sven IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 Forth Shore Dr. - Variances 3/10/97 page-1 The subject property is .439 acres which is less than the required 1 acre minimum lot size. The proposed residence would encroach into the 1 O' sideyard setback. A variance of 8.5’ for the side yard is required to construct the new residence. The lot width is 80 feet which does not meet the 140 ft. minimum lot width requirement. 2. Section 10.22, Sithd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration V/ithin 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporaiy' or p.^nnanent structures e.xcept as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 fc“t of the shoreline there sh. M be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30^o hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback (sq. ft.) Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75 ’4.630 0 1,708 sq. ft. (36.89%) 1,699 sq. ft. (36.69%) 1,699 sq.ft. (36.7%) 75-’250’7,460 1,865 sq. ft. (25%) 3,491 sq. ft. (46.8%) 3,468 sq. ft. (46.49%) 1,603 sq. ft. (21.49%) 250’-500 ’7,050 2,115 sq. ft. (30%) 1,098 sq. ft. (15.57%) 1,098 sq. ft. (15.57%) 1,017 sq. ft. (14.42%) 19,140 sq. ft. total lot area 6,297 sq. ft. (32.9%) 6,265 sq. ft. (32.73%) The hardcover analysis above was prepared based on the interpretation by the applicant and suiv eyor that the lagoon is manmade and should not be subject to the 75 ’ setback requirement. However, the staff considers the lagoon to be protected as well as the lake which places the entire site within the 75' setback with the exception of a small piece near the road and driveway. If the entire site is considered to be in the 75 ’ setback then a 32.73% variance is required where no hardcover would otherwise be allowed. The applicant is proposing to reduce the existing hardcover from 6,297 sq. ft. or 32.9% to 6.265 sq. ft. or 32.73%. The location of the lagoon creates the need if222! S\en IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. - Variances 3/10/97 page~2 for a long driveway which increases the total amount of hardcover. LAKESHORE SETBACK 3. Section 10.22, Suhd 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 entire site is in the 75' setback from the shoreline. The proposed residence would encroach into the lakeshore setback approximately 38 ’ forward of the 75 ’ setback line. The proposed residence encroaches approximately 63’ into the 75 ’ setback from the lagoon. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 4. Section 10.56. Siibd 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 proposed residence is forward of the adjacent residence to the northeast. The proposed residence is also forward of the residence to the west which is separated from the subject property by the lagoon. The proposed residence encroaches approximately 65’ forward of the averare lakeshore setback line. FLOOD PLAIN AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT 5.Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management, Subd. 4, B., Flood Fringe District (FFD) 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 elevations 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge U222I Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 Forth Shore Dr. - Variances 3/10/97 page-3 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. The existing survey shows that there are areas on the property that are in the Flood Fringe District. The proposed survey shows that the elevation at the southwest comer is proposed at 931.4 which may place part of the new residence in the Flood Fringe District. 6. Section 10.55, Subd. 7, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation The Regulatorv Flood Protection Elevation within the Floodvvay and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatorv' flood pro.iction elevations between cross- sections shall be interpolated. B. The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. The subject property is located in part below the flood protection elevation. The applicant needs to provide a detailed elevation and grading plan so that staff can determine the location and elevations of the proposed residenee relative to the flood protection elevation. A conditional use permit will be required for any fill or excavation in the floodway and flood fringe district. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property OwTier's list Hardcover Calculations Existing Survey Proposed Survey Topographical Map Elevations Floor Plans Acknowledgement Form from Adjacent Property Owner’s #2221 Sven IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. - Variances 3/t0'97 page-~4 Ii Description of Request Applicant seeks multiple variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, hardcover, lot area, lot width and side yard setbacks in order to remove an existing residence and to construct a new residence. The proposed residence would be a three-bedroom residence with a large garage for at least three vehicles. A lot area variance of .561 acres or 56% is needed where 1 acre is the minimum lot size and .439 is existing. A lot width variance of 60 ft. or 42.8% is needed where 140 ft. is the minin.am and 80 ft. is existing. A side yard setback variance is needed where the proposed side yard is 1.5’ where 10' is required. A hardcover variance is needed to allow 6,265 sq. ft. or 32.73% where 6,297 sq. ft. or 32.9% is existing and where none is allowed in the C *75' setback. An average lakeshore setback variance is needed to encroach 65' into the required setback. The regulatory flood protection elevation is 932.5 MSL. The proposed elevation for the new residence shows that part of th' new residence may be located below the flood protection elevation. Any grading or excavation in the floodway or flood fringe district will require a conditional use permit. Issues 1. The lot does not meet the minimum standards for lot area and lot width. 2. 3. The proposed residence does not meet side yard setbacks from side property lines. The proposed residence is located entirely within the 75' setback for Lake Minnetonka and the lagoon. 4. 5. The proposed residence is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. The location of the lagoon and setback requirements restrict development of structures on site. 6.The amount of hardcover existing and proposed is influenced by the need for a long driveway to the existing and proposed location of the structure. 7. 8. Any excavation or fill will require a conditio..il us permit. Detailed elevations and grading plans are needed to determine floodway and flood fringe impact. #222/ Sven Was berg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances 3/10/97 pages j I ■1 9. The proposed residence does not exceed lot coverage requirements. Staff Recommendation There are multiple variances for the proposed residence created by the uniqueness of this lot being narrow and the location of the lagoon. The lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback, and hardcover requirements as applied to this lot restrict redevelopment of the site. Staff is concerned about the impact of redevelopment on the floodway and flood fringe district. More detailed elevations and grading plans are needed to determine impact. A conditional use permit may also be required if any excavation or fill is proposed. Demolition and new construction on the subject property would be required to take precautions to protect the shoreline and the lagoon. U2221 Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances 3/10/97 page~6 Application # \ Date Received Amount Paid k CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) • Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $^0.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) L h h .. ••, d t * % 1 \ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ tl Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)____________________ 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; j>c residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District;__________________________________ APPLICANT M Name Address; t? f- Phone (home) 47/— I ^ ^4** _____ Phone (work) City; _______Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^aaa & ^ Address;__________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmetion Cost $ Describe request in detail: _________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area x Lot Width X Hardcover.Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condifions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^^6& A — ---------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) p,y 370.00 -----*r«ir REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following infonnation must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property OwTiers 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'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In audition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x H" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" 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 notif H of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant 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. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURl The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to tliis 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 Signature 4 Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conanission 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 m .eting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change piior t(' the meeting. . .