The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-21-1997 Planning Packetr PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Gabriel Jabbour ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1. 7:00 p.m. Telecommunications Ordinance ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 2. #2201 George Adams, James Fieger, S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580, 590 and 600 Big Island - Vacation or Use of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Continuation of Public Hearing 3.#2205 Alien Scheffers, 2540 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of i’ublic Hearing 4.#2214 Carmen and Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadywood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 5.#2217 John Thimmesh, 1945 Fagemess Point Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 6.#2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia, 3115 North Shore Drive - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 7. 8. 9. #2222 Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing #2225 John Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2226 John and Susanne Koob, 3065 JamestowTi Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 10. #2227 Gary E. Tucker, 3466 Ivy Place - Variances - Public Hearing 11. #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence, 253 Cygnet Place - Variances - Public Hearing 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, APRIL 21,1997 - 7:00 P.M. 12. #2229 Charles and Pamela Schroeder, 1925 West Farm Road - Variance - Public Hearing Tabled at Applicant's Request 13. #2230 Georgina Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing 14. #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road - Variances/Conditional Use Permit Continuation of Public Hearing Planning Commission Comments 15. Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of March 24, 1997 and April 14,1997. 16. Other issues for discussion. 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the March 17, 1997 meeting. 18. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of April 28, 1997 and May 12,1997. Adjournment Public Attendance Meeting Date C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. * NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (fl*oni agenda) NAME OR NUMBER ^ / 1. M rn f J u L- hn. ^ lXI^ IL- 3. 4. •TSU. '.'V7vJ 1 h ^ ^ ^1. f .1 j (T^c /i^ 14 PU^r\. (t/ r^//t^/7tl^ y^y? ^ ? /" ‘^/L c^f /f^Va..v.A/'Ty / *<■ (>cA . 3 ^ - ^/S^jr r!^i^o'<4^2^\01J'J»vCi <^53^ 26* 7 10. ^A<JLqi[ Jcr l/Ji fA11.cr? 3^^ 7 y~ Cc</^^ )!^y ^ H IA ^)J' \Mu 'Zc^f^c .2. PfViih- "XI \ V iY\ r^'^(!®lS /s 9'rA F/l^f-rnr-iS H-.r/i-)im 13. A0j'\|A T 0 \t ^)\ ty\rsk u If ;.(2Likii_iii 0 091395.4 (jr^chii.A.f. U^A ^^u^-,.4.'jfi V^^ I' f--^ V' ,2-?- r ■.^T •. tar j . '% Public A ttendance Meeting D ate C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.^ rpl) A / - /w?^3C(er C V //7 ^ i. ((ou; r . " ) Vie lxcn.i\ri pUa A.-^4dhi^h SiLiohiU^Qjp ^5^3 PL^^ii' P! 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. 9. 10._ 11. _ 12. _ 13. _ 14. _ 15. _ 091195.4 ^■^1^ j (^. •27? 7 4^ c? }i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 21,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Gabriel Jabbour ATTENDANCE Applicaots presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1. 7:00 p.m. Telecommunications Ordinance ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hes'^ngs. 2. #2201 George Adams, James Fieger, S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580, 590 and 600 Big Island - Vacation or Use of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Continuation of Public Hearing 3. #2205 Allen Scheffers, 2540 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 4.#2214 Carmen and Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shadyw’ood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 5.#2217 John Thimmesh, 1945 Fagemess Point Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 6.#2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia, 3115 North Shore Drive - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 7. 8. 9. #2222 Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing #2225 John Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2226 John and Susanne Koob, 3065 Jamestown Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 10. #2227 Gary E. Tucker, 3466 Ivy Place - Variances - Public Hearing 11. #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence, 253 Cygnet Place - Variances - Public Hearing i ’ I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, APRIL 21,1997 - 7:0© P.M. 12. #2229 Charles and Pamela Schroeder, 1925 West Farm Road - Variance - Public Hearing Tabled at Applicant's Request 13. #2230 Georgina Hackney, 2184 Shady wood Road - Variance - Public Hearing 14. #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club, 700 Spring Hill Road - Variances/Conditional Use Permit Continuation of Public Hearing Planning Commission Comments 15. Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of March 24, 1^97 and April 14, 1997. 16. Other issues for discussion. 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the March 17, 1997 meeting. 18. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of April 28, 1997 and May 12, 1997. Adjournment I TO:Planning Commission Members FROM; DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator April 17,1997 0 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Orono Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for the Construction and Placement of Telecommunications Towers and Antennas Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Policy regarding use of city-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas New telecommunications technology, particularly personal communications services (PCS) require substantially more antennas to provide coverage to service areas. PCS vendors are requesting additional antenna and tower sites in cities. In order to protect the city's interests while responding adequately and within federal requirement to these requests, it is necessary to revise the current city zoning regulations related to telecommunications towers and antennas. The first step in this process was to develop an overall policy regarding telecommunications towers and antennas in the city as a guide to amending the ordinance. The overall policy adopted by the city council is that Orono will limit the proliferation of telecommunication towers and antennas by allowing PCS antennas to locate only on the two city water towers. The city will prohibit the construction of any new PCS towers in the city. The greatest need for PCS antennas is in areas of denser concentrations of population and along busy highway corridors. The two areas in Orono that meet these criteria are the Highway 12 area and the Navarre area. These are also the locations of the city's two water towers. The remainder of the city is low density residential. The city's policy is that no PCS towers or antennas be allowed in residential areas other than on the two city water towers. After developing the overall city policy regarding telecommunications antennas and towers, the next step was to translate the policy into specific regulations through an ordinance amendment. Staff developed an initial ordinance amendment, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission, to eliminate telecommunications towers and antennas from the city's business and industrial zones. The city council reviewed the ordinance and directed staff to redraft the ordinance to provide more specific definitions of the various typies of antennas, to allow PCS antennas only on the city's water towers, and to prohibit antennas and towers from the business and industrial zones. The attached ordinance has been drafted to reflect council's direction. The proposed ordinance amendment was designed to update the city's current regulations regarding antennas; and to accommodate the growth of wireless communications systems within the city of 4 1 Orono while protecting the public against adverse impacts of unnecessar>' proliferation of wireless communication towers and antennas. The key elements of the ordinance are as follows: 1. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. Added definitions of various types of antennas which enables specific regulations for specific types of antennas. 2. Added the term "secondary use" to define the way in which the PCS antennas relate to the city's water towers. Added language to the code section regarding public service structures to indicate that PCS towers and antennas are not to be considered public service structures. This language is needed because public service structures are allowed as conditional uses in the city's residential zones. Added a section on communication reception/transmission devices which provides regulations for residential types of accessory antennas such as satellite dishes. This section also includes regulations specific to amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers. Added a section on personal wireless service antennas and towers indicating personal wireless service antennas may be allowed as a secondary use on a municipal structure (water tower) subject to a set of conditions that are listed in the ordinance. 6. Added a section which eliminates antenna structures from the B-1 retail sales district. Added a section which eliminates antenna structures as a conditional use in the industrial district. Deleted all current references to antenna structures in residential zones (to be replaced by the proposed new language in the ordinance amendment.) n i Policy Regarding; Use of City-Owned Property for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas. 1.Introduction. In the event Orono is required to provide for telecommunication antennas in the City, the first priority is to locate the antennas on an existing tower on City-owned property. Because this may result in requests from v^reless telecommunication providers to place wireless telecommunication antennas on City-owned property, the Orono City Council has determined that a uniform policy for reviewing these requests is desirable. 2. Priority of Users Priority for the use of City-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas will be given to the following entities in descending order: A. City of Orono; B.Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, which are not part of the City of Orono and private entities with a public safety agreement with the City of Orono; C. D Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety; and Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. 3. Minimum Requirements The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on City-owned property must comply with the following requirements. A. The antennas will not interfere with the purpose for which the City-owned property is intended; B. 1 he antennas will have no adverse impact on surrounding private property; C.The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance and commit to a lease agreement which includes equitable compensation for the use of public property and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The fees shall be established by the City Council after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the City, and other appropriate ^actors; D.The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the City to cover the costs of antenna removal; t Policy Regarding Use of Citv-Owned Property for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas. Continued E.The antennas will not interfere with other users who have a higher priority as discussed in Section 2; F.Upon reasonable notice, the antennas may be required to be removed at the user’s expense. G.The applicant must reimburse the City for any costs which it incurs because of the presence of the applicant's antennas. n. I. The user must obtain all necessar\’ land use approvals. The applicant will cooperate with the City ’s objective to promote co-locations and thus limit the number of separate antenna sites requested. 4. Special Requirements The use of certain City-owned property, such as water tower sites, for wireless telecommunication antennas brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on these special City-owned sites will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met. A.Water Tower Sites - The City's water towers represent a large public investment in w ater pressure stabilization and peak capacity reserv es. Protection of the equality of the City ’s water supply is of prime importance to the City. As access to the City's w'ater storage systems increases, so too increased the potential for contamination of the public water supply. For these reasons, the placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on water tower sites will be allowed only when the City is fully satisfied that the following required are met. 1.The applicant ’s access to the facility will not increase the risks of contamination to the City ’s water supply; 2.There is sufficient room on the structure and/or on the grounds to accommodate the applicant's facility; 3.The presence of the facility will not increase the water tower maintenance cost to the City: and 4.The presence of the facility will not be harmful to the health of workers maintaining the water tower. 4 [; Policy Regarding Use of Citv-Owned Property for Wireless Telecommunication Antennas. Continued 5. Application Process All applicants who wish to locate a wireless telecommunication antenna on City-owned property must submit to the City Administrator a completed application and detailed plan that complies with the submittal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance along with other pertinent information requested by the City. 6.Tem'i nation The City Count ii may terminate any lease if it determines that any one of the following conditions exist: A.A potential user with a higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the potential use would be incompatible with the existing use; B.A user's frequency broadcast unreasonably interferes with other users of higher priorit}*, regardless of whether or not this interference w'as adequately predicted in the technical analysis; or. C.A user violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions attached to the City's permission. Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the user of the intended termination and the reasons for it, and provide an opportunity for the user to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. This procedure need not be followed in emergency situations. 7. Reservation of Right Notwithstanding the above, the City Council reserves the right to deny, for any reasons, the use of any or all City-owned property by any one or all applicants. 8.Effective Date This policy shall be effective from and after its adoption by the City Council. Adopted at the Orono City Council Meeting of: t ! G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORONO ’S ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 1. Section 10.02 "Definitions ” of the Orono City Code is hereby amended by adding subsections (5A) "Antenna", (5B) "Antenna Support Structure", (5C) "Antenna Tower", and (56B) "Secondary Use" and amending (54) "Public Services" to read as follows: (5A) Antenna. Any of the below described uses requiring an antenna shall be subject to the regulations of this Code: (i)Antenna. Personal Wireless Service. A device consisting of a me*al, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conducive rods of elemc ms, usually arranged in a circular array on a single supporting pole or other structure, and used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services and including the support structure thereof. Antenna. Radio and Television Receiving . A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber element(s), other than satellite dish antennas, used to receive radio, television, or electromagnetic waves, and including the supporting structure thereof. (iii)Antenna. Satellite Dish . A device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based uses. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what aie commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite microwave antennas and support structure thereof. (iv)Antenna. Short-Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving . A wire, set of wires or a device, consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive element used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for short-wave radio communications, and including the supporting structure thereof. 1 (5B) Antenna Support Structure. Any building or other structure other than a tower which can be used for location of antennas. (5C) Antenna Tower. A self-supporting lattice, guyed or monopole structure constructed from grade which supports personal wireless service antennas. (54)Public Ser\'ices. Underground or overhead gas, electrical, steam or water transmission or distribution systems, collection, communication, supply or disposal systems including poles, wires, mains, drains, sew’ers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, traffic signals, hydrants or other similar equipment and accessories in conjunction therewith; but not including buildings or major structures located above ground level Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. (56B) Secondary Use. A use of land or of a building or a portion thereof which is subordinate to and does not constitute the primaiy’ use of the land or building. Section 2. Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 17, Essential Services, be amended to read as follows: Subd. 17. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation as for transmitting power, water, heat, communications, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditiona' use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Section 3. Section 10.20, R-IA, One Family Residential District, Subd. 3 (D). D.Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to, electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare, public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvements projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antermas and towers shall not be considered serv ices. Section 4. Section 10.20, R-IA, One Family Residential District, Subd. 3 (K) and (M) to be deleted. (K) being Antenna Structure and (M) being (Antenna Structure) -----Antenna Stmetures. One independent antenna stfueturc with antenna o r eombination o f antenna attaehed thcfcto, subo rdinate to and servicing the principal use o r strueturc on the-same lot and eustomarily ineidental thereto that is not attaehed to anther structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 6 5 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any let line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. M:-----Antenna Structures. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attaehed thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or strueturc on the same lot and customarily ineidental thereto that is not attached to anther strueturc provided the height of the antenna strueturc docs not exceed 6 5 feet and the antenna structure is se Section 5. Section 10.20, R-1 A, One Family Residential District, Subd. 4 (H) to be deleted. H:-----Antenno. Any ont enna o r comb ination of antenna rigidly attaehed to the principal or accesso ry structure provided that none of the forego ing excee ds the total height allowed in-Section 10.75. Section 6. Section 10.20, R-1 A, One Family Residential District, Subd. 4 (H) to be added to read as follows: H. Conununication Reception/Transmission Devices of the Orono City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (1) Accessory Antennas. Accessory Antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory Antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: (a) Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. (b) Yards. Accessoiy' antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. Building Permits. A buiiding permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. (h) Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed wth a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: I (a) Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 55 feet. (b) Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located w ithin a front, comer side or side yard. (c) Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Section 7. Section 10.40, B-1, Retail Sales Business District, Subd. 3 (F), Public Services, to be amended and Subd. 1, Antenna Structure, and Subd. H, Antenna, to be deleted to read as follows: F.Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless serv ice and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Antenna. Any antenna of eembinat ion of antenna rig»dly attached to the principal or acces sory stnictufc provided-that none of the foregoing exceeds the total height allowed in Section 10.75. f:-------Antenna Structure. One independent antenna stnicturc, with ant enna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and eua toma rily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure docs not exceed 65 feet a nd the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. H. Personal Wireless Serv ice Antennas and Towers. (1) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City’s aesthetic resources and the public welfare. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative permit, provided they comply with the city policy regarding the use of city-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the follovsiiig conditions: (c) (d) The antenna shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Structural design, mounting and installation of the a shall be in compliance with manufacturer’s specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. (i)The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless service coverage and capacity to the area. Section 8. Section 10.43, B-4, Office and Profession Business District, Subd. 4 (J), Public Services, to be amended to read as follows: J.Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electrical transmission lines and buildings .such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Section 9. Section 10.44, B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District, Subd. 4 (C), Public Service Structures, to be amended to read as follows: C.Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric pow'er substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Section 10. Section 10.50,1, Industrial District, Subd. 3 (B), Antenna Structure, to be amended to read as follows: B.Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from ':ay lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Section 11. Section 10.75, Height of Structures, Subd. 1, Special Prov isions, (A) Antenna or antenna structures, to be deleted. Subd. 1. Special Provision;:. The height limitations imposed by other provisions of this Chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures: Ar Antenna or antenna structures. 4 I . ^ Section 12. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this ____, 1997 by a vote of___ayes and_____nays. day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor 8 i 1 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:April 15, 1997 Subject:#2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570, 580 and 590 Big Island - Revised Request - Approval for Septic System Improvements in Street Right-of-Way - Continuation of Public Hearing Summary of Application: Applicants originally proposed vacation of portions of right-of-way dedicated within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. This was reviewed by Planning Commission on January 21, 1997, and tabled to allow applicants to research further options for maintaining access to adjacent properties. Applicants subsequently had their site evaluator do additional investigation, and their proposed shared septic system has been redesigned so that the drainfield is totally within the existing property boundaries. This no longer requires a vacation of the right-of-way, but does require approval of a permit for installation of private sewer connectio n pipes within the City right-of- way per Zoning Code Section 10.31, Subd. 5. List of Exhibits A - Section 10.31, Subd. 5 B - Letter of Request 3/25/97 C - Revised Septic System Site Evaluation Excerpts D - Planning Commission Minutes 1/21/97 E - Letters Received from Neighboring Property Owners Since January Meeting F - Memo and Exhibits of 1/7/97 Discussion Applicants initially proposed to vacate portions of right-of-way to accommodate a new drainfield within the right-of-way. The proposed varat*on raised concerns about future access to the adjacent property to the east, as well as general access to the northerly portions of the island. Planning Commission and staff suggested that a minor vacation of right-of-way near the drainfield area might be appropriate in conjunction with acquiring additional property from the large landholder to the northeast, in order to maintain suitable legal access to the lakeshore property directly east of the drainfield site. Absent a positive response from the owner of the adjacent land needed for access, applicants had their site evaluator do further investigation, and he was able to redesign the system so that the drainfield trenches will not extend outside the Robb property. #2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570,580 and 590 Big Island AprU 15, 1997 Page 2 As a result, there is no further need for the vacation. However, because piping connecting the three cabins to the single shared septic system will be located within the right-of-w ’ay, a permit is required per Section 10.31, Subd. 5. Further, because the trenches will be right up to the right-of-way (which is not marked or clearly delineated) it would be appropriate to allow applicants to place a split rail or similar open-style fence 2-3 feet into the right-of-way to protect the trenches from errant public traffic. It would appear that public use of the right-of-way will be not limited by approval of the requested permit, since the piping will be buried and no facilities other than piping and a fence will be located in the right-of-way. Staff would recommend that the two 1,000 gallon proposed tanks be located entirely within the Robb property rather than having a portion of the first tank partially within the right-of-way. The likelihood of damage to the private sewer lines is minimal. However, it would be appropriate that the applicants execute a hold harmless agreement, holding the City and the public harmless for any damage that occurs to such piping as a result of public use of the right-of-way. As a shared system, the septic system will be subject to easements granted between property owners, as well as maintenance agreements similar to those established for the shared septic system installed a few years ago just to the west of these tliree properties. It should be noted that applicants were advised to explore the option of holding tanks. In staffs opinion, the proposed shared septic tank-drainfield system is far superior to holding tanks for the lon"-term. The site evaluator ’s report notes that the tanks will require some administrative setback \ ariances, which staff will approve. Finally, it should be noted that this system is designed to serve a seasonal cabin-type use, and should not be constnied as having the capability to serve year-round full-time occupancy of these cabins. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the necessary permit for placement of private sewer lines and a section of fence within the right-of-way, subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicants shall locate the proposed septic tanks totally within the Robb property. Staff must approve fence location and construction on the site. 2.All three property owners shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding private facilities in the right-of-way. 3.Approval of the septic system will be subject to the necessary easements/maintenance covenants for use of the shared septic system, subject to approval of City staff i « #2201 George Adams, James Fieger and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570,580 and 590 Big Island April 15, 1997 Page 3 4. The vacation application is considered as withdrawn. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. Recommend approval with additional or revised conditions. Table for further information or revision, giving applicant specific direction. Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. 2. 3. 4. 5. Isv £ S 'Pic’j'Kfc'r ce I 'A H-IH1 S 10.31 E. Private swimming pools, tennis courts, paddocks or athletic fields or\^quipment. F. Not more than two toilet buildings pi outhouses which shall conform in location and design to the requirements of Subdivision 12 of this Section. G. Tents or other temporary structures to be in place not more than 180 days in any one year. /' \H. Open woodNor gravel-filled steps, stairways or walkways on lakeshore hills dr eTbankments, limited to not more than four feet wide at any point within, 75 feet of the snoreline. Concrete or other solid materials shall constitute hardcover and are prohibited. \ V I. Lake water pumpjiousts which may be within 75 feet of the shoreline if limited to\20 square feet or less in area and five feet or less in height, and subject to all applicable permits for such use. \ J. Firerings or barbequb pits. K. Gardens, gardening dr other horticultural uses including apiaries and decorative landscaping. L. Fences not to exceed 42 'inches in height, and no part of which may be' located within 75 feet 6f the shoreline. / M; Retaining walls, not to e'xceed 42 inches in height, and np'part of which may be located within 75 feet of the shoreline. / \ / N. Home occupations pursuant t Subdivisi X N. Home occupations pursuant to Section 10.20, ivisiph 4, Subparagraph C. / 0. New boathouses within 75 feet of the shoreline are specifically prohibited. _ _ _ ___ ___—_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Subd. 5. Permit For Private Improvements Within Public Rights-of-Way. It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property owned by the City without first obtaining a permit from the Council, as follows; A. Inland Property Access. Persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right- of-way for such purpose. The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the Council shall find that there is no reasonable alternative access available, and that the proposed improvements and/or type of use would not unreasonably affect other properties abutting the right-of-way. The Council may approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations, including without limitation the configuration of adjoining record lots, the location, width, topography, drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of existing or future property owners who may require access at the same location. ORONO CC 311 (4-1-84) s 10.31 Any land alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable inland access. B. Land Alterations, Grading or physical alt*?ration of any platted public right-of-way for any purpose including inland property access is prohibited except when such work has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. The permit applicant shall provide a detailed land survey of the right-of-way and r.ppropriate engineering drawings sufficient to identify the full extent of all proposed work. Permit approval shall be subject to obtaining a grading permit from City staff, land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02, and all other permits as may be required by other agencies having jurisdiction. Public rights-of-way so improved shall be maintained by the licensee. „ , „Source; Ordinance 47, 2nd Senes Adopted; 2-22-88 C. Dockage on Right-of-Way. Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way for any purpose including inland property access is prohibited except when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the Council shall consider the width and topography cf the right-of-way, the number of property cwners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. D. Encroachments Prohibited. No private property, buildings, structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be built, stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted public right-of-way, within any platted public park, or on any other property owned by the City except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this Subdivision. E. Permit Exceptions. No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right-of-way or a platted public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, mow or otherwise maintain said right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. Persons whose record lot established by Subdivision 6 consists of tax parcels divided by platted, unopened public right-of-way may incorporate and use such right-of-way as part of their yard without a permit, provided no permanent structures are erected or maintained within the right-of-way. ORONO CC 312 (4-1-84) S 10.31 F. Public Use Limlbed. Any permit issued under this Subdivision shall be deemed to open the platted public right- of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit» and for the limited use of the permittee and his invitees. S 10.31 G. Permit Limitations. A permit issued under this Subdivision shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements made thereto. Permits issued under this Subdivision shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least thirty days prior to the anniversary date. H. Hold Harmless. As a condition of issuance of any permit, the applicant shall in writing release, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees. I. Permit Hearing and Notice. The Planning Commission or the Council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days or more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the legal newspaper for the City. Such notice shall contain the description of the land and the proposed use. At least ten days before the hearing, the City Clerk shall mail an identical notice to the applicant and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. Failure of the property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission or the Council shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence | concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which \ it would be operated or maintained. Subd. 6. Area Requirements. Within any "RS" Seasonal Recreational^istrict, no new/^ot or parcel shall be created less than 5.0 acr^s in dry build^le lot area exclusive of any designated wetlands. \within any nlS" Seasonal Recreational District, the following prwisiona shall govern the buildability, use and/or subdivision of each exisbi^ng record lot as defined and identified therein: \ / A. Record Lot De^uiition. For purposes of the "RS” Seasonal Recreational Districty/^"record lot” shall mean all the contiguous or abutting land owbed Vn common by the same person or persons as of November 9, yi981,\or at any time such common ownership may occur thereajfxer, in^uding one or more separately platted lots or unplattep parcels land, and/or one or more separately identified/tax parcelsV Because of the unique circumstances and actua^/use patterns exi^sting on the islands, also included within the definition of a "recoM lot" is commonly-owned land that is contigu^s except for being sep^ated only by platted ORONO CC / / 313 (4-1-84) cmroF ORONO JlilllSSD^ mAR 2 7 1997 March 25. 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:Stephen Weckman On-Site Systems Manager Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM:George L. Adams, M.D. RE:Proposed septic system in platted right-of-way I would like to request some time on the Monday, April 21,1997 City Council meeting to present a new plan of the septic system for the Big Island property. Copies of the new plan have been forwarded to Mr. Weckman. Thank you. GLA/jsp ...T.---.- jiuinr- S-P TESTING. INC.Steven B. Schirmers • MPCA Cerl.No. 627 951 Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael. MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 J-------- FAX (612) 497-5011 State License #394 Revised March 18.1997 October 28. 1996 George Adams 600 Big Island Tom Robb 570 Big Island Jim Figger 580 Big Island Orono. Henn. Co.. MN CITY OF ORONO JUSEdO^ mar, 2 o; 1997, Jk ^ ^ ^ A site evaluation was completed on these properties for the existing on-site sewage treatment systems supporting the existing cabins. The easting systems are classified as failing due to not meeting the 3' separation from the saturated soil (mottled soil) or lack of system. The existing tanks are old. either metal or block type and will need to be abandoned, pumped and filled with soil. A new system will need to be installed. This on-site sewage treatment cluster system is designed for a Type 3, 3 bedroom 218 gal/day each cabin totaling 654 gal/day. in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. An easement agreement will be required by the city. The agreement will require a maintenance schedule for maintaining the tanks, and shared electrical costs, etc. A water meter will need to be installed in each cabin to monitor the daily water use and to be recorded with the property. The system will be 5' from the property line and up to the road easement, this will need approval from the city. Approval will also be needed for a tank to be 5' from the Robb cabin to stay out of a low area. The soils on this site are SCS soils mapped - HbC - Hayden loam. The seasonally saturated soils were located at 5'10". The bcttom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the seasonally saturated soils. A standard gravelless 10" diameter trench system may be installed. The soils at a depth of 30" have a percolation rate averaging 10.4 mpi. 1 Due to the system being sized for 1.27sq.ft. (perc rate 10.4) low water use facilities will need to be installed In ail three properties. If water soflners are used, they must be diverted either to the ground surface (not the lake) or install approximately 50 lin.fl. of graveliess trench. The new tanks may be plastic but must be heavy duty due to the high water table, see the site plan for the location. A pumping chamber will need to be Installed to lift the septic effluent to the treatment area. The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weather proof enclosure. A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device, this Is In case of a pump failure. An exterior device will need to be installed. All neighboring wells are located greater than 100' away from the proposed treatment area and 50' away on this site (deep well). Approval will be need^ to be 50' away from a well with a tank at the Robb cabin. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Site Sewage Treatment occurs. With proper installation and maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than gray water (laundry, showers, etc.) should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine solids passing through to the system. Excessive amounts of soaps, cleaning agents & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & clean your tanks through the manhole by a certified pumper every 2 years. Check with your pumper to set up a schedule. Steven B. Schirmers I ;iq_2d:_4.«U --------------1 1 ^ ' I cjo\x^rCP^^^- rr<r J c I Mrl -* f* u • >J • iHi •^v>^ •. VP|V-<^ ------ SO^® Percololion Tests Scole* ^Soil Borings ® Bench Mori' Note: This system is to be constructed to meet Ihe MinnesoiQ Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance Note : Check all underground utilities property 0F--3 YiPa s-PJ^ Oesigr^ed By*-2iA Dote lfi./30>2ti P»- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1) 7:00 P.M. - #2201, GEORGE ADAMS, JAMES FIEGER AND S.T. ROBB, JR-, 570,580,590, AND 600 BIG ISLAND - VACATION OF UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY 7:10-7:47 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application was a request for a vacation of the dedicated portion of right-of-way of the Pleasant View plat of 1888 due to the need for upgrading of septic systems The applicants have met together to obtain a suitable location for a combination septic. Gaffron informed them that the City is appreciative of these efforts. He noted the property locations as well as the platted right-of-way to the east and west and park property. The park is an unimproved City park that is designated as park property only. The location found to be acceptable for the septic systems is in the right-of-way. Gaffron suggested vacating be made of only a portion of the right-of-way and a rededicating of the an adjacent portion but noted this would interfere with the access to the Henderson property. The Staff memo also refers to the need for vehicular access for the properties to the rear due to the high elevations. Gaffron said the Staff recommendation is for denial of the comprehensive vacation but request applicants to accommodate the septic in one area and enlist the assistance of adjacent property owner Erickson for legal access to the Henderson property. Gaffron noted the number of letters received from neighbors and utilities regarding the vacation. The letter writers are not in favor of the vacation. Adams reported that the access road utilized by the property owners and is located between the Robb property, and it extends to and crosses over the Fieger property. He stated the park property is mainly under water all summer long. Adams said the area is completely forested and would not enable a fire engine to cross. The area to the east is mainly swamp. Fieger said the applicants have never asked for the vacation of the entire' T area but only the area on the right side (east) which affects his own property. Fieger said he is willing to make a shift in his property line to allow the other properties to continue crossing to gain access to their properties. He noted lot 22 is under w'ater, adding he also owns lots 23 and 24. Adams and Fieger have owned their properties 20 years and Robb 40 years (owner of lots 19, 20, and 21). Fieger informed the Commission that the only suitable soils found for the septic is the location noted. t 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#1 - #2201 Vacation of Unimproved Right-of-Way - Big Island - Continued) Adams reported that the plans have cost the applicants $3,200. The applicants asked the septic tester to come up with the best plan for accommodating their septic systems, regardless if the outcome is one combined system or three individual ones. The current systems are non-conforming but are not polluting the ground. He noted that the compliance for these seasonal dwellings is the same as that required by year-round homes resulting in an astronomical cost for 10 weeks of use each year. Adams says the best recommendation would allow for a truck to stay in a barge and pump out the systems. He added that there is no access to the properties to the rear. Robb noted where the utilities were located. McMillan inquired of the property owner to the east of the Robb property. It is noted to be quite heavily wooded. Adams said alot of the property is under water and there is only a limited area for building on. Gaffron informed the applicants that if the small triangular portion was vacated and the road replatted further north, there would be a need to gain a small piece of land from Mr. Erickson to allow access to the Henderson property. Gafiron questioned whether the City should give up 33' in exchange for 10'. Smith asked if there was the ability for the septic location to be pulled back in toward their properties Adams said the drainage would then flow toward the Henderson property. There is also a hill on the other area, and the septic needs to slope toward their properties and not others. Smith asked what effect the change in right-of-way would have on public access. Gaffron said the accommodation could be made but an agreement would have to be reached with Erickson for the Henderson access plus an agreement for utility easement. Hawn inquired if NSP would require an agreement. It was noted that the utility comes in underground to the first pole to the transformer. Adams said NSP uses his dock to gain access. During public comments, Don Henderson, 1518 Normandale Court, reported he has been the owner of the property to the east for 40 years. He stated the lot is buildable. He noted that property with direct access is worth more. He said he is probably willing to consider changing the location of his access to allow the applicants septic needs as long as he still retains a 34' access. He noted that the information packets points out that the DNR and property owners to the west, east, and north are opposed to the vacation and Staff does not recommend approval but requests the access remain open. jI 1/21/97 JAN 2.8 To: City of Orono Planning Commission I was unable to attend the public hearing held on January 21, 1997 and would like to express my concerns on one of the issues that was on the agenda. The issue is that of application ^2201, the vacation of dedicated road right-of-way brought forth by George Adams, James Fieger and S.T. Robb Jr. My property address is #630 and I own lots 11,12, and 13. The back side of my lots siL adjacent to land set aside by the City of Orono labeled as "Park". The 61 feet of my land that borders this "Park" property allows me direct access to the "Streets" that are proposed to be vacated. If these "Streets" are vacated I will lose reasonably good access to my property due to the fact that these "Streets" will have become private property. My cabin sits about 30 ’ above the high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. The large slope prevents me from moving equipment up the hill from the shoreline on which I reside. Six property owners to the north of me also share in this dilemma. Logistical problems will occur for all those living on the large slopes on the west side of Big Island if the said "Streets" are vacated. Benefitting three property owners while hindering six does not seem like a good idea. Because of these foreseeable problems I recommend that the "Streets" are not vacated and that they remain in place for concerned property owners to use now and in the future. During these next two years there will be activity on the Island as people scramble to get there septic systems up to code. I hope that property owners have the courtesy to communicate their plans with their immediate neighbors so that all will benefit from future construction (or destruction). Big Island is a very unique place and I believe joint cooperation between property owners will not only benefit themselves, but will also benefit the City of Orono. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Person #630 Big Island i SENT BY:1-21-97 : 10:50 : DBI ^rLS SALES-PlOB 6124730510:^ 2/ 2 ^ 4'22D\ Mt>lT70/oVC«. /M*-oRi^^A.5f7bKi , ^ • January 7,1997 i Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Park^^'ay, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaf&on: I own 670 Big Island and my neighbors are Messrs. Adams, Robb Sr., and Filger. Our address is 670 Big Island. We are opposed to the vacation of the dedicated road right of way. This is the only access to our property and our neighbors property for equipment and vehicles if repairs or other activities need to be accomplished. I can be reached at my office at 544-7200 or home at 544-4161. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Bryson m Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Man Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401-1993 Telephone (612) 330-5500 January 17,1997 City of Orono Attn; Michael P. GafFron 2750 Kelley Pkwy P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. GafFron, NSP has received notice of vacation of road right of way desc'bed as follows: That part of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies West of the East line thereof; which lies East of the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 3, Block 1, Island Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and which lies South of the South line of Lots 22, 23, and 24 and its Westerly extension in said Pleasand View Lake Minnetonka. NSP has overhead distribution facilities in the proposed vacation of road right of way, that need to be protected. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Real Estate Rep./Highway Liaison 330-5983 — — •. - #•••* • > JAN 2 1 0.991 I I J /, To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator January 7, 1997 Subject:#2201 George Adams, James Fieger, and S. T. Robb, Jr., 570-580-590-600 Big Island - Right-of-Way Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning District: RS, Seasonal Recreational, 5 Acre Application: Request for vacation of dedicated road right-of-way within the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, in order to accommodate a proposed shared septic system and for other purposes. List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I J K L Plat Map Property Owners List Survey DNR Comments \ 191^1 US West Comments 1/8/97 City Letter to Applicant 12/18/96 Applicant Letter to City 12/13/96 City Letter to Applicant 12/10/96 with Map Septic System Proposed Design Area Topographic Map Original Plat, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka (1888) Background "Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka" was platted on Big Island in 1888. That plat included the dedication of unnamed streets and a "park" area (see plat map). Each of the three applicants owns property adjacent to the two platted streets at the southeast comer of that old subdivision. The applicants have been advised by the City that their non-conforming septic systems need to be brought into conformity. They propose to constmet a shared septic system with drainfield located partially within platted right-of-way. In addition to proposing just a vacation of the portion of street necessary to accommodate the drainfield, they propose a more comprehensive vacation of the dedicated road access to the lake as well as to the eastern property boundary. r Zoning File #2201 Janujuy 7, 1997 Page 2 Original Plat Dedication The original plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka dedicated these streets and the park area to the public forever. The intent of dedication of right-of-way is to provide for pedestrian and vehicular access to properties, to provide corridors for utilities, and for other purposes. Necessar}' Findings for Vacation In order to recommend approval of the vacation of public right-of-way, Planjiing Commission must be able to make the following findings: 1. The vacation is in keeping with the public interest. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities and access purposes. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. 2. 3. 4. Public Purposes Served by Existing Right-of-Way Staff has identified a number of public purposes served by the existing right-of-way proposed to be vacated: 1. Telephone lines. 2. Electric power lines. 3. Potential Minnegasco gas lines. 4. Potential cable TV lines. 5. Provision of legal access to properties not abutting any other road or the shoreline. 6. Public access to properties abutting the shoreline but that have steep slopes and/or bluffs making vehicular access impossible from the lakeshore. 7. Public access to the "park" land dedicated in the plat of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Vacation The following represent public and private impacts if the proposed vacation is approved: 1. Properties to the north of Lots 22 - 24 will effectively be landlocked. 2. Lakeshore properties along the west side of the island wall no longer have an alternate rear access to the lakeshore. Such an access may be essential due to the steep slopes/bluffs at the shoreline making vehicular access impossible at the shoreline 3. General public accessibility to the island would be permanently limited. 4. Existing/potential utility corridors will be lost. 5. Potential access to adjacent properties to the east will be eliminated. ■i t Jl Zoning File #2201 January 7, 1997 Page 3 6. Applicants will increase the square footage of their record lots, bringing each into greater conformity with City area/width/setback requirements, provide for their septic system needs, and eliminate the potential for public tratTic in close proximity to their properties. Agency/Utilit>’ Comments Per Exhibit F, I IS West does not object to the vacation as long as a utilit> easement is granted for existing lines and future needs. Per Exhibit E, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly objects to the vacation, suggesting that the vacation as proposed is not in the best interest of the public, and that there are alternatives that would not eliminate public access to the lake. Discussion As noted to applicant George Adams in the letter dated December 18, 1996, vacation of this right-of-way absent a rededication of roadway at an alternate location would appear to be inappropriate. The City cannot predict potential future public uses for this right-of-way, however, there are a number of obvious existing public uses which would be eliminated by a vacation. Staff is concerned that access to the property to the east not be eliminated since that property has not been declared unbuildable, but is identified in City ordinances as being a substandard buildable lot of record. That property has steep topography near the wetland (see topographic map. Exhibit K) and its owner may need to gain future access via the road right-of-way to a possible building site near the northwest comer of that lot. Vacating the access road leading from the lakeshore to the park portion of right-of-way, will eliminate the only viable legal access to properties to the north of Lots 22-23-24, which do not otherwise abut the lake or an alternate right-of-way. Further, vacating this portion of right-of- way will eliminate the only viable vehicular access to those properties along the shoreline to the northwest, which have extremely steep lakeshore banks which may not otherwise be accessible. There are certain types of vehicles which will have occasion to use the right-of- way, including well drilling tmeks, septic pumpers, construction vehicles, etc. The City cannot vacate right-of-way that has such obvious public purposes, unless a suitable alternative right-of-way location serving all of the existing and anticipated future public uses is provided. The fact that the existing right-of-way is so close to the applicants' cabins, with the obvious property owner concerns of public use in such close proximity, cannot be considered a suitable reason for vacation considering the public's need for that right-of-way to k Zoning File #2201 January 7, 1997 Page 4 exist. The right-of-way undoubtedly was platted and dedicated prior to the construction of the existing cabins. Further, a review of the topographical map suggests that the right-of-way can in fact serve as a reasonable access to inland properties, and, without regard for existing trees or other natural or manmade Obstructions, the right-of-way does ha\e public purposes. Suggested Alternative Exhibit I, the staff letter of December 10, contains a topographic map showing a triangular portion of right-of-way which could be vacated and a portion of the Fieger property which could be replatted as roadway. This would accomplish the applicants ’ basic requirement for accommodating the septic system drainfield, while generally providing access to properties to the east. However, the property directly east of Lot 21 would appear to not be served via this new access unless an easement is granted over the Erickson property to the north. Therefore, in order for this alternative to be viable, applicants must be able to gain an easement from Erickson. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the vacation as proposed, based on finding that the existing and potential public purposes served by that right-of-way will be eliminated or compromised by such a vacation. Further, Planning Commission is advised to review Exhibit E, the letter from the Department of Natural Resources recommending denial of the vacation request. It may be appropriate to table the application if the applicants are willing to consider restructuring their proposal per the sketch in Exhibit I or something similar. In this case, applicants should then be advised to attempt to gain the necessary easement from the neighboring property owner (Erickson) in order to make that alternative viable. In spite of the staff recommendation for denial of this particular proposal, staff must commend the applicants for w'orking together to solve their septic system needs. They have responsibly proceeded with the necessary testing and design work as well as the legal work to create easement, in order to meet City requirements. However, the City is obligated to consider the long-term public interest when being asked to relinquish a dedicated right-of-way that serves both utility and access functions. Options for Action 1. 2. J. 4 Isv Recommend approval with conditions. Table for further information or revision, giving applicants specific direction. Forward a recommendation for denial to the City Council. Other. ✓« ) •* r - .' •; e *' ►•• W .* CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Apiriication If -pJ^ c / liHe RcccIvedT^ Anidiint Paid cf \ ^ f' ^>7 DPERTY LOCATION / Site Address Z^dA^c/ ___ Type of Application to be Filed > ________-j Property Identification Number (PJ.D.jr APPLICANT ^.4 Narne ^ /9p4Cn>\^ Address Phone (home) i/^/7 ______ Phone (work) 64J~ ;t 54//> City Zip_£5Dl^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work) Address City Zip_ Date Propero^cquired y?7C-(month/year) I (do) ^o^hot)/also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES -^{lOTIONAL USE PERMITS - 75.00 For each variance request with CUP nf-licatjon _____$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 wails within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - sec 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) C v7^S300.00 Vacation 4^^'‘>200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). DEC-12-1996 09:45 6124730510 97>J P.09 • • , 29 ;ISO 12Q : «»50 ; I 27 . ^ J R f Z6 gd R^'(28}§J 25 1 ^ BI3!| (I) LOT 4 tA &* /# iisriouf S2 A c TMA6- l^CCA'TJOl^ J ADVANCE SURVEYING <S ENGINEERING CO. SIOU.S |l»> N« 101 Mhmc I.«U MN <M45 T9W I 474 K67 SURVLY FOR: GEORGE ADAMS Sl^RVI:YLP: IXxcmbcr. 1906 tr DRAn iiD: Oc^nhcf20. rRLSLNI UiGAL DLSCRIPI ION Of ADAMS PARCt l ! l.uC 3. ntock I. Island Poinlc. Hennepin County. Minnesota. PRLSLNT LLGAL DLSCRin ION QI- I H-GIIR PARCLl.; LiHs 22, 23. and 24. rieosonl View l^e MiimettHika. I lennepin Cininly. Minnesota. PRliSLNI LEGAL DHSCRIPnON OF ROflB PARm • Lots 19. 20. and 21. Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin Count). Minnesota. LLGAL DLSCRIN ION QI SI Rl^LT Akliy\S PROlHiSi-D I OR VAt AI ION; I hoi part of Pleasant View I jikc Minnetonka. I lennepin County. Minnesota desijpialed as street and park; which lies west of the east line Ihereor; which lies ea.st of the nortliert) c.Mension of the west line of Lot 3. IlliKk I. Isknd Poinle. Hennepin County. Minnesota: and which lic*s south of lite south line of Uls 22. 23. and 24 uih I its westerly extension in said Pleasant View I jike Minndonk.i PROPOSED NLW lEGAL DLSCRiP I ION (Jl ADAStS PARC Lot 3. Block I. Island Poinle. Hennepin County. Minnesota, logeiher wUli tliat port of Pleasant Vk »w like Minnetonka. Hennepin Coup.ly. MiniK'soui Jc*sigiiuted as street and park: which lies west of o line parallel with nml 10 feet %vest of llte west line of Lot 19 in said Pleasant View luke Minnetonka, which lies east of tlie norllicrly extension of the west line of Lot 3. Block I. Island Poinle. I lennepin County. Minnestila. and which lies south i»f ilic south line of Lots 22. 23. and 24 and its westerly cMension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. PROPOSED NLW LEGAL DI.SCRIPTiON OF III (.1 R PARCH : li>ls 22.23. and 24. Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. Ileimcpin County. Minnesota. PROI*OSLD NLW LLGAL Df .SCRIP HON OP ROBB PARCLL; 1.0IS 22. 23. and 24. Pleasant View l.ake Miiuietonka. Hennepin County. Minnesota, together with lh.il pari of Pkasml View Lake Minnetonka. Hermepin County. Minnesota designated as street and park, which Iic*s west of die line thereof: which lies east of a line parallel with and 10 feet west of the west line of Lot 19 in said Pleasi'nt View Ijikc Minnetonka: which lies cast of ilie nortlicriy extension of ilic west line of l.ot 3. Block I. Island Poinle. Hennepin County. MiniKsota: and which lies south of the south line of luts 22. 23. and 24 and its wcsiciy extension in said Pleasant V icw Inkc Minnetonka. Subject to an casement for drain Held purposes o\er the folbwing portion tlicrcof: Beginning at llic southeast comer of said Lot 24. thence on an assumed hearing of No Hi 76 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West along the south line of said 11»4 24 a distance of 27 feel; tiicnee South 20 tiegrees 30 miiuiles 00 seconds East a distance of 80.00 feet: ihciKC S*)uth 33 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds Last a d stance of 30 feet to a fHiint hervinaOer referred to as Point “A**, Ihcncc South 33 deganrs 37 minutes 19 seconds I asi a distance of 72 59 Icci to a pi>int on the cast line of Lot 21 m said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka whkh I cs 120 feet soullKfly from the norlhcojU corner thcrctif; ihcncc North 00 degrees 56 minutes 34 seconds West a disiai<c of 154.08 feet to tlic point of hcgiiming Subject to a utility c.iscmcm oscr a strip of land which lies 5 feet on h».lli sides of tlie lollowing described center line: Commencing at Uic stnillKast comer of said Lot 24; IlKiice on an USSUI1U.XJ bearing of North 70 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West along the south line of said Lots 22. 23. and 2 a distance of 116.79 feci to the point of bcginiiing of Uic center tine to be described; Ihcncc North 06 degaxs 24 minutes 29 seconds l ast a di.slancc of 177.00 feet; itHrncc North 83 degrees 35 minutes 31 seconds West a Jislain.c of 53 feel: llicncc South 35 .kgiecs 12 mimiies 25 sctoi. Is W n dislai-e -f 74.57 ''oinl *A“ .uij lifn: terminating. UMI IAI IONS A NO I I S Ihc scope of our set i *ccs for lliis job is as follows: 1. Showing llic laiglh ond direction ofbmmdar> lines of Ihc legal descrlptiuii >ou furnislicd. 2. Showing the location of c.xisting improscmciits we deemed iniportonl. 3. Selling ikw monuments or vcrif>iiig old monuments to mark the cornen of the property. 