* #•> 2/21/97 -I *••»•* b-K- : » I i'% * * * I f\> 'V - Attachment to City of Orono • Variance Application For: Average Lakeshore, Hardcover, etc. Owner: Address: Sven Wa^berg and Arlene DeCandea Home 3115 north Shore Drive Orono, Mn 55391 Contractor: To be determined Architect: Sharratt Design Company 471-1024 470-9750 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Most aspects of the existing structure are non-conforming. The existing structure is very marginal, structurally, mechanically, and spatially as it relates to present day standards on the lake and relative to the Owner's desires. Removal of the existing structure and replacing it in virtually the same size and position is the basis of the Owner's request for all the variances necessary. This need for variance is due solely to the existing non-conforming conditions and not due to the Owner's actions. 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. Due to the adjacent structure/straight line approach to the lakeside setback, this request is for a lakeside setback variance of 80 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 DESCRIPi’ION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: Site The site is over 356 feet deep from the Minnetonka lakeshore to North shore Drive, l-lowever. the site is very narrow and the lagoon cuts into the site area. The only location available for a structure is where the existing structure is located. Since the existing structure is allowed to remain as-is, the proposed building is only in the same iocation. The existing home to be removed is very foerward of the iine of site average lakeshore setback due to 3135 being setback so far due to the lagoon. This is due to an irregular lakeshore line created by the lagoon. Reasonable use In order to put the site to reasonable use, any new home design will occupy the same location as the existing home requiring all the necessary variances per current ordinances. (Please see drawings attached) ±L Cf)T; •.-I VARIANCE APPLICATION (cont.)n it Hardcover Hardship for hardcover is simply due to a very small lot size behind the buildabie lake setback and a deep tot 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: ZflUfi 0-75 Existino % of Zone ProDosed %of Zone 1708 36.9%1699 sq. ft.36.7% 75 - 250 3491 46.79%3468 sq. ft.46.50% 250 - 500 1098 15.57%1098 sq. ft.15.57% Totals 6297 6265 sq. ft. Total lot area =19,140 sq. ft. Hardcover % of total lot =32.89%32.73% Summary The project ’s hardships requiring the variance: • Very narrow lot width and size permitting virtually no allowable buildabie area by current zoning requirements. • Long lot depth requiring a longer than normal driveway. • Setback from the lakeshore of the present existing home structure is non-conforming. If the existing home was adequate to remain, it's position and size would not be required to change. • Irregular shoreline and extreme setback of one adjacent home. • The lagoon encroachment If further information or clarification is required, please contact the Owner or Michael Sharratt. Thank you for your time. Michael Sharratt (on the behalf of Arnie Wasberg and Elaina DeCandea) 1 r t/hvbvt- D HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET cr- r \.y SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250 ’250-500*500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 1 3 X _10^90 _S.F. • Length X _ Width 1 S.F.• ••%X _n S.F. • X __ S.F. B. • Garage n X _1^.3 B (3S _ S.F. C.Driveway X _(af>S.F. •f ,X _r= “I S.F. D.Sidewalk t X _S.F. X _er “_ S.F. E.Patio/Deck • S’X _S.F. l.S X _-2.4,4 » “/63 “ S.F. F.Landscape X _C3 S.F. Underlain X _B “S.F. By Plastic X _B " S.F. -J 0.Other 'U? 'X 0 '_ S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m 4fe»3o " S.F. .‘•’l A \^09y___+ B -Ah'^O X 100 t=Zj> - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE *.• A. House .X _TA ! •3^*90 _ S.F. \ •• • Length q X _ Width (fi^S.F.•2.X _8 “" S.F. X _to B so _ S.F. :v • B.• •Garage ^ .X _8 Ib8>_ S.F. > c.Driveway ?*s X _8 04 S.F. D. X _B ““ S.F. Sidewalk X _S.F. .X _8 “I S.F. E.Patio/Deck X _S.F. X _8 ~S.F. F.Landscape t X _S.F. Underlain a X _8 ~" S.F. By Plastic X _8 " S.F. G.Other X _ S.F. • % TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • /fa'ji S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -" S.F. A B _Ak>^o X100 = ~___% A B A B <k 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75'f^2SoZ)250-500'500-10001* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House • •• 1 'X .’2C>\S.F. •Length Width • X 4 S.F. • •An X 1 A^n S.F. <A/«s X d>iS 8 S.F. B.Oarage X S.F. C.Driveway •X S.F. ••X 8 S.F. D.Sidewalk • • X 4*2.S.F. X 8 S.F. E.Patio/Deck • X S.F. X 8 S.F. Landscape X S.F.r ^;f Underlain X 8 S.F. By Plastic X 8 S.F. • "N f'": 'io.Other X 1 S.F. ; 9 ' y TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE .^AA 1 S.F. »*. > .TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •1A uo S.F. y A + B X 100 8 46-% \ *" • . A PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House %X lo 8 *30 S.F. t ••Length width•• X 8 S.F. ••X 8 S.F. X 8 S.F. B.Oarage .>4 X 8 ft4<9 S.F. C.Driveway loo X 10 iOOO S.F. 6, %X xa lA^o ^S.F. D.Sidewalk X 8 S.F. . . *X \C 8 Ao S.F. E.Patio/Deck X ga S.F. X 8 S.F. F.Landscape • X 55 S.F. Underlain X «S.F. By Plastic X S.F. 0.Other X S.F. •4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • S.F. •TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. • <A1 ■h6<le>i>-I- B nAUfO X100 4te.S % A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN /.ONF. A. House ■ *' Y 75-250'250-500'500-1000' Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X X -AV.c V m r f I ^ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X /<? 1 Vj;/ ' * O. Other timtSl.no /ofe?o ■> » !t TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B noso X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House Length Wicjth B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X lO(o X X X X X X X X X / c I Ofoo 0. Other Ttvwi4«a. cA>icgr: “ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1,0^ e> + B noSo 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. tS.SI % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 tonh S.F. 1 S.F. /S.ST % A B A B TtU u .*!•‘ij Sm »• »r • *• < ■ -. *• *». H f i £xhibl-i 1 J CI RIIIICAIC 01 SURVEY TOR RICHARD J. OLSON OF TRACTS A & B.. R.L.S. NO. 269 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA • #Mt«« Iran morfcar (fill) aaftaiM ai*«o(io«v maan a#a ia««i aoton S«ar««9a ara a#M« ypcn art aatiavtaa 4att«n l»»t »^«ay iManat ta aha* Iha hatataariaa af tha aba«a «aacrW proparU. l>ta laaatiari al an a«iaiat« hauaa. aaa lha iaca(^ al at «ta«to *hvaca«ar- ihartarw R Rata nal piapart la iha* arty atitar aitpra«ar«tan«t ar artcroocfartaitit.12>MRl« {i I comN & gronberg. Inc. Cvn*iilirtf tn^'ii\r\. L^^/ Sumyn, 5 ft‘ rUw\r\ ^ ljmjrj(K, Av vnw • I ur^ Lake. M.\ sk\:y> 612-1714141 I l«taK titiati IKjI lk» a «• |a»|Mn%l K •• •• ■» .laM I •*•!*< *m !*•% ^ a« Mjlr .4 UmIS (A«a«»a \bw««4il»r«Hr iK« •**’v I**!! 7iffi \4« W Z7J i 929.4 Contour Line LAKE ■b(h\bif f. COUNT ^ppofoaep)i *•929.4 Contour Line » • LAKE PKOFeElV Shore *brKf€- 4:^ T^'-. -VTIT. _^*|W' ::- ^ -........:............. --'-•z-’-t'/^C^n _« • M :»• 1 #»-«. ^-f>-ii-*-»ii.*‘iiAJ ft *1 ^ ^ ■ ■■■f.' ^ f / ^V'’*1 } Pjicff^n ..... ' r* ^ I. V ^ .<•iA •v<1 J ;•.*• /^Pt-W pcofs 7Snxc^> |£t TH- ■ ^k4. \/»' = \'~o- ....................................-- fiOKlE- lOm 4’ \ 3 ■ rfri|2je<r r l/p' «• I’'©'' !? «jjo: ■ ■ / iff ■t/■zpl»c\... 'Sas. r :' _.I-PHE. B<Kibi+ 7 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) gU**»tMA _______of (print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at "ffWtj Kl^. also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. '__T 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to 'f''■^Ideclare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's .project or use requires Council approval. L-^ I • f i Date Property Owner Date *4i4i4ii|i4MtM|Mii4i4i4>4i4i4i#*4i4i4i«4i4i*i(>4nti*4i*****A********AAA****ft*4t**************>t>**4>4'*<»4>*4i* f. ^ A.4^.^. I (we) -f, [print name(s)) of t^|v^ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located atTglifg u^. c7^.also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of tlie improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. iT. Property Owner Date ♦ "f*. Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator & FROM: Liz Van Zoineren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE; March 13,1997 SUBJECT: #2223 Lake Minnetonka Big Island Veteran's Camp-Conditional Use Permit Amendment-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT; RS, Seasonal Recreational District Application: The applicant is requesting permission to move an existing cabin from the north side of the island to the boat docking area on the south side of the island. The cabin would be upgraded to function as an administrative/greeting location for visitors to the camp. Pertinent Ordinances: I.Section 10.31, Seasonal Recreational District, Subd. D. Overnight Camps Land or .structures owned or used by any public agency, unit of government or any private club, association or group for overnight or extended camping by families or individuals, including related activities such as boating, swimming fishing, picnicking, athletic fields or nature trails. This category includes overnight scout, church, YMCA, YWCA, Park Reserve and Veteran's Association camps. A conditional use permit may be issued for an overnight camp provided the applicant demonstrates and the Council finds that the property is large enough to support the proposed use without adverse effect upon the lake, upon the land or upon neighboring properties, and that extra private precautions are taken for fire protection and for security of persons and property commensurate with the number of users expected on the property, as follows: (rw paraphrased by stajjf) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Minimum dry-buildable record lot area shall be 5.0 acres. The minimum lot width at the shoreline shall be 200 feet. Kitchen and eating areas shall conform with Health Codes for Sanitation and Food Protection. Joint-use dock licenses are required yearly. Only 1 slip per 50 ft. of shoreline. Swimming areas shall be marked. U2223, Big Island Veteran’s Camp Big Island 3/17/97 page-1 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Toilet and sanitation facilities shall conform with Health requirements. All new buildings or structures shall be approved by the Council as to size, location and proposed use prior to issuance of any building permits. The property shall be provided with telephone serv ice for emergency use. Cabins and structures used for sleeping shall have smoke detection equipment. Assembly buildings for 50 or more persons shall have fire extinguishing equipment. An emergency preparedness plan for police, fire and medical shall be prepared. Property in common ownership shall have one tax parcel number. The application conforms with the above requirements. The relocated structure needs to be approved by the Council for size, location and use. The proposed size is 24' x 24 ’, or 576 sq. ft. The proposed administrative camp office would have telephone service. The camp office will not have any plumbing facilities. The cabin shall be located at least 75' from the shoreline. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Applicant's Statement Picture of Cabin to be moved Floor Plan Foundation Plan Site Plan File Plan for Big Island Description of Request The applicant is requesting an amendment to their current conditional use permit to relocate a cabin from the north side of the island to the south side near the boat docking area. The cabin would be upgraded and used as an administrative office for greeting and meeting camp visitors. The relocation of the cabin requires City Council approval. Issues 1. 2. 3. The application is for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit. The application meets the standards of the requirements for an overnight camp in the RS zoning district. The proposed relocation of the cabin will meet all the requirements for a building serving disabled persons and provide an identifiable entry point for visitors to the camp. U2223, Big Island Veteran's Camp Big Island 3/17/97 page~2 4.The applicant shall verify that the relocation of the cabin is not within the 0'-75' setback from the shoreline. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to the conditions that the applicant continue to meet all of the conditions of their permit and further, the applicmt shall submit a certified survey of the area where the cabin will be relocated to verify that the cabin is not in the 0'-75’ setback area from the shoreline. U2223, Big Island Veteran's Camp £;,c I'land 3/i'97 page'-3 r ......... V •- ••?; > r.v*'A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application » ^,7^ ^ Date Received -9y Amount Paid /6& A’ PROPERTY LOCATION , . Site Address La .^3 '^)GiS^A^O CAf^P Type of Application to be Filed__________________________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT ^ ____,_____ _ .................... Name Phone (work) » w<ok ~ S9^/ Addres s Ldidi. ^ Cm^ YvC-ff^/o-^ ^Jzip / ^ ^ Phone (home) Phone (work) »u.<ok ~, OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (horneX Phone (work) Address City Zip Date Property Acquired Lk1 fuj^ 7 ^7/cIa J I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL. USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request w'ith CUP application ^ * po4^^ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore t ■ ____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule . y $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _______ Present Use of Property______ Residential 02/21/97 Pay 150.00 Other (specify) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 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 mar 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 description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic sur\'ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(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 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:___________________________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 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 authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City ofTices 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 atter.d 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. Requested Information for Amendment to the Lake Minnetonka Big Island Veterans' Camp's 1997 General Land Use Permit. It is a goal of the Board of Governors of the Big Island Veterans's Camp to establish a Camp Office, that is more handicapped accessible for Camp visitors, campers, and potential future Camp employees. To accomplish this goal, we request to move an existing 16 foot wide by 16 foot long storage shed, v:hich is presently in the 75'-250' setback zone, please note the indicated building's present location on the attached Schoell and Madson Inc. survey map, and to then upgrade the structure to serve as a Camp Office. The proposed new site and preliminary construction plan information are enclosed. The existing docks area represents the primary point of entrance to the Big Island Veterans' Camp. Near this area would logically serve as the ideal site to establish a Camp Office, that would enable us to welcome and provide Camp information to campers and visitors. The proposed Camp Office site is indicated on the attached survey map. You will note that the proposed Camp Office site is located in the 75'- 250' setback zone. The proposed Camp Office site is approximately 140 feet beyond the established Lake Minnetonka "Ordinary High Water Level" (OHWL) of 929.4 feet. Also, the proposed site represents (benchmark 950.00) the average highest elevation point on Big Island. It is very desirable to have the Camp Office, which is the primary service provider structure, located on the same relatively consistent plane as most of the Island. This would enable us to provide the handicapped with transportation routes which could be traveled the most easily. The attached preliminary construction plans outline the proposed remodeling of the existing 16' by 16' building to then be used as a Camp Office. The structure's entrance would be expanded to a width of 36" to address accessibility needs. Basically, the plan indicates that a 8' by 16' screened porch would be added to the front of the structure. Also a 8' by 24' deck would be added to the structure. No water service is planned for the structure. Electricity is proposed for the Camp Office structure. Pay phone service at the Camp Office is proposed for the campers and visitors needs. This feature is presently a requirement for the Camp. The existing 16' by 16' structure is in very sound condition. The floor joists are 2" by 6" located on 24" centers. The 2" x 4" wall studs and ceiling joists are located of 24" centers. The hip roof is on an estimated pitch of a 3' rise to a 8' run. See attached photo of a similar structure. The existing structure has a very sound pine or fir (1" x 4" flooring) wooden floor. Windows would need to be added. The structure, and porch and deck, would be build on a foundation cortsisting 10" X 4' concrete pilings on 24" X 6" concrete pads, loc«(ted 4' below the ground surface. The 16 pilings would be located at 8'intervals. The 6" x 6" treated wooden beams would be ideated on the pilings to carry the weight. All 2" X 6" floor joia'”£s would be 24" on center. y ■f % - ^ » J» X* • • 'i ^■V-^1: - • I - •’ r • ,' . . >^ . * . iv^r V^s^<i/. > r«wSKr’rvt:r — ^•li CtoM To Be PeLOcAtcil^ / •*> Vo -.J o. r.• 'i -j r V# ‘t \ .* *'•^1 • V.. >. • ‘ *•» j^‘ V /;' •>•. ‘ --/4 ;k .^1 4 oCa. < SV C> X ;^%. ^ O t V 1------------ >r X 'o0 o * - ^ > >-Nn .-(.,i All. 'DD0|fJJu^1^ jy< 5>CALe 5^' 1/A.oe^ T)'^ tuj 5Y LXeJJC'^O <o ¥>is Si/ft <irT?'®i5 i ^ K kJ<^ ~^<ffic-) Sr^c i^-'^ I t^-.'uvr-'' / /J (500C^ a'Y At P>p^ 3/5^ f/fo* f/^'^^"- a: > I 4 /‘•/(/ MAW.M•••••••••••- • ••••# • •••••>:*K<*rSiil play ARliA -!i- ' mim ^Sc/>T ae-ACHl/Ji; SEC-URteVl G R AS FlRE./STAT)i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 18,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Comnussion met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Elizabeth Hawn, VVilliam Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. Janice Berg was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour and Council Member Goetten were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS (#3) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:02-7:14 P.M. The Applicant was represented by Neil Heupel. Gafffon reported that tr.e application had been tabled at the January meeting at the request of the applicant. The applicant has made no changes and is asking for action by the Planning Commission in order to move the application on to the Council. Gaffron reviewed the original and revised application plans previously presented. The structure was originally 17' from CoRd 6 and increased to 24'. The variances required include street setback, 150' lakeshore setback, and an average lakeshoi e setback, though the encroachment has been reduced. A conditional use permit is required for the guesthouse use. Smith asked the representative why the applicant has asked to move forward with the application knowing the opinions of the Planning Conunissioners. Heupel said the applicant feels the best plan has been presented and does not care to spend any additional money to revise the plans given the conditions and setbacks. Heupel stated the plan created the single entry required under the CUP for guesthouse use. He said they would be willing to screen the house from the roadway with land.scape plantings as suggested previously by McMillan. Heupel noted the plan also meets the requirements for the CUP regarding a separate kitchen and use of same well and septic for the entire residence. He reiterated the desire for the applicant and guest to have separate garage spaces. Smith noted while the entry into the residence is the same, it does not directly enter the family room as stated but is separated by doorways. i lawn said she would prefer a design with the three garage stalls together. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#3 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Schroeder inquired what the relev ance was of including a list of other guesthouse uses in the City. Gaffron said the applicant requested the list to see what has been constructed in this area. Schroeder asked if there were different situations involved. Gaffron said the setback v^ariance is unusual as well as the separation of the garages. Gaffron said a residence with guesthouse use with both attached garage and detached garage is requested one or two times a year. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2187. Smith listed the setback variances as the reasoning behind her motion. Lindquist noted the garage so near the roadway as being a problem. McMillan felt while the current residence is a reasonable use of the property, doubling the size of the residence w as a self-created hardship and not unique to the property. McMillan also said the variance would not be in keeping with the essential character of the locality. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for one minute.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) 7:15 P.M. - #2211 ZONING AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 10, LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING), MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO DELETE "ANTENNA STRUCTURE” AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE Bl, B3, AND I DISTRICTS - PUBLIC HEARING 7:15-7:33 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a zoning amendment to the ordinance under which a moratorium was adopted in August, 1996, regarding telecommunication towers. The moratorium was extended in December, 1996, and is due to expire on March 24, 1997. Staff expects to present the amendment change to the Council at their March 10 meeting. The change involves deleting the terminology allowing antenna structures in the B-1, B-3, and I Zoning Districts. If the telecommunications policy is approved, no antenna structures can be requested in those zoning districts. Denial of the amendment would allow such requests to be made. Smith asked the reasoning behind the amendment. Van Zomeren said the concerns involved aesthetics, setback requirements, and the rapid change in technology. Staff is recommending co-locating antennas on water towers if needed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#2 - #2211 - Zoning Amendment - Continued) McMillan asked if the elimination of such structures might diminish the PCS service available to the Orono area. Van Zomeren said she did not believe this would happen. She noted that Moorse has conducted the review and would be more knowledgeable on the issues involved, and it was his opinion that the current antennas are sufficient in surrounding communities to also serve Orono. Stoddard asked if there have been any requests for antenna to w ers. \'an Zomeren said the only inquiry was for client tracking. Schroeder asked who generated the amendment. Van Zomeren said the City is recommending the ordinance amendment. She noted that Staff is developing a policy to require any fixture antennas to locate oq public water towers. There were no public comments. Hawn was concerned about recomqipnding the amendment without hearing information from the telecommunications in(|uti|ry as well as governmental bodies prohibiting antenna structures. Van Zomeren informed Scftroeder fhat any application made at this time would require a waiver to the moratorium and hardship presented. She said the industry was not notified abop^ the ami^ndmept outside of the regular channels of newspaper notification which is appropriate. She ^ggested a mailing occur to solicit the industry's comments regarding the proposed telecorhmunications policy. Hawn indicated the CUP process allows for protection. McMillan said the telecommunications act made it more difficult for cities to regulate the use of antenna structures by the PCS companies. She felt it is reasonable for the City to be proactive. Lindquist concurred with McMillan. He said he was in favor of the amendment and recommends the regulation regarding antenna locations within the City. Hawn said her problem was with the process itself She agreed that she does not wish to destroy the aesthetics of the City. Lindquist said the telecommunication industry is well aware of changes being considered in cities and feel they are on notice. McMillan requested more information on the pros and cons of the issue. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#1 - #2211 Zoning Amendment - Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas within the City. Council Member Goetten said the Council has many of the same concerns expressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended. Van Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Hawn. McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process ACTION ITEM (#5) #2206 EI^INE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARUNCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0.28% increase over the 15% allowable. The lot width requirement is 100'. The property in question is 55' wide. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal would result in a 123 s.f increase of hardcover in the 75-250' setback and a 221 s.f reduction in the 250-500' setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two adjoining properties. Van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackberry tree located on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#5 - #2206 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one-story residence with basement in order to keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure. They also are attempting to save the hackberry tree. He noted the proposed deck does not extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house. The proposed house would be farther back on the property. Silus said the garage by the street will be removed and the driveway will become more centered. He informed Stoddard that the deck will be cantilevered and have a railing. Hawn expressed concern about w hether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree expert review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the structure. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back further on the lot. Hawn informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of substandard lots. The ordinances require that new construction meet the zoning requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus said their only other alternative is to build a two-story house, and they would prefer not to do so. Smith said she agreeds with Haw n but sees the proposal as an improvement to the property. She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the future. Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in structural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but w'as more neutral in its changes from the existing structure. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment letters from the neighbors. Schroeder asked if the 3-car garage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#5 - #2206 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of the requested variances with the additional finding that the structural coverage is excessive and no more improvements should be allowed in the future. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Schroeder. Schroeder indicated while appreciating the reduction in hardcover, the structural coverage should be maintained at 15%. (#6) #2207 JONATHAN AND THERESA HOFER, 3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting variances to lakeshore setback, hardcover, and average lakeshore setback for the construction of an additional of a great room above the garage. The residence is located in the LR-IC Zoning District which requires 1/2 acres and is sewered. The subject property is 6,500 s.f in size or 29% of the minimum lot size. Since there is no dedicated right-of-way but a prescriptive easement only, Van Zomeren said a street setback variance is generily not required. Hillside Place, a 25' utility easement, is located to the west of the property and cannot be built upon The house located east of the subject property is located on the property line as well as on Dakota Rail easement. The proposed addition will not extend beyond the e.xisting foundation The existing structure is located 45' from the lakeshore. The garage is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback exists at 43.27% which includes the roadway and garage. A 22.67% variance is requested in the 75-250' setback. The structure is located 15' in front of the lakeshore setback. Van Zomeren noted the hardships to include the lot size, the proximity of the structure to the lake, the Dakota Rail and Hillside Place easements, and the substantial portion of blacktopping for Crystal Bay Road. Van Zomeren reported that Staff reccmmends approval noting there is no other alternative without incurring additional variances. Mrs. Hofer indicated they have not resided in the residence and have just purchased the property. It is their intent to make the necessary improvements and add some additional living space over the garage. The deck was eliminated from the plan. Smith inquired if they purchased the property with the intent of adding onto the residence. Mr. Hofer said their intention was to improve the property. They were not aware of the need for any variances as they did not intend to build outside of the footprint. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#6 - #2207 Jonathan and Theresa Hofer - Continued) Smith asked if they had considered building out to the side of the property instead of upwards in order to create a less massive appearance. Hofer said there were three old and large oak trees on the side which they would like to preserve. He also did not desire to add to hardcover. He felt an additional story would make the structure too tall. He noted the addition does not block any views to the lake. The 340 s f of additional living space would allow the applicants to divide the current living room into two small bedrooms. McMillan inquired about the condition of the garage foundation. Hofer said it was solid During public comments, James Ogland, 3345 Crystal Bay Road, said he had no problem with the plans of the applicant. It was his opinion that these plans would enhance the property and would not block the lake views. He also noted that the house to the east of the subject property was no longer on Dakota Rail propert}'. Ogland said the property owner had purchased tne additional 25' from Dakota Rail. Hofer informed the Commission that it was his intent to make exterior repairs. The front and side of the residence would be white stucco and the remainder a maintenance-free siding. The roof would be upgraded to shingles. The work will be performed by a contractor. McMillan moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2207. Smith asked the exterior repairs be a condition of the approval. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2210 KENT E. SWANSON, 3229 B CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:05-8:11 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported that the subject property is located within the LRl-C Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires 1/2 acre minimum lot size and is sewered. Structural coverage is not an issue as there is less than the 15% allowable. A lakeshore setback variance is required due to the peninsula-shape of the lot. The existing structure is located 15-17' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The deck does not extend beyond the screened porch. The structure is 50' forward of the lakeshore setback. The application is an amendment to a previously approved variance request to allow for an existing l'x7' deck off the master bedroom on the third level to be extended to 5'x7. The 4' extension would add 28 s.f but with the walkway and deck, it would result in only 14 s.f. of additional hardcover or 2.72% increase. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#8 - #2210 Kent E. Swanson - Continued) Susan Swanson informed the Commission that the hardcover would be less than what was stated as the walkway is being removed. The second level deck is also being removed. The approval of the amendment application would result in less structure and hardcover than what was approved in 1996. It was noted that the property also provides access for the adjoining properties. The applicants have decided to expand internally instead of building outward. Swanson said the small balcony is too small for any use, and the change in size would allow them to walk out onto the deck and make it useful. Swanson noted that the Shoreland Ordinance was not in effect when the residence was built. The house met what was then the 50’ lakeshore setback. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2210. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#2) 8:15 P.M. - SAGA HILL ACCESS - PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW - 8:15-8:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaffron reported that the review of the Saga Hill access did not require any action and was a public information meeting similar to that held at the Park Commission Meeting two weeks earlier. Gaffron reviewed the properties involved in the Saga Hill area noting a proposed lot line rearrangement on the north side, which is on hold until the issues of access have been resolved. Undeveloped Garden Lane winds north to Highview and was originally intended to serve 20-30 lots. The City acquired the 21 acres of park land in the area for open space which has resulted in different needs regarding access. The beginning portion of Garden Lane has a gravel base and then becomes what could be considered a "cow path". The properties on Saga Hill are in the one acre zoning and meet the lot standards. The specific lots needing access are identified on the maps as 1 thru 6. Lots 1 and 2 on the south end could be served by a cul-de-sac. For Lot 3 and the park land to be served by Garden Lane would require the roadway dividing the open space. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether this option would be appropriate. The owner of Lot 3 prefers the use of Garden Lane for access. The owner had received a variance in the past to build on the property without sewering. Lots 4 and 5 are currently the subject of a proposed lot line rearrangement. Gaffron noted the City can vacate and relocate the public right-of-way but not in a way that would eliminate access to lots. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (M2 - Saga Hill Access - Continued) Gaffron reviewed alternate access routes. An access from Wildhurst would require a driveway coming up a steep hill to the west to Highview. The City Engineer has indicated this alternate is not preferred. The County has said there would be no acceptable location along Co Rd. 19 at which an access could enter from the west to serve Lots 4, 5, and 6. Also, that would affect the lots on North Shore Drive negatively. There is some platted right-of-way from the north. A back lot configuration was created along with some dedications of road from 50' width to 25’ width. The problem with this alternate is in serving Lots 4 and 5. County Road 151 would have to be lowered as it lacks the required site distance to the east. Gaffron indicated that there appears to be no good alternate for access other than from the south, possibly via a relocated Garden Lane. He noted the possibility of trading parcels from the park land with the Hennessey parcel, which is Lot 3, but it could be an expensive proposition. Another option would be to build a short roadway using Garden Lane from the south and another from the north. Garden Lane could be extended northward ant then jog to the west as the tax forfeit parcel does not have limitations placed on its use. This would allow for a driveway up to Lots 4, 5, and 6. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether any of the alternates are viable options, whether Garden Lane should be developed, and if the ravine should be avoided. He noted the Park Commission has discussed the issues as well. Lindquist opened the discussion for public comment. Jeanne Rostad, 4650 Tonkaview Lane, said she lives next to Lot 1, which she also owns. She is a 14 year resident of the area. Rostad said she would like to see access by various roads without impacting the open space in the middle any more than is necessary. She felt Lots 1 and 2 could be accessed by a private drive and another private drive for Lots 4, 5, and 6. Gaffron informed her that the code would require a private road for the three lots and the standards would be difficult to meet as well as expensive. Rostad indicated there was a steep slope to the east She felt the ravine should be left alone. Milt Krelitz, represented Mr. Soskin, owner of Lot 3, which is a 7 acre parcel adjacent to Garden Lane. Krelitz said Soskin purchased the property with the understanding that Garden Lane was a dedicated road and could be developed. He noted it would be difficult to make use of the land without Garden Lane being developed. He indicated Garden Lane could be used by Lots 1 and 2 as well as other adjoining lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#2 - Saga Hill Access - Continued) Kathryn Kasprick indicated she lives on the other side of Forest Lake from Saga Hill. She questioned whether the Commissions were keeping in mind the limitations placed on the park land property by the DNR during its acquisition. She asked the Commission to review the document. Lindquist informed her that the Commission is aware of the restrictions. Gaffron indicated that the restrictions do not cover the right-of-way. The restrictions cannot stop the roadway from being constructed. Garden Lane was not part of the park land. Jim Steffenson, 4665 West Branch Road, said his property is located to the north of Lot 5. He reported his concerns to be access from West Branch Road, noting the County's concern with the inability to see cars to the east, the grade changes, the major runoff draining into Forest Lake, and additional hardcover on Lots 4 and 5 affecting drainage if they were to be developed. Irene Silber, who lives on West Branch Road to the east of the Steffenson property, reported a person having been killed on West Branch Road. She indicated there is also running water on the road and is concerned with the steep slopes. Richard Krier of RLK Associates, representing Dr. Webb, owner of Lots 2,4, and 5, indicated the option of the City or pre.servation groups purchasing the Webb property, which is for sale. Patty Affeldt, reported she lives near the intersection of Tonkaview Lane and County Road 19. She reported Tonkaview Lane a.s being very busy. She was concerned with the steep hill on Tonkaview if an intersection was built with Garden Lane. She found it difficult to imagine more homes accessing from that roadway. McMillan noted the dynamics of the area have changed with the acquisition of the park land. This has resulted in difficulties, which she feels calls for a comprehensive and creative review. McMillan asked the Staff to further review the issues and inform the Planning Commission and Saga Hill residents of the facts regarding zoning, sewering, and park access. McMillan would like to see these issues grouped together and reviewed as a whole. She noted the acquisition of the park land has been a mixed blessing. Stoddard asked if the City Engineer has