4. Slmwing a proposed street vacation which will remiirc action b> the City Council which mav or may not k granted 5. .Sliowing proposed transfer of llic vacated street property to adjacent parcels, which will require llic owners to cxcliaiige deeds to accomplisli iluil transfer and assumes their willingness to execute and file such deeds. 6. Sliowing pniposed cascnieiils and legal descriptitms fur tliem to allow all properties to asc the drain IlcM and utility line running to it. which will require tlic preparatitm and filing of on easement agreement to create these ctLsements and tlie willingness of the arTccled owner to execute such an casement document 7. Sliowing on .some copies of this drawing, a pstssibic alternate stilution to the problem to repixe a \xaled porlii ii of tlie street by a realigned strcci righi of way and lo limit the vacation to only that part of tlic street iKxessiir) to xcumplisli tlic realigimieiit STANDARD SYMBOf S & CQNVI^NTIONS: “o’ Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State Uceiise Number 9235. set. if "o* is filled In. then denotes found iron monument. CI RMIICAIION I hereby certify that this survey wa.s prep.ired by me or under my direct supervision and tiul I am a l*rofcs5ioii,il t'ngiiiccr and a Profcssioiul Surveyor under llic l.aws of the Slate of Minnesota. V\. .y Vs^co II. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 (Si scAi.ii: ONI-: INCH i;guAi..s 30 h ;i;t M PHONE NO. ||f^ STATE OF Ldepartment of natural resources “ Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 832-6170 file no January 9,1997 City ofOrono Attention: Mr. Mike Gaflron 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 • " I % rr n 4 I jk Dear Mr. Gaffron: This letter is in reference to the proposed vacation of the right-of-way described as follows; That part of Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota designated as street and park; which lies west of the east line thereof; which lies east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 3, Block 1, Island Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and which lies south of the south line of Lots 22,23 and 24 and its westerly extension in said Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka. I would appreciate it if you would make the contents of this letter part of the public record, and read it for the public hearing scheduled on January 21, 1997, as I will be unable to attend the meeting. Please be advised that the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Trails and Waterways opposes the proposed vacation of the above described property. This public road as originally dedicated, provides a means of access to Lake Minnetonka, and has for many years. (See attached plat dedication). The citizens of Minnesota have a right to use all of the public waters in our state. Any attempt to preclude public access should be carefully considered. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources devotes considerable effort to providing the public with free and adequate access to our water throughout the state. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. Our goal is to preserve and protect the public’s right to all forms of accesses. These accesses can include, but are not limited to, shorefishing, canoe/carry-in accesses, winter access (by car, snowmobile, foot), swimming, picnic areas, observation areas, and access from the lake to the land. Any access the public has, has value. The public owns it now, and should not lose any property or opportunity. No access should be simply “given ” to adjacent neighbors. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, a vacation of a public road must be in the best interest of the public. It must be shown that it has no public value. The roadway referred to above has great potential future use both as an access by interior residents, as well as access from the lake to the interior of the island. By vacating this roadway it appears that access to the park and some interior lots would effectively be cut off. I don’t believe it could be proven to be in the best interest of the public to vacate this road. Although there is other public property on Lake Minnetonka, and perhaps on the island, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the vacation of this particular public street is in the best interest of the public. It also appears to me from reading the material provided me that the vacation of this road is not the only option available to accomplish the project the petitioner has in mind. A triangular piece of property could be vacated on one of the back lots, with a replat right behind that, and the project could still move ahead. Please consider the above request for the denial of the proposed vacation. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with you, or any member of the City, if you so desire. In addition I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of the resolution regarding the outcome of this subject once it has been decided. Sincerely, Martha J. Reger 1 Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor attachment cc; Bill Johnson, Regional Supervisor George Golden, Attorney General’s Office Kim Lockwood, Water Recreation Specialist Jim Konrad, Conservation Officer tessa ex/f.F X 1iiirwEsr COMMUNICATIONS (& JAN 1 0 1997 5910 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, 55430 January 8, 199? Mr. Micheal P. Gaggron Assistant Planning & Zoning Adninistrator City of OronD 2750 Ktelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Notification of proposed street ri^t-of-way vacation on application #2201. Mr. Gstggron This is in response to your letter dated January 6, 1997 vAiich gave notice of a hearing on the above referenced vacation on applicication #2201. US Vfest Gonnunications, Inc presently has aerial facilities ^ong the southside of the east/west street. US W'st has no objection to this vacation, but requests that a utility easenent be retained to provide for future maintenance/reinforcenent along this area. Respectfully Yours, i^G. Munson US West Field Engineer 612/569/3017 - ij>-rr.'T~ ' C’M. ^ GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Strest Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 December 18, 1996 George Adams, M.D. 9581 Virginia Avenue Bloomington, MN 55438 Re: Proposed Street Vacation, Big Island Dear Dr. Adams: The City is in receipt of your ielter of request and partial payment for a vacation of portions of the road dedicated in 1888 within the plat of "Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka" on Big Island. As Stev e Weekman indicated in his December 10 letter, vacation of this road right-of-way absent a re-dedication of roadway at an alternate location may be inappropriate. While you may feel there is no practical need to maintain a public roadway at this location, we cannot predict the potential future public uses for such right-'’*”-way, but it may very well be in the public ’s best interest to preserve some options. In order to better understand the potential ramifications of vacation, the City must answer a number of questions rei^u' iing lot line locations, access to adjacent properties, utility line locations, topography, e^ A complete application will require that you provide formal survey work in the area being vacated, as well as detailed information about all existing utilities using the right-of-way. We are especially concerned that access to the property to the east not be eliminated, since that property has noj been declared unbuildable, and in fact is identified in City ordinances as be»ng a Substandard Buildable Lot of Record. Further, that property has steep topography near the wetland and its owTier may need to gain future access via the road right-of-way to a possible building site near the northwest comer of that lot. We are also concerned that vacating the road behind your property may eliminate the only viable vehicula* access to properties along the shoreline to the northwest of you, which have extremely steep lakeshore banks and which may not otherwise be accessible. The types of vehicles which might have occasion to use the right-of-way (for instance on a one-time City permit) might include well drilling trucks, septic pumpers, construction vehicles, etc. Telephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Dr. George Adar ' December 18, 1996 Page 2 Your vacation request raises enough questions that by no means can we guarantee that it will be approved without the provision of an alternate access corridor. For that reason, I would again offer you the option of initially pursuing the request as an informal 'sketch plan review' at the Januaiy 21 Planning Commission meeting, although I am advised by Jim Parker that most of the sur\-ey work has already been completed and will be submitted by next Monday's noon deadline. Assuming you wish to proceed immediately with a formal vacation request per your lette’* the fol’.rving items must be submitted by noon on Monday, December 23 in order to be fomially considered by the Planning Commission at their January 21 meeting: 1. $100 balance of Vacarion fee (The right-of-way vacation fee is $300; if this was merely the vacation of an easement, the fee would have been $200) 2. We are ur able to locate the property owner list which you indicate was submitted by Mr. Robb. This needs to be submitted to make the application complete. 3. Certificate of survey (and legal description) for the area to be vacated including the location of neighboring property boundaries, structures and utility lines. 4. Written confirmation of agreement between property owners regarding the septic system construction. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would then be scheduled for City Council review and final action on February 10. Dr. Adams, please don't constnie our concerns noted above as an attempt to dissuade you from forging ahead in completing your septic system replacement. We are pleased that you and your neighbors have responsibly proceeded with the necessaf>' testing and design work, as well as the legal work to create easements, in order to resolve the matter. Yet the City is obligated to consider the long-term public interest when being asked to give up a dedicated right-of-way. I will be handling the vacation application, so please feel free to contact me at 473-7357 if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Michael P.Gaffron A.sst. Planning & Zoning Administrator cc: Steve Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager Ron Moorse, City Administrator U niversity of Minnesota mt ■ W Twin Cities Campus Otolaryngology^Hrad A Sece Surgery Lions SM international Hearing Center Medical Schind Box 396 Mayo Memorial Building 420 Delaware Street 5.E Minneapolis, MN 55455 6I2 625-3200 Fax: 612 625^2101 December 13,1996 • cldec •■•6 • Offices: 8ih Floor Phillips-Wangensteen Building 516 ^laware Street S.E. Stephen Weckman On-Site Systems Manager P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Steve: Thank you for your letter of December 10. Enclosed is a formal request to vacate property behind the Robb cabin and on the lake side of the Fieger cabin in order to make a drain field acceptable to the city of Orono and in compliance with the DNR requirements for the three cabins. The adjacent cabins to the west have a combined system. After assessment, having S and P review and evaluate the existing properties, this was the only feasible system that could be placed in the area. There was not acceptabie space for a mound-type system. The oniy other alternatives that could be discussed were holding tanks that could be emptied every year or tv'o. This system was not felt to be acceptable because of your fear that the tanks would not be emptied as frequently as may bo necessary. The owners of the three cabins have agreed in writing to build such a project. The expense of the construction and materials will be paid by Mr. Fieger and myself, and M.'. Robb’s contribution will be the property. We therefore request that the property currently unused and never having been used by any of the owners and unlikely to be used by anyone ever in the future, be vacated and designated to be part of the Robb or Fieger property depending on f. ?. iesires of the planning commission of Orono. I also request vacation of the property behind my cabin. This would allow me to continue to clean and remove the waste that has been deposited there over the past 50 years, prior to my owning the present property. Additionally, if owned by an individual, it is less likely that others would use this property as a place to dispose of containers, bottles, etc., that should be transported to the mainland. In reference to your issues regarding a road, there are currently no usuable or functional roads on Big Island and as to my knowledge, there are no plans for ever developing such roads in the future. There are above-ground electric lines, but below-ground telephone lines. There is not now, nor wiil there ever be traffic on Big island. The island is posted in numerous places with signs stating no motorized vehicles permitted on Big Island. To me, motorized vehicles include both recreational vehicles, cars, and/or trucks. I am certain that this is the desire of the residents in the area and of the city. It is also unlikely that anyone will be transporting such a vehicle to the Island for any functional use as a car on Big Island would have no function and could be gotten there only during certain months of the winter (January, February) when the lake is frozen and only on those years when the ice Is considered safe for an individual to drive to that area. Thus, requesting that the road be maintained has no practical value and should not be an issue in the discussion of the land for vacation. Further, the property to the east of the Robb and Fieger property has been designated unbuiidable by the Orono City Council on previous occasions as there does not exist two acres above lake level. It is largely and primarily a swamp and lowland that is not considered buildable. Additionally, such property has access directly from the lake or through the swamp and has no need for an access through the Fieger property. Additionally, any access that would be required for walking or bikes or maintenance of electrical lines would certainly be recognized by individuals on the Island, since it is they who benefit from maintenance of those lines. I request therefore, that vacation of the above-mentioned property with designation of such property to be that of Robb's and Adams come before the City Council in January. Enclosed is a $200 fee as required for this permit. Mr. James Parker of Advanced Engineering and Surveying will be providing you with his recommendations including more detailed maps of the proposal. A copy of S and P’s recommendations for the septic system is enclosed. Mr. Tom Robb has Informed me that he provided the Orono City Hall with a list he obtained from Hennepin County of property owners within 350 feet of the vacation. I have asked Mr. Jim Fieger to contact you regarding the proposals with the alterations of permanent right-of-way to be closer to his property and I hoped he has talked to you regarding this. If there are any other issues that need to be addressed prior to the upcoming Orono City Council meeting, please let me know right away by fax. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, George L. Adams, M.D. Professor and Head cc:Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mr. Jim Fieger Mr. Tom Robb 4 r m-T €ITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Pariiway Orono. MN 55356 MaUlni Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 December 10,1996 George Adams 9581 Virginia Ave. Bloomington, MN 55438 Re; Proposed septic system in platted right-of-way Dear Mr. Adams: After discussing your situation with Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron, it appears there are three potential options available for you to consider: 1.Proceed with a vacation and replat of the right-of-w ay to move it into the northerly property so that the current and future public purposes served by a right-of-way in this location are not lost; 2. 3. Simply request a vacation of the right-of-way; or Request a pemiit for the installation of the septic system within the existing right-of- way. Each of these options requires a public hearing w ith the planning commission as well as formal approval by the City Council. In order for the City Council to approve any of these options, you must show that the proposed location of the septic system is the only feasible location, that no property on Big Island will be denied access as a result, and that there is no conflict with existing or future potential utilities (electric, phone, etc.), drainageways, etc. Relocating the right-of-way via a replat would leave your neighbor to the east (5o0 Big Island) an access to other existing platted roads on the island, would protect your proposed drainileld site by placing it on private property, and would preserve the public need for utility, access and drainage corridors. This is the option staff would recommend to the City Council (see attached sketch). Vacation of the right-of-way withou a replat might be approved by the Council, but in order to do so they would have to conclude that the property to the east does not need to be provided %vith access Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 to other parts of the island and vice-versa, and that there is no existing or future potential public purpose served by the right-of-way . From a planning perspective, it would be inappropriate to vacate this right-of-way without providing an alternative that serves the public need. Finally, if you request permission to install the septic system in the right-of-way without vacating it, you (and the City) would want assurance that motorized traffic is prohibited on the island or the drainfleld could be inadvertently destroyed. My review of the City Code reveals no such regulation (recreational vehicles are prohibited in the right of way, but it would be a stretch to say this rule is applicable to cars or trucks). So far, we haven't determined whether or when the 'no motorized vehicles' sign(s) were placed by the City. Because of the potentir.! conflict with other uses that could impact or be impacted by a drainfleld in the right-of-way, we would not recommend this option as the protection of your new septic system could not be guaranteed. Attached is a sketch that depicts a potential vacation/replat of the property. The process for accomplishing this requires that you have formal survey work completed, and you could easily have $2,000-3,000 in costs by the time you are done. If you want some assurance that a vacation/replat will ultimately be approved before you incur significant costs, you may wish to apply for a 'sketch plan review* at the January 21 Planning Commission meeting. This is an opportunity to gain input from the planning commission without providing all the information required for a formal replat. Either your application for a sketch plan review or for proceeding with a formal replat w-ould have to be submitted to the City with all the required information listed, by December 23 at noon to be considered for the January 21 planning commission meeting. Please contact me or Mike Gaffron at the City Offices if you have any questions. Sincerely, — Stephen Weekman On-Site Systems Manager cc: Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator . f ’ • ------ESCJ a* -'** * '* ^-"1-•*• .- * .;■•■,. C-. »•■■■:. fj- :m HEfiHPM COUNTY 3<V*\tvtveso'\flL JCMI.S . ,« SQft'>^on **•*-»-, -•• ’-•,. ■•• •>' .!: :-.;va • '•^ • V* - * f. - y if"^ I 9 Jtim H ^/V find V9**r^4Aj^ •>* - V I •'a.*^'«44 ■• ■•' I'T^kta fir a«q uo^'iKdu^ * V»-w T^ /ik-n^AAo f •V(U w d»•c 1 yr« c «>• /«*• •X% /«« .c 1 '“I /rto « •• i* V - ifraaL^r.* iff****t-T- '.' ,r» C5' -T-A.-^Kfil •: ; '-‘^^iJW JZi ' /»>» ■■.< C^^^WV, *J*-A*^0 ; - 1^ m;SS'-.;t ». *»^i^ —r- ^ ^ ------73------ • r _ < J ^ »*>' >« >«i5 /»4;sf o m^ ^ *■ /ewiCyy A*/ „.v?(T'? '•... . **’ At*...A V V « :£r-^^i^,x^ • V^ i r- <: 7ti I % % ■; «• .•• r . : • T •/ • ■».' . •*» ^ .jas&( *.:-^- .................... •.' I * • •• .*tt«* * , A- • •*. ^^Tgssr .;:•■■ ■■•:■-:•, >'-^4 • • • • To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Date:April 16,1997 Subject:#2205, Allen Schefers, 2540 Casco Point Road-Conditional Use Permit- Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict:LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for excavation of a pond in a floodplain area to remain. The applicant obtained a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to excavate to allow a wildlife pond, however, a conditional use permit for the excavation was not obtained from the City. The applicant has previously obtained a conditional use permit for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. List of Exhibits A. B. C. D. E. 1. Application Plat Map roperty Owner's List Site Plan Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit Sur\ey Excerpts from Minutes from Previous City Council and Planning Commission Meetings regarding the Conditional Use Permit for fill importation Resolution #3762 granting a conditional use permit for fill importation Minutes from 2/18/97 Planning Commission Meeting Pertinent Ordinances: 1.Section 10.55, Subdivision (A)Definition of Floodway District The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka #2205. 2540 Casco Point Road Alien Schefers-C. U.P. for excavation page-1 April 16. 1997 i below elevation 929,4 MSL, the surface and shoreline of other lakes, ponds and wetlands below the ordinary' highwater elevation, and the designated floodway of all streams and flowage areas. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision (B) Definition of Flood Fringe District The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevation 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands containing soil types classified as wetland soils, whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision (S) Development Restricted; Prohibition. E.xcept as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary' or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary' highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preser\ ation of those conservation areas in their natural state. 4 Section 10.55, Subdivision (9)(B)(2) Floodway District Conditional Uses All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. 5. Section 10.55, Subdivision (I0)(B)(1) Flood Fringe District All conditional uses as listed in the Floodway district. 6. Section 10.55, Subdivision (12) Conditional Use Permit Review. Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the same manner as other zoning conditional use permit applications. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of his application, shall submit certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations, and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. U2205. 2540 Casco Point Road Allen Schefers-C. U.P. for excavation page-2 April 16. 1997 Description of Request The applicants obtained the site at 2540 Casco Point Road in October of 1995. In 1996, they began construction of a new house on a previously vacant lot. The new residence required a conditional use permit for fill importation to raise the lot to a suitable elevation to prevent basement flooding. The applicant has removed debris from the lot, including the pond area and has received a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to e.xcavate the pond area. The applicant has stated that he did not realize that he also need a conditional use permit for excavating the pond, however. Resolution #3762 set forth the conc.usions and conditions for granting the original conditional use permit for fill importation. The site plan that was submitted for the fill importation did not show that a pond would be excavated on the site. The proposed wildlife pond may be located in a floodway or flood fringe area. The applicant ’s drawing shows the lowest elevation of the pond at 826.0 feet. Any excavation in either a floodway or flood fringe area requires a conditional use permit. Issues ‘‘or Consideration Although the applicant has received a pennit from the W’atershed District to excavate the pond, a conditional use permit from the City of Orono is also required. The existing ponding area is located in the 100' right-of-way for Casco Point Road. The applicant has flagged the two monuments that detemiine the property line along the road easement, that show that the pond encroaches into the right-of-w'ay. The pond is far enough from the road bed that it should not cause damage. Further, the 100’ right-of-way is larger than standard. Most right-of-ways are 66 ’. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that this application be approved subject to: 1. The applicant shall grade the slopes around the pond to a ratio of 3 to 1 or less. 2. The applicant shall maintain the pond in a manner that does not adversely impact the right-of-way and roadway. U2205. 2540 Casco Point Road Allen Sche/ers-C. U.P for excavation page —3 April 16. 1997 .i vi> if '■■■' *ytrr /•: K> T' ■..■? ■{ :•• i-' teas' - Application # Date Received !//L/97 Amount Paid T^S't?, fO A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION /) . w- jO / ^ Site Address (laSCd Tcl nT t\oc.d lUayj^aTo^ Type of Application to ^ Filed La hri A I T<Lrix.'f)Q>^ Propertv' Identification Number (P.I.D.) J^0 ‘//7-^3 J?/ OO/J^ APPLICANT Phone (home) ^ ^ 77 Name Alle.h Sc^heJt^/l^_______ Phone (work) Address/ 6-/U tyci A i/g, . City U c\ /H i* l^cyt~o/\ Zip .SS'^O OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City t Phone (home) Phone (%vork)_ Zip. Date Propert)’ Acquired Oc/^^c?/^ 177^ I (-de-) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) 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/Bldg ______S300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use S250.00 Land Alteration ir~ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore 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 ______S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______SI00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_______ Present Use of Property Y Residential Other (.specify). V N / REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. ^ Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. s 7 >r * k ■'rr f \ i*- .a • w y •*. * j. 4. D. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). vX Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. i/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 'j'Qpoaraphic survev (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations in\olve changes in elevation (grades). y List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. \his would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ^ 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 . u u ^ • The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this ^plication, and certifies that the information supplied^ijfTrQe^and correct^to thp^e§t^bf Jds/her knowledge. fApplicant’s signati Date OWER ’S sign.^ture The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry into the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of mve^ali^-and verification of this request. Owner's «;ionature^ ^ yf .—^ Date / ^ / / ADDlicant must have all submina/s into the City oTfices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. PIaSnin« Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1 \ RUN DATE 07/ZG/9^BATCH 503 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR atlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR Om-n NAME TAXPAYER MAME/ADDR PROP AOOR OI4NER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR MCNNEPiri COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY O^WERS LIST 3B 20-117-23 21 0012 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J i J a SCIIEFERS ALLEN J A JUDY B SCIIEFERS 2511 112TH ST H DLOQI^MGTON MN S5*»31 38 20-117-23 21 0015 02520 CASCO POINT RD MARIE A SVANG MARIE A SVAN5 2528 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA m 55391 30 20-117-23 21 002<^ 02500 DU^a(OOOY AVE JAG NAFUS JOHN A NAFUS 2500 DUN»1000Y AVE WAYZATA riN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00009 REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 9 30 20-117-23 21 0013 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGIiED A J A J a SCIIEFERS ALLEN J A JUDY D SCHEFERS 2511 112TH ST N BLOOMINGTON M!'l 55^31 38 20-117-23 21 OOIA 02530 CASCO POINT RD T CHALUPSKY A 0 Y CHALUPSKY T CHALUPSKY A D Y CHALUPSKY 2530 CASCO POINT RO ORONO MN 5539^ 30 20-117-23 21 0017 02520 CASCO POINT RD THOMAS H FRAHM ETAL THOMAS H FRAHM 2520 CASCO POINT ROAD IIAYZATA 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0022 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO VIL OF OROm CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55359 J 38 20-117-23 21 003<^ 02590 CASCO POINT RO JOHT^ T REDMOND JOHN T REDftONO 2695 CASCO POINT RD ORONO FW 55391 38 20-117-23 2^ 0043 02600 CASCO POINT RD PAUL J A MARY E RASTER PAUL J A MARY E RASTER 2600 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 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. DATE F. ^ /I 7-29-%„y.^ %1 If" ^ f t. .A » w T^9v rmm -%*i ■••.V 8 proposed pond o o VSfefyl^ j 42^ ' ♦. •■—-■--—| • *r-\ 1-. 1#'f ^ «ftVnrrf # ■ \^V:;t.----------------/r^-\s •jf'fTTTrrr, ■■ ,. ■ A-'■;■•■■ 1 / * / .' * \ ♦* Jt-J Sii a Sli ^ < — c+ ai 3 ■'^e'A dnv^ 5]rjd portfrOfOB Note: information used for this drawing based on original survey by Cof fin and Gronberg Inc. 5-16-96 VL.-J Minnesota 1785 West County Road 42 C^JL C^C^JL Jl Shakopee, Mn. 55364 Landscaping; 612/ 496-3105 Allen Schefer^ residence 2540 Caeco Point Road Scale: 1‘-40 ’0" Orono, Mn. a. r*. ^-* Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Man: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: adminOmnwatershed.org Web Site: www.mnwatershed.org Board of Managers: John E. Thomas President Pamela G. Blixt Vice President Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Treasurer C. Woodrow Love Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Eugene R. Strommen District Director Suzanne M. Weedman Asst. District Director ©Printed on rtc/dtd paper containing at least 30*e post consumer wastt. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District £ Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, correspondence, plans, maps, and all other supporting data submitted by the applicant, all of which are made a part hereof by reference. PEP.MISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Issued to- Allen Scheffers Permit No; 96-211 Location: 2540 Casco Point Road, Orono Purpose: Excavation of a wetland for a wildlife pond. Date of Issuance: 10/21/96 Date of Expiration: 10/21/97 By Order of the Board of Managerse boara or Man Ar^ SuzanpeM. Weedman Assistant District Director This permit is not transferable, and is valid to the date of expiration. No activity is authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to complete the project, an application for renewal of the permit is required. The applicant i.s responsible for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives, contractors, and employees. (Statement concerning fees for inspections, violations, etc... on reverse) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ALLEN SCHEFERS OF LOT. 2. BLOCK G, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK " HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA IF (940 0) tIBR o : denotes iron morker (^37.9): denotes existing spot elevation, meon sea level dotum denotes proposed spot elevation, meon sea level datum Bearings shown are bosed upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, end the proposed location of o proposed house thereon. It docs not purport to show ony other improvements or encroachments. /) Z ?3S-f itlN'-it Gronbe S^S^51*,CofriN'.a Gronbei 1‘. I-IV'In I (i 'I '! i • I hereby certily lluf tf»h survey wo% prepared bv me iw under my direct super* vision, and ib.ii I .im .•» d-ily regbtensi (*i\ i| Eni‘tiu*er .ind l.sud Surveyor under the bw' “f of Minni'M’i.v hbfk S. Cfiuibery. Minnesota License Numl>i*r 127S5 OATf 5-16-95 SCALE r»40‘ H'«No 96-170 170 ME^UTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9,1996 (*#10) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, 2540 CASCO POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3762 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3762 granting approval of a conditional use permit for fill importation of approximately 426 cubic yards for construction of a new residence at 2540 Casco Point Road for Allen and Judy Schefers and Water Street Builders, Inc. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Callahan reported his dissatisfaction with the disregard of the motion made in May, 1996, for condemnation proceedings to begin on properties affecting the bike trail. The purpose was to enable the bike trail to be completed in 1996. Moorse said the Wills and Bruning properties require Council resolutions to authorize moving ahead on the condemnation proceedings. Callahan, Jabbour, and Goetten each said it was their understanding that the previous Council action included proceedings against all affected properties Callahan moved. Goetten seconded, to direct the City Administrator to have the City Attorney commence condemnation proceedings on September 10, 1996, towards any property in need of condemnation in order for the bike trail completion to be accomplished and to adopt the resolutions required to accomplish this. A report in writing is required from the City Administrator by Wednesday, September 18, 1996 stating that the condemnation proceedings have begun and a time table in writing by the City Attorney regarding accomplishment of the condemnation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Goetten noted the receipt of a letter and petition by the Hassan Township requesting support for their incorporation as a city. Goetten asked the Council members of their opinion. Goetten and Jabbour both noted their support. Moorse cautioned of impact on adjoining cities. Goetten moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3763 voicing no objection from the Council to the petition for incorporation as a city by Hassan Township. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Kelley made note of an upcoming Staff picnic. • Kelley inquired about further review of the easements for internal trails on the Dickey p"'perty. It was noted that a letter of credit is on file for the developer in regards to the internal trails. GT 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#10 - #2166 Janet Kieman - Continued) Stoddard asked where the City was regarding the County's planned improvements to CoRd 15. Callahan said it was in a state of active consideration noting the different viewpoints taken amongst Council members Lindquist asked for the size of the patio to be considered Kieman asked that it be large enough to accommodate a table and chairs Stratton said it is currently proposed at 24' across and 18* out from the house. Gaffron reviewed the hardcover in the 0-75’ setback id suggested cutting the size of the patio m half. Kieman and Stratton agreed to limit the size of the patio to 240 s.f. Smith asked about the plan for the gazebo. Kieman said she would like to do it in the future. The placement was unknown, but Kieman was informed that it should not encroach the septic system drainfield. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2166 with the following changes and conditions: The garage will be offset with a minimum of 15' setback from CoRd 15. The patio will be reduced in size to 240 s.f The property will not be allowed to have more than 4 bedrooms until such time as sewering is complete. The Planning Commission advised that no more structural coverage would be allowed in the 0-75 setback zone as the property has reached its maximum limit. Gaffron noted that the change in hardcover in the 0-75' setback would result in a 3.9% variance. He also informed the applicant that the drainage and grading plans and location of the sewer would be required before the application would go before the Council. Gaffron said he would provide what information they had in-house, and this request should not hold back the proposal. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, principle of average lakeshore setback, concern with trading a fireplace and minor landscaping for major structure in the 0-75’ setback, and noted the property was at the point of no additional structural coverage. (#11) #2167 ALLEN AND JUDY SCHEFERS, ”2540" CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:03-10:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certihcate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Loren Brueggemann. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1996 (#11 - #2167 Allen and Judy Schefers - Continued) Gafifron noted the elusiveness of the application with the steady stream of changes made from the original proposal. He reported that the original house was planned within the flood plain and with the lowest floor level below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). The 75-250' hardcover was also proposed at about 32% where only 25% is allowed. The lot is vacant, and a new house is now proposed for which there is no justification for hardcover variances. The house has now been raised to the required 935.5' elevation and out of the flood plain. With the changes to the location, the size of the house, and the driveway, the house now will meet the 25% hardcover. The only request remaining is for a CUP for fill importation in excess of 100 cubic yards. It would require 300-400 cubic yards of fill for this proposal. Gafifron noted there is also no & .nned average lakeshore setback to meet as there is no house to the south. The house will be located some distance back from the 0-75' setback. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback is proposed at 24.97%. Gaffron said the plan is realistic. He said the fill v/ould require around 30 truck loads. Documentation by a survey showing hardcover calculations will be required. Peterson noted that the normal precautions would be required regarding fill such as road clean up. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the request for a CUP for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards with the inclusion of a survey. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Haw-n was absent from the vote. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12,1996 No report was given. (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1996 MEETING Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1996. Vole; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hawn was not present for the vote. (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTENT) THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9,1996 Stoddard will attend the September 9, 1996 meeting of the Council. H ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R 7 g o A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIO.NS 20 AND 21 FILE /?2167 WHEREAS, Allen Schefers and Judy Schefers, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2540 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 6, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to allow the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence, where a maximum importation of 100 cubic yards of fill is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10,03, Subdivisions 20 and 21. Minnesota: NOW^ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2167, 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996 and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 • «• • CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 3 7 62 - The need for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is directly related to the required minimum floor elevations associated with adjacency to a floodplain, which eliminated the possibility of excavating the necessary material from the site. B) The proposed grading plan will allow the construction of a driveway and garage located at the main floor level of the proposed residence structure. C) The proposed grading plan will allow for proper drainage away from the proposed residence. D) The proposed fill and grading will not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but will provide a transition between the higher lot to the south and the lower lot to the north. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the importation of 426 cubic yards of fill will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivisions 20 and 21 to permit the importation of approximately 426 cubic yards of fill material in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on the property, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 62 1.Applicants and their agents shall adhere to the land alteration provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J), and such work shall adhere to the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 4. 5. 6. 7. ATTEST: Applicants and applicants’ agents shall be responsible for immediate cleanup of all materials spilled on City roads. Applicants shall adhere to the site plan and grading plan by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated 5/16/96 revised 8/14/96 revised 8/19/96. Any revisions of that grading plan and site plan will require further review by the City. No other conditional use permit or variance approvals are granted with this resolution of approval. Applicant shall obtain a land alteration permit from the City prior to commencing importation of fill. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. orothy M. HalJI^City Property Owrf6r(s) ■ Edward J. CallahaiVoJr. Page 3 of 5 Lake. A/\ir)i\e..io n ko^..............• •• • • 0,530 -S:- Jt\\ rt r| ^ - II'-•«*' ’. f /* CA-J/I-, r # ...Mi'/i'___ 0 \ X/ \ / ' / I \ Ck^o-. /\ \ / / • • •«» ................./ 11 11 .. -i-i n OcL^cO Po/n'h Rocxci 5-^ye/n MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 T (#7 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Mayor Jabbour asked Staff to identify the variances. Gafffon 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. Gafifon 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 subdivis* on. 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 DEVELOPxMENT INC., HUNTER DRIVE AND 6TH AVENUE NORTH - SUBDIVTSION FOR 4 NEW UNITS The Applicant was represented by Rick Carlson and Mark Gronberg. 1 I / f TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2214, Richard Kozicky, 2016 Shady wood Road--Variances--Public Hearing Application: Variances for side yard setback, hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area 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, 10' on the south Section 10.03, Subd. 15 Non-Encroachments. A. Chimneys, flues, belt corses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical 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 encroach 3' into the required side yard. They would need to be reduced to 1.5' to be considered a non-encroachment. The applicant has indicated that the 3' overhang is consistent with the architectural style of the residence. A side yard setback variance of 1.5* is needed. LAKESHORE SETBACK 1. 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 residence is more than 75' from the shoreline, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 2. Section 10.56, Subd. C, 6., Average Lakeshore setback No principal or accessor>’ 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 lockbo.xes. 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 revised proposal changed the location of the deck and family room so that only a portion of the stairway is in the average lakeshore setback which is allowed, as noted by underlining above. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS 3. Section 1 0.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land A Iteration 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 (43.65%) 4,413 (45.84%) 2,006.75 (20.85%) TOTALS:13,720 2,406.25 (17.53% total lot area) 5,061 (36.89%) 4,888 (35.62%) 2,481.75 (18.08%) i^22I4, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shady wood Rd.~Variances 3/17/97 page-2 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 19 sq. ft. or by .19%. Overall, the proposed modifications to the site decrease hardcover from 5,061 sq. ft. or 36.89% to 4,888 sq. ft. or 35.62%. STRUCTURAL COVERAGE Section 10.03, Suhd.14, 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 accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Lot Size:Structural Coverage Allowed (15%) Existing SUiictural Coverage Proposed Structural Coverage 13,720 sq. ft.2,058 sq. ft.house 1,357 garage = 495 deck = 96 Total = 1,948 (14.2%) new garage+laundry= 1,056 new deck=200 new porch=224 house = 1,357 Total=2,837 (20.67%) The proposed structural coverage exceeds the 15% limit. A variance of 779 sq. ft. or 5.68% is requested. The existing house and garage conform to the structural coverage requirements. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Existing Survey First Proposal Revised Proposal Proposed Floor Plan for Entry/Family Room Addition as Revised Floor Plan for Laundry, Garage, Deck and Porch Pictures U2214, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shadyu’ood Rd-Variances 3/17/97 page-3 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 laundry 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 (north side). The revised driveway has been approved by Hennepin County. The proposed changes result in a slight increase in hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by 19 sq. ft. and an increase in structural coverage from 14.2% to 20.67%. Overall, the proposal reduces hardcover on the lot from 36.89% to 35.62%. Statement of Hardship The applicant has noted that the driveway is steep and located on a cur\ e in the road (Shadywood Road). The driveway also provides access for the property to the north. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. The applicant is removing 192 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area and increasing the hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by 19 sq. ft. The structural coverage is proposed to increase from 14.2% to 20.67% or 779 sq. ft. The rocks and walls in the 0'-75’ setback area necessary for erosion control on the site. The property is located on tlie curv'c 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. A portion of the existing driveway must remain to provide access to the adjacent property. Hennepin County considers the revision an improvement. #2214, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shadywood Rd—Varianccs 3/17/97 page-4 5.The design as proposed with 3' overhangs encroaches into the required 10' side yard setback. A side yard variance of 1.5' is required. 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. The applicant has added windows to provide visual interest from the side yard elevation. 