reviewed the access issue. Gaffron said the Engineer has only reviewed access from Wildhurst. Gappa said he feels the options have been reviewed and the area looked at as a whole. He indicated the options are detailed. At this time. Staff is seeking guidance and direction from the Planning Commission; and the Commission should attempt to come to a conclusion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#2 - Saga Hill Access - Continued) Lindquist indicated that none of the options are soundly acceptable. McMillan asked Gaffron to explain the zoning and sewer availability. Gaffron indicated the homes along Wildhurst and Tonkaview are served by sewer. If sewer were to be installed, it would come up from Garden Lane or from Wildhurst He noted Lots 4 and 5 were within the MUSA. To the east of the lots, the property is outside of the MUSA, as is Lot 6. The topography of the area is not conducive to being served by septic systems. The property within the MUSA is in the 1 acre single family zoning district, and the remaining property outside the MUSA is in the 2 acre residential zoning. Gaffron indicated that the lot line rearrangement being considered for Lots 4 and 5 calls for septic. McMillan asked who would pay for the sewer for Lots 4 and 5 if it were to occur. Gaffron indicated that the benefiting properties would pay for the sewering as is the case with roadways. McMillan questioned whether Lots 4 and 5 should be in the 2-acre zoning. Gaffron said if the choice was made not to be sewered and have mound systems, the City would probably allow that to occur, but noted the access issue must be resolved first. He indicated the lot line rearrangement for Lots 4 and 5 was tabled pending access issue resolution, which is directly related to the park access issue. Lindquist said he would prefer to have more information from the experts and would like Staff to reconsider the issues and have the Engineer review them also. Gaffron informed Lindquist that the Council has asked the Planning Commission for direction on whether they would like the corridor to come through the park or another option. He did not feel it was likely the Staff would come up with any othei options than those that have been presented. Lindquist noted the residents were not in favor of developing Garden Lane either, but the issue of having access for buildable lots needs to be determined. Kathiyn Kasprick said she thought the Park Commission had made a recommendation. McMillan in^cated that the Park Commission recommended Garden Lane not divide the park land but did not determine any concrete solution. The Park Commission had suggested Garden Lane be extended part way and an alternate be found for the lots to the north. Gaffron reviewed the routes Garden Lane could take noting the financial and aesthetic tradeoffs. He also indicated there has been no conclusion drawn regarding the future of the park land. Hawn inquired about the interest in trading land by the owner of Lot 3. Gaffron said the owner has owned the property a long time and had expressed interest in building on the property but has not formalized any application. The owner would like access to the property. Gaffron said the City has not contacted the property owner regarding a possible trade. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#2 - Saga Hill Access - Continued) Lindquist inquired whether there were any time constraints regarding solving the access issue. Gaffron said the property owner of Lots 4 and 5 would like to see a conclusion drawn for access to those lots as well as to Lot 2. McMillan inquired whether the park land results in sewering becoming unrealistic for the other lots. Gaffron said sewering would become much more expensive as a result. He did note that the MUSA line could potentially be revised and indicated that Lots 4 and 5 do not necessarily have to be sewered either. Hawn inquired about the cost of easements for a driveway between Lots 5 and 6. Gaffron referred her to the cost analysis in the report by RLK Associates. Hawn asked who would be responsible to pay for the improvement of County Road 151. Gaffron said no conclusion has been drawn but there would be some public benefit as well as benefit to the property owners. In noting the expense in making roadway improvements, Hawn suggested consideration be ^^ven to purchasing the property. Lindquist said he would like to schedule a work session for the Park and Planning Commissions to determine a solution. Goetten reported that the issue is confusing for all. She noted the need to provide access for those who wish to subdivide and felt a work sess • would oe helpful. The time for the work session was to be determined later m the meeting. Mayor Jabbour asked the Commission to recognize the City's policy regarding all improvements being charged to the benefiting property owners. He noted that 100% of street improvements are paid for by the property owners. Stoddard asked that the City Engineer attend the work session and requested Staff to speak with the property owner of Lot 3 regarding a possible trade in property. ACTION ITEM (#7) #2209 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 700 SPRING HILL ROAD, VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PEWVUTS - PUBLIC HEARING 8:54-10:23 P.M. Note; Planning Commission Hawn vacated her seat and was not part of this discussion on the Spring Hill Golf Club due to a possible conflict of interest. The Affidavit of Pi’blication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) The Applicant was present. Gafiron reported that the public hearing is to review a conditional use permit and variances for the construction of a private golf course with club house and maintenance facility on 160 acres within Orono and an additional 40-50 acres in Medina. The property currently contains Spring Hill Conference Center located in the RR-IB Single Family, 2 Acre Rural, Zoning District, with a portion, which includes the conference center, in the RR-lB-1, Single Family Rural Residential Sub-District, 2 Acre Zoning District A golf course is a permitted use within the RR-IB Zoning District A separate conditional use permit is required for land alteration in excess of 100 cubic yards. Wetland and bluff impact variances are also required. All of the buildings will be located within Orono. The club house will be part of what is now the conference center. The maintenance facility will be located along Tamarack Drive on the north side of CoRd 6 and will require an over size accessory structure variance. The facility will be reviewed as a single site. Gafifon noted the City of Medina will also be conducting a review of the proposed golf course located within their city. Gaffron indicated that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required for the conversion of agricultural land to another use. Orono is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EAW process. Gafifon reported that the Council will be reviewing the language of the EAW Document at a meeting on February 20. The Council as RGU is required to approve the document for publication, which allows it to be reviewed by other agencies for response within 30 days. Gaffron indicated that the applicant has responded to Staff concerns regarding the CUP and variances noted in the memo. Gaffron asked for review of the issues not yet scrutinized by the Staff and recommended tabling of the application at the end of that review. Andy Hunter, president of the non-profit organization, introduced the other members representing Spring Hill Golf Course: Marshal Braman, Consultant; Ken Adolph, Engineer; Tom Crosby, Attoniey, and Tim Johnson, Project Manager and Greens Superintendent. Hunter said the purpose of review was to begin the discussions regarding the golf course. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Hunter reported that the private golf club would be limited to a membership of 185 and have no country club-type amenities. The club will be an 18 hole championship golf facility and be open only during the golf season. The facility will be open for lunch and an occasional breakfast or dinner. No leasing or holding of other events wll take place. The club house will be 10,000 s.f in size and consist of a remodeled portion of the estate part of the conference center. The remainder of the 60,000 s f building will be removed. The maintenance facility will be 10,000 s.f in size. The golf course is being designed by Tom Fazio, who Hunter described as the #1 architect of golf courses specializing in preserving the natural setting Hunter reported that the subject property was on the market for sale over three years. Because of the neighbors concerns, the purchase of this property along with three neighboring properties required a non-development option. The other three properties had not been for sale but were sold through an option by the owners to keep Spring Hill area from being developed or becoming a residential subdivision. Hunter said these neighbors saw the golf course as pro-environmental. Hunter explained the time table for the project. The first five months in the first year will allow for clearing and grading. The next growing season will allow for planting and completion of the growing process. Play for golf would not occur until the third year. Hunter indicated that a delay in the process affects a full year. The organization would like to begin the process on June 1, 1997. Hunter reviewed the project issues. The organization had believed there would be additional land not required for the golf course. They found with the land contours, wetlands, and woods, that all of the land purchased would be necessary. Sbc different course designs were developed. Hunter said the variations were reviewed to find the best plan for preservation of the environment and answer of traffic concerns. A neighborhood meeting was held by the organization in December, 1996, and attended by 60 people. Individual meetings were also conducted. The neighborhood concerns included the following: 1) Increase of traffic to the area The organization will ensure that all employee access be from CoRd 6 only. 2) Entrance to the golf course on Spring Hill Road. The entrance was moved 1/4 mile further from CoRd 6. While this is not the organization's desired entrance, the change was required in order that golf not be played across the entry way. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) 3) Maintenance facility. The neighbors saw the facility as being undesirable. It has been located such that it will not be viewed firm the road or nearby homes without entering the golf course. It will also not be viewed from either dii cction of Tamarack Dr. or CoRd 6. 4) Concern with golf course being located on two sides of the roadway. A tunnel has been designed for location 750-1000' feet from the intersection ofTamaracr Dr. and CoRd 6. It will be used for golfer access and maintenance equipment. Maintenance equipment will not be crossing the roadway. Hunter noted that they will accommodate any changes to the intersection required by the City or County. Hunter reported that the golf course will be a member of the Audubon Management Society which requires the use of an environmentally sensitive management plan. Hunter said they will respond to the concern for a pedestrian trail to allow for a connection between Wood Rill, the Big Woods, and Wolsfeld Woods as recommended by the Park Commission. Hunter said they frilly endorse a trail along the perimeter of the golf course along Tamarack Drive, Spring Hill Road, on to Long Lake and are willing to mark the trail with a rustic fence to separate it from the golf course itself Hunter said there are approximately 15 acres of wetland on Long Lake to the south side of the project which they are willing to donate to Orono or a nature conservancy. Hunter reported that the trees are being cataloged and reinventoiied by a expert on trees. He indicated no tree would be removed without being red-flagged and marked. He said there were 500 trees of a size that allow for transplanting. They also plan on planting an additional 500 trees. Hunter said there will be no perimeter vegetation impact outside of the entrance and near the maintenance and golf club facilities. Additional plantings will be created on the north side. Regarding the Big Woods, Hunter said 40 acres are located on the north side with 12-15 acres in Orono. It is their intent to retain as much of an umbrella of trees as possible. He said the plan calls to save 50% of the Big Woods. Marshal Braman, Senior Environmental Consultant from Schoell and Madson, reviewed the delineation of wetlands and the EAW Document. Braman said the wetlands ranging in size have all been drained at some point. He noted there were three drainage systems which run through the site into Long Lake, all of which are ditched and degraded. Dams will be installed on the outlets for bo‘h enhancement and water restoration. This will require some excavation to occur. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) McMillan inquired if there are culverts under CoRd 6. Braman reported that three culverts run under CoRd 6. Schroeder asked about the 5.16 to I replacement ratio for wetlands. Braman said mitigation credits will be given for the new wetland created. There are four different wetland areas to include those being restored, a stormwater basin, an upland buffer area, and existing wetlands. All mitigation wall take place on the site and the ratio noted exceeds the State requirement of 2:1. Stoddard inquired if more wetlands located in Orono are being created than being impacted. Braman said 1.4 acres are being filled and 2.1 acres are being created. Schroeder asked if the mitigation is designed for protection of Long Lake noting the need for the MCWD to review the plans and their effect on water quality. Braman said these factors are built into the plan and will result in an improvement to the water quality in Long Lake. Braman reported having difficulty finding existing traffic data. The available information was prepared by Mn/DOT for the Hwy 12 Alternate. He indicated anticipating 250 daily trips in and out of the golf course The majority of these trips (163) will be from CoRd 6 to Spring Hill Road to the club house in a 12 hour time period. The traffic anticipated during the peak hour of 4;30-5;45 p m from East Long Lake Road will be 173 cars traveling south and 155 cars traveling north It is believed that the golf course traffic will add an additional 10 cars each direction or an 8% increase. There are 1058 vehicles per hour westbound on CoRd 6 and 334 eastbound. The golf course is projected to add 2 cars to the westbound figure and 28 cars to the eastbound figure. One to two cars hourly are projected to be added to the traffic on the other nearby roadways. Schroeder indicated his view of traffic concerns would be from left hand turns into the golf course during the morning hours Braman said the employee traffic will be distributed between the maintenance facility and club house, and the regular golf course traffic will be distributed throughout the daylight hours He noted there will be no tee times per se and an anticipated 100 individuals entering the course on a daily basis. Hunter added that 80% of golf is played during the afternoon hours. He expects there to be 50 rounds of golf each day. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Ken Adolph of Schoell and Madson addressed the surface runoff issue. He reported that the three watersheds drain north to south to Long Lake. All stormwater will run through one of three proposed stormwater basins before it flows through the three culverts which run to Long Lake. Nutrient removal will occur north of Spring Hill Road according to NURP requirements and include 100 additional non-golf acres to the north. Runoff rates will be maintained to pre-development ratios The irrigation well will pump into the basin and be drawn back out in a recycling pattern. McMillan asked if the basin will be maintained at a consistent Ic ^el. Adolph said there will be changes throughout the day from the water being pumped in and out. The water level is anticipated to peak during the early evening hours and reach a low point in the morning. McMillan was told that the outlet would be monitored. He noted that the details on the nutrient treatments and ninoff were included in the EAW Document. Adolph reported that the area where bluff impacts are anticipated was mined at one time resulting in the bluffs being man made. He noted the areas to be altered. There will be some retaining walls required within the tee area and the side of a slope will be cut down in order to view the fairway. Minor intrusion into the bluff will also occur by the driveway. Adolph said this could be changed with the use of additional retaining walls. There is a 10% grade in the driveway from Spring Hill Road requiring retaining walls on the uphill side. McMillan was informed that there will be no construction south of Spring Hill Road. McMillan inquired if increased flowage is expected under Spring Hill Road. Adolph said the basin will be built to a size to handle the existing rate. He noted there is little hard surface being added. Higher runoff rates will occur on the greens but will be contained. The discussion was opened to the public. Dick Krueger, 1175 Willow Brook Drive, Orono, said his property abuts the jolf course. He is concerned with the preservation of the Big Woods. He indicated that while a golf course was the best option, the golf course w ill come first before the preservation of the woods. He noted there will be a 50% decrease in the woods resulting in the Big Woods being lost. Krueger said the Big Woods originally ran from St. Cloud to Northfield and only 1100 acres remain in Hennepin County; 400 acres are being preserved and the remainder being developed. Krueger said the DNR had designated acre site for being undeveloped. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Krueger reported that the golf course property is a link between Wolsfeld Woods and Wood Rill. A fiill canopy of the woods is required for the wildlife to remain. He noted that the proposed changes will result in the loss of wildflowers as well. He suggested that the alternative for the property is neither a golf course or development suggesting a possible conservation effort as park land He asked the Commission to fiilly consider other options or the opportunity to preser/e the Big Woods may be lost. Schroeder asked Krueger if he was aware of any efforts by governmental agencies to protect the area. Krueger said he had contacted the DNR four years ago. The plant ecologist asked to be involved, but the owners did not foresee selling at that time. Krueger said funding would present a problem but felt it would be worth the effort. He asked that the process not be rushed in order to allow for public and private groups to get together for possible conservation of the area. Hunter acknowledged the environmental concerns while noting the 5.5 million dollar purchase price. Eleanor Winston, 765 Spring Hill Road, questioned the traffic and road improvements for Spring Hill Road. She asked if there would be trails along the roadway for horses and other uses W^inston said the horse trail along Tamarack Drive is very narrow. !t is her desire that the plans include trails for exercising animals She also concurred with the concern over left turns at Hunter Drive and CoRd 6 noting near misses of accidents and people passing both on the left and right. She asked that traffic be directed to that location instead of from Long Lake and Hwy 12. Winston said the conveniently bumpy roadway maintains a slower speed at this point but any road improvement would increase the traffic and speed. Bill Dunlap, 95 1 Spring Hill Road, said he considers himself an environmentalist but is in favor of the project. Dunlap feels the project is the best alternative that funding will allow. Tony Shull, 1125 Spring Hill Road, said he has resided in that area for 20 years and has watched the traffic increase on CoRd 6. He feels all alternatives for the property will result in increased traffic but embraces the project as the best option as it is the most environmentally sound alternative Bruce Carlson, 591 North Spring Road, said he believes the project is wonderful and fully endorses it. He asked to include the neighborhood regarding input on traffic. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Craig Alshouse, 1300 Willow Brook, an 11 year resident, reported that his property abuts the golf course. He said he has jogged and walked the area and feels it will be greatly impacted. Alshouse said the 11 acre parcel east of him recently sold. He reported that he ran and walked this property but never felt he had a right to do so. Alshouse said he does not feel he has the riglit to tell his neighbors what they can do with their land. While he enjoys the amenities of the area, he said he does not assume that they will continue to be there for his enjoyment. Alshouse is of the opinion that the golf course is the best alternative for the property and endorses the project. Alshouse said he considered a possible housing development for the property south of CoRd 6, septic systems of which would have impacted the area. The public hearing was closed. Lindquist asked if the review would continue at the March 17 meeting. Gafifon said an option would be a work session with the developer to work through the issues. Lindquist agreed with a work session as being the best option for further review. McMillan inquired about the time line of the E AW. The document is being discussed at a Special Council Meeting on February 20, and the next available publication date is March 1. There are two 30-day periods, one allowing for public review and the second for response to the review Gaffron reported that the Council has the option to grant a conditional approval pending the successful outcome of the EAW process. Gaffron said City Attorney Radio cautioned the Council that while legally having that option, they are convinced of the need to do so. Gaffron said the Council may want to send the EAW Document back for further revision depending upon the comments received by the agencies involved.. After further discussion of the process, the Commission determined to discuss the issue at the March meeting to review further information provided by Staff. A work session will be scheduled at that point. Tom Crosby noted that the maintenance facility, traffic, and lighting are not included in the EAW process. Stoddard asked if there w as the opinion that an EIS would be required. Braman indicated he did not believe so based on the issues. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Mayor Jabbour asked Staff to identify the variances. Gaffron noted the need to fill the wetlands, bluff impacts, and an over-size accessory structure variance. Jabbour inquired about Staffs opinion regarding the time table presented noting the need for CUP and building permit. Gaffron said Staff suggested tabling the application in order to answer the questions being generated. Jabbour said he was concerned with a CUP as being perceived as granting approval of the plans. He noted the CUP process is generally faster than that of the variance process. He also asked that the application fees be addressed up front. Gaffron said Park Dedication Fees would not be included as the project is not a subdivision. Jabbour noted the great loss of revenue to the City. Council Member Goetten asked Gaffron to determine what the amount would be if a subdivision was involved. Smith asked Staff to address the trail issue and elaborate on such plans. Lindquist informed her the Park Commission was addressing that concern. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2209. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Hawn had excused herself from the discussion of this application due to a possible conflict of interest.) (Schroeder absented himself from the meeting at this time.) (#4) #2205 ALLEN SCHEFERS, 2540 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:36-10:37 P.M. Note: Planning Commissioner Hawn returned to her seat for this agenda item. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was not present. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2205. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS (#9) #2208 JYLAND DEVELOPMENT INC, HUNTER DRIVF AND 6TH AVENUE NORTH - SUBDIVISION FOR 4 NEW^ UNITS The Applicant was represented by Rick Carlson and Mark Gronberg. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#9 - #2208 Jyland Development - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the property being reviewed for possible subdhision is located in the RR-IB Zoning District, One Family Rural Residential, requiring 2 acre minimum lot size. The 21-1/2 acre property is located along County Road 6 and Hunter Drive. She noted the parcel with the existing residence is excluded from the parcel being considered for subdivision. The lots meet the code requirements. The subdivision would be a Class 3 due to the creation of more than three lots. The proposal is for 4 lots with one outlot with a cul-de-sac. Van Zomeren wid their are unresolved septic system issues pertaining to the property with the existing residence. Steve Weckman has determine that the parcel has no alternate septic site, wd the current system is failing. Staff had desired the parcel to be included in the subdivision to allow an alternate site to be found for the septic. Van Zomeren said the drainage on the subject property is adequate. The property will be accessed from the high point on Hunter Drive to allow clear site lines from the north and south. Mark Gronberg indicated the property had been considered for maximum development of 8 lots meeting the 2 acre dry buildable requirement. After probes and wetlands were assessed, it was determined that the slopes were near the 6% limit and would require mound systems. This resulted in the subdivision downsizing to four oversized lots. Soil testing is currently being done and wetlands b. '.ig delineated. Carlson said they do not plan on pursuing purchasing of the property with the existing residence due to the high cost of acquisition. McMillan asked what types of wetlands are found on the property. Gronbeig said there are type 3 wetlands as well as two other small type 1 wetlands along the drainage swale and ditch area. He indicated a NURP pond would be constructed at the end of the cul-de- sac. Stoddard was informed that they expected very little change in the wetland delineation. McMillan inquired if any conservation easements would be necessary. Gronberg said there are normally drainage easements taken. Carlson said there were some conservation restrictions already in place on the property. The Planning Commissioners were satisfied with the sketch plan as presented. Carlson questioned whether there would be a problem in meeting the application deadline for the March Planning Commission Meeting if the test results were not yet returned. Van Zomeren and Gappa said they would make that determination and inform Carlson if there was a problem. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#10) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 21,1997 AND FEBRUARY 10,1997 McMillan reported that the Council discussed the E AW document for the Spring Hill Golf Club. She also indicated the application for improvements at Rick's Super Valu was approved with the notation that the property has reached its maximum capacity. (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION McMillan suggested meeting with the Park Commission regarding the Saga Hill access issue. Lindquist directed Staff to add this issue to the April agenda of the Planning Commission to allow time for further Staff review and Commissioners to view the location. The Planning Commissioners were reminded of the Council Work Session regarding the Spring Hill Golf Club EAW Document on Thursday, February 20. McMillan and Lindquist will attend. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13,1997 MEETING Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 1997. Vote; Ayes 5, NaysO. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECl' REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 24 AND MARCH 10, 1997 Smith will attend the February 24 Council Meeting. Hawn will attend the March 10 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Lindquist adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator March 17,1997 Possible Work Session Dates If Plarming Commission chooses to continue the Spring Hill Golf Club application review to a work session, at least three days posted notice is required, and the date'time chosen should be publicized at tonight ’s meeting. Available dates/times are as follows (staffs preferred times are in bold): Friday March 21 8:00 a.m. (Must be out by 9:30 a.m.) i Monday Tuesday Wednesday March 24 March 25 March 26 8:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. or 8:00 am. 7:00 p.m. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday March 31 April 1 April 2 April 3 April 4 8:00 a.m. or 8:00 a.m. 8:00 a m. or 8:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Mondav April 7 8:00 a.m. Tuesday April 8 8:00 a.m. or 7:00 p.m. Wednesday April 9 8:00 a.m. Thursday April 10 8:00 a.m. or 7:00 p.m. Friday April 11 8:00 a.m. Monday April 14 8:00 a.m. Tuesday April 15 8:00 a.m. or 7:00 p.m. Wednesday April 16 -/:00 p.m. Thursday April 17 8:00 a.m. Friday April 18 8:00 a.m. Your next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 21, at 7:00 p.m.