7.The applicant has redesigned the lakeside additions to eliminate the need for an average lakeshore setback variance. 8.If the applicant’s lot size met the minimum lot area requirement of 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.), the allowed structural coverage of 15% would allow 3,267 sq. ft. of structure on the lot. The applicant's lot is 62.9% of the minimum lot size (13,720 sq. ft. vs. 21,780 sq. ft.) and the proposed structural coverage is 2,837 sq. ft. The Zoning Code provides for each lot to have at least 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coverage. Staff Recommendation To approve or amend as proposed. U22I4, Richard and Carmen Kozicky 2016 Shad}'wood Rd.—Variances 3/17/97 page-5 J Application # Date Received ^ - A Amount Paid ±7 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 / # ($50.00 per each additional variance) JOT' <r>' Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 es (no change from original application) ‘— K? e:' A :..vv • j **v Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress < G? Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) /*7~y/7~^S 3/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired / 0-1 - 9 C>____________________________^(month/year) I (do) n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property': ___residential ___other (specify). Zoning District:^_____________________________________ APPLICANT Name —— ^ .Address: ^ ^HA-0y i^coh City: A______Zip: <^*^3 Phone (home ) ^ *2/ ^ ^ Phone (work) V 7 6 C3 ! OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ ^ oo c (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width V^W zx A qoxqx Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or inusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) _J V - - -1^ - ~* 161.4 \'to\l 35 (23)1 \ 146.5 11t\CDr>>' k'— 'h 41 '*"1" i» '•' 1 39 ’^V C' \ S''c->' 'v \CPy \' W' \ gV' \ ‘ (",^l_Jil_ ^ ! . 4^ (27) ^ 4* " \\ ,7- /n-23-2V ^rf/v| .•■ p • •* . -• ^ • 4 ^*2 \ *42 \':P V.< \ I^V:; rfeipr,, c''^ 5 isi# ":>: \ s (\i5) Vi \ pF^^v""^ !2) ,M..-' \ I \>F ,4 "'y -/'yb/\. y v\ \ \ I GO ICO '.A 1 y'C\^) FJ \ -13 ,D0N PARK *. ) f \ 264 264 I7.|I7'Z3-3I 2C/9P (4;>) i\ \ 'F 30 (41) / <A\ PART OF LOT II \ ^ . (44) \ t RUN DATE OE/19/97BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 17 17-117-23 31 0003 03746 SUNSET DR RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC 4300 BAKER RD MINNETONKA MN 55343 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST17 17-117-23 31 0045 03701 SUNSET OR SUPERAr^RICA GROUP INC SUPERAMERICA C/0 TAX COMPLIANCE DEPT P 0 BOX 14000 LEXINGTON KY 40512 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 117 17-117-23 31 0049 03746 SUNSET DR R 0 NAEGELE ROBERT 0 NAEGELE 3746 SUNSET DR SPRING PARK MN 55384 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 24 0026 01978 SHADYNOOD RD MARTHA J HAENY mS MARTHA J HAENY 1978 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0001 02000 SHADYNOOD RD ROGER KIRCHNER ET AL H/L EST JOHN C NELLS 2000 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0012 02032 SHADYVOOD RD J A UNRUH A J M BURGESS JOYCE UNRUH I JAMES BURGESS 2032 SHAOYHOOO RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 24 0027 01990 SHADYNOOD RD GREGG 0 KLOHN GREGG D KLOHN 1990 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0002 02016 SHAOTNOOD RD R N A C M KOZICKY RICHARD H KOZICKY 2016 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0013 02040 SHADYNOOD RD D A J ZOSCHKE DAVID A JUDY K ZOSCHKE 2040 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 24 0028 RD 38 17-117-23 01998 SHADYl D A J SOLTAU DUANE K A JANET E SOLTAU 1998 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0011 02024 SHADYNOOD RD PAMELA J NILLETTE PAM NILLETTE 2024 SHADYNOOD RD ORONO MN 55391 "... i ^ s . .... .1 V . ^V *4. , M Vr TOTAL BATCH 501 00011 P* T-1 i] 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 BELIEI DATE 0 MI«fS fWiT^J KOBCKV.nntADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO.SMtl.N«r N»ltl MMnUMNS$MS flM(«IT)4741«M r«(tl2)474IM7 nSAFTFO ItMVgYnML: DKKKOZICKY liMVIYnfc UQAL Al iT Ul 1 Mi Ui 2. Mscfl «Mi p«i teiM « iMM iMil *• Woi liM Ul 2 •» a pMt 112 ftS Ul li iMM MiliimHity » *• IHIHO Jcgm 10 mmmm to ^ ttoi rfM to Om Ntotoaly 1 m liiOiiaMiily dm% toM N«Mf Km to to toa ptoi totoMf M Mt« •# 21. im cofMi af to dtt toaic uf Ijka •r Ul 2. toMM m to -Om S tolHMM'i to*aOlllMariiMC«M MHIAWPm; ni aapa tfaw Mvatoaa fto iia |aK it aa fliKawa: 1. SltoMli^ tot laito^aatototoKliaaaflMBianrllMaaCtot total OncfifiMaiMitoMitKcA. 2. Mtowii^tot toaatiaaafaatoton l■>WHMal^it wt tonati napmiM 1. ,--------------------------------------------- 4. ttMliMMitoUltototlMiMMMiaiMaftoatot ITAmultDtYKtoiOIJto -•-OtMltalir U>pipaMtopltaikFtoik*«WSiait UcaMt to.ii niS.ait.llVitaaO CgtTtFlCATION: I KmKy toto Alt Mmy Ky m at Mdct my toma MfcrvitMw ...d Um I m > rufatiftl Ki^toato mJ a ftofttaliMl jUMyoi aatof tot Law of to, Sttia of Miamiuto MnlLPatoar Si ipMinatoMljtorvairariSitlLPatoarPe.toPS.No yrAfI: ONE wai EQUALS 20 FEri r il« MO Cl^ 1/ I Of I ONH • 1744 LAKf MINfJtrONKA fOmiM Mf| 0 4 • 1 • II 0 M • I • as 0 44 • a - 110 0 to • I • to 0 a . a - 40 0 10 • to • M Ml Ml / 4ota • 14 n 0 li • It • 74f 0 14 • 4 • to 0 »a • 44 1 • «»*e 0 i • 4 • II 0 4 • I a • t 0 IS • It • I4i 0 12 • i • M 0 40 • 4 - lit ® p-jJS). M • •••0 0 111 • 12 i • 4ta 410 4$ Of 14 • lau lioa (ajji)t lio • Mia ii4«a lo au4«i* t«4 a* C4ic vwa amm i io o ** m ii 110 4»4 4j«4 / Mia - 4a4a« SS.f I V I Ib1075 I -ii r'-i CT* Mtmt \in\im KoocxY.ncx ADVANCE SVEVEYJNG A ENGINEERING Ca Sltlt.ltay.llK.ltl PhHi(#12)4ta TIM taBfil3)4talK7 aamoL. EICK KOZICKT 2i Mr«w>it. vm ntAno.MBMi li im iqiseel F<*"«r >«. tm MMr(ruii:*MH MtafMtliiAiHQfth rijrconMrorUi •r Ul 3 ta • ptata tt21S ta« Se«0i ta» tat NoitaM IjrMtadtatiitaiMItlO lOaiMtaitatattaaivtf fjr mM ta«K ti tat HMtairtSr Hm If Loi 2; ta«n ta tat ptata «r tataitataB •■ ta •Xkm S. MtaM*t ta tat ptai taMf« flt« «r fwit ta tat Ofltai «r tae UMnAngwuma 1¥i Mpt t#«v aniHi tar tritjta it M 1. 2. X M«wvi iti MtaftattaL miPAPmttoiJtacoKVPnioMta flMKtataiM ^ *tata laCtatpwpufj. *23S. M. If *0* it canncAimiiMhptMMy twpitpMibpMori UMarfJ.taPJ.Nt.tZ25 ^ INCH BQUAXJ 20 ftBT IM ef tetata^^Mbifiiaali. /SMteUPtafeari ONE 4. ;y- o^ A'.,»4 » v\ •n V IV; V ; •« •h V . r 'rv • ;4 - AJ, / • •• -n^ « l’ t\m oz I o <oo: r f»€ W« COIL or toi I 20 tCtU LAKE MINNETONKA datnuLUf) A»f A1 or 0 - rt* foc 0 « 75 0 ■A ^ t ■ It 9ED aCMOvCD © 55 ■ I • M © «0 ■ a • 370 © M ■ I - to 0 a ■ s • 40 © •4# * *a ■ laa anot kdioved 475 475 / 40t5 - II ts am iCMMo eroi armio 0 3t» • 441 • 134# © 1 > S • 4 © t • • 5 • t © -»t. »# ■ M# tool CMOCM IVMOvn 0 ft. t. C^5-«)' tool ettocN mMm ^ flortAui anioviD ® >•— oovnwr woom © ■tot II »rI It# GAtAor aniowD AtCAS or 75 . nor nut, 1J0 - t#75 I2.tt5 TO tUtvTT av CA4C. _ 1.075 tU#¥t T TO 0 N M 13.770 O «4 I M • foaa 0 3 ■ 40 • t4« O 12 . 17 • JO# 0 t# I JO • laa 0 I# B MO# • 17##^ O 3 4 «t • 31 340X3 340X5 / WJS • 30JS IJ#I 13#l / ##75 - 14 IX ONONAL turner or motfiirr on rt£ • AOVANCf AjmrMNO # CNCNCrMMO MNNCIONKA MM 55343 JOO NO atlOTt 961075R 17k# X by Ib^ M/ m.-- -i: \s 7\'fk -.6;i,in' LI ■iim I tTf I \ =faai ■ V < \ .57<iw paL>,'.^f \ P^.'C'^'' OC C (C Lcx'cifof^, jOC'tf H ,1^' ;M«. iS*/ is :^M.'I \ ^. •..‘ f\ S kiiT i] n’v i>y —?P,>' y' •' ‘'S|l:J;>i.-im'-.ii^fe;m^:f;i^ VruV^c».w«» \ . a i^'L.—» m<-m rw 'v\' “ >>r , ir; ' ^ f •• ♦>'. ■ v*‘ *•,* »» • k'< 4»«:i a''|tk^ • ^ / aii** ».-•' .»-•-»' ^ ___ *.>•• vC<^ # F/-'0M t>rClc LCK'i^fh-'C\ r ‘ i 'i . • • - . ' -r^- •0ut.,. _ _ • ^ »■ _ ___________*“ • ••k -•• i./i. .>■ ■■■,' . -•'< -V V-'^ '* ‘ r* JV|«^r|b6V V ■' -i. i-^ri-K.': . • -r ■».. v% t'^h >Yic-i£^ of frbPrV Lxf^< \uiv-’ or C1M^[/MC^ hf'-OiXxUi- >-■■■'? c'-i .. r .,It •■SBW >r^ /Mi 'i^v;.•-•r;tT- '___J.%1 s>*l> &1*^ L^-c 'i.''/• .<•■ >r 'f ^iii//\r:i. or rroi-.r'vr'/ L/»iC> •M>lii7VK 17.117':; Ml/K KV mC K ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. lt.> K# |«| M—wn U.MH5<M> fWIftI2)474 7««.l f«ii!:i4NUfc? MH\TYrott DICK KOZICKY BLVQQ2, rdwMH It. Nftnw) II, J April It. f«f7 iroAi nr scAipunN . Aw ri^ *1 wp* rfl,, 2 » . II24S fcft Sm* A» cfiMn itT I d I; Am NiiAtMfriv irilNiiiir !• A* M 11« Aipvn JO alMn in te riwc «r IjU AmNwAmtHr riM« aWrivt A Af HMkirip %m^Lm2, Am liw^Mtiwri) ri^ aM N mA oH Im a Ar pri« •# W|Aiii^t. ril A *t>»« S Mma'fe A4MM’. miA^ AArpl«Amf«»fite«r«rimi«AcOnk«»rA»Cm% HtuNriA. Ian af Ac Icfal inrripiiaa paa fwmriicd. • «cA«M4laMattai LIMITATIOMIAMOTg^ 1 aar anricn fiw A m iak ■ « 2 SkaarAf Aclacaiiaaafcai«iM|iaAMi«i 1. ScaiaaactraaaBMcaiiev verify aWRf atari 4 Slvaii^Mi 5 WWA atria A —t At cawm of Ac pwyewy. Ataaf At Ai it A poA pApofjr. at tar aot A familAi aMi ynm m ArtpAai M yaa At aw At at A AailAr aAk At iCAriAaAaM af loircnaataAl mrict A laif^utAt Wt ABtA AAjraawritarAcAmy AtaaftiA AAAtpAiaAritAtahA %oa Awad Aal Abari At Arary A Aril lawAAAAl iftack. A awy Im jwAAclAn 0^0 )aw ptycci A paA Arir aivmb if yaa CAL XTANDAim ^ ____________ *a*DnaiA« 1/2* ID |apr arifc fiAAic pAp ktariap Saa littaA NaaAw f2J5. tct. if V A filAd A. Ata dcaam faaad iwa i CTMTIfKATmn I IvfC^ ccftify AA Ait Arvr> aw pwpwtri kp ***‘*‘~—----------‘~*^*rAnAl* 'u At A aadw atp Aftci AptffaisAa Ad A a I idA At Lawt af At SiAC tf Mi II PAk^rE^ A P^ No «:)S liNf iwai IQUALS 20 iro a aaaocoMa •eti mw MMtoso nc •* RgMISifD P^DPeS/^Sfh>}y^ ^ ■f ^»K NO era O' tOI » •A • tJt« LAKE MINNETONKA leaniA §at) -Ma pan litervd to &r OCCM AMCMO 0-75 © »» • I . M © 40 t • • ifo 0 to • t • «o 0 • • ft • 40 ■40. pto naovcei Moucro av • tr •NOOO WUS AIMMO 0 toft • 44 I • I.M0 0 7 # 7 . 4 0 • • I ft • f 0 4t 0 » ■ to onc« CAaoca Aaotto 0 -4# , t too «eca* . aiMowo At Aft A 7ft - TftO ttH O «4 • M • MM O 3 • 40 • 144 o *0 ■ 10 • TOO O u • It • f}4 O N • M» • Mil 4 • 4 • M 4. aocK CAaora amomo '•*00 JOftO mm / ton 3t n -400- paca RCMAfD <a04 4 7ft «7ft / 40tft • II 4t 0 >»»» » W 4 ■ patCaAv tfcorto 17 4V. 10 in fl« C44C < o:f » to Omw 13 770 CAatOI RtaOMO ■♦AOA IftftO Iftjo / ttrft I? tt OAON41 suoaiv A oaortarv cm fu • AOvANQ ftua^Tiac 0 taoNiiaMe M«#tlOMI4 at ftV34ft joa NO wiotft 961075R3 Vi TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator \<2-^ April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2217, John Thimmesh 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 18' 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 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 22,564 sq. ft. (5,330 + 17,234) (.39 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. The applicant has indicated that he would like to keep the shed for pool equipment storage. The existing dcck/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. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to combine the properties. 2. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lokeshore 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 1 lardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’5,300 sq. fl.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%) 758.5 sq ft. (4.40%) 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) 842.5 sq. ft. (3.73%) The proposed addition increases hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area by 4.40% or 758.5 sq. ft.. 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. U22J7, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 4/21/97 page-2 3.Section 10.03, General Provisions, Siibd 14, Yards and Open Spa'e, 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 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 22,564 sq. ft. « 3,384.6 sq. ft.house= 1,801 shed=83 pool/deck= 1,375 Total=3,259 sq. ft. (14.44%) house= 1,801 shed=83 pocl/deck= 1,375 storage addition=558 Total=3,817 sq. ft. (16.91%) 432.4 sq. ft. (1.9%) The existing amount of structural coverage is 14.44% where 15% is allowed and 16.91% is proposed. The amount of structural coverage could be reduced by removing the 83 sq. ft. shed which would reduce structural coverage to 16.54% or 3,734 sq. ft. To meet the structural coverage requirement, only 125.6 sq. ft. of storage area could be added. U2217, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 4/21/97 page-3 List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Property Owner'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-story 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 propose i addition. A hardcover variance of 758.5 sq. ft. (or 14.40%) 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 14.44% or 3,259 sq. ft. to 3,817 sq. ft. or 16.91% where 3,384.6 sq. ft. or 15% is allowed. Issues 1.The lot area is .39 acre . the minimum lot size for the LR-IC zoning district is .5 acres. The applicant should legally combine the two tax parcels into one r-^'el. 2.The shed on the property is encroaching in the <equired rear and side yard setbacks. If it is to remain, it should either conform to setbacks or seek variances. 3.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 conformance with current side and rear yard setback requirements. 4.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. 5.The proposed addition will add an additional garage door facing the street. Tlie applicant is not proposing to add a driveway, however, staff is concerned that a future owner may increase hardcover by adding a driveway. n22l7, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 4/21/97 page—4 6.The existing residence exceeds the hardcover requirements. The proposed increases both hardcover and structural coverage. addition 7.Staff is concerned that a future owner 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 propert>-. 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. #22/7, John Thimmesh 1945 Fagerness Point Road 4/21/97 pege-S Application # Date Received ) f 9*^ Amount Paid tyO fA^ ^ 3$SL> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) » « 4^'^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250-;00 ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) |0*-*fO A n Q / 8 PROPERTY INTORMATION Site Address 5 P'cx^^f'n '^S $ / /” i §—Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) - OO ! ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 3 - 3<^ ~ 9S_____________________________(month/year) I (do) (do H&t) also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of property: X residential ___mother (specify). Zoning District:______________________________________ APPLICANT . Name n:t yvt m ^i/\ Address? / 9 4^S e^r AVCiri': C) rc>t^ 4> Phone (home) 'V'7/- Phone (work ) ______" Zip: S‘53?/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:Cit>':.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Cons.....wn i ust $ ~ /-5 OOP Describe request in detail: /Jdc/^cr\ <31 a^/r^h^c/ ^cvrA.^g (attach additional s|ieets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ____ Lot Width y Hardcover Lot Coverage X_ 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 uith Zoning Code requirements: 5^ / 5 /o ^ / Ccy tre.e.d ^ j~o Spo-c^ "for In ouSe. ho Id ^ /aujh p /n.p,rWj <nou>h/Cutt.r j SnouJimob'i ^ i^irA__c~o^^ d-TX A (aitach additional sheets if necessary) 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the fnllowinif 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 Ovsners 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, Govl Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy i'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 8 ‘A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy BY2' 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 yjmr 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 'D- ^ 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. __J. Date -Z. ^7Owner’s Signature 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 malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ) f >'N f®' / A.^ J:-./ '^e mrtm. (23) \ 3r^: /V^ / Jo / ^ V • 195.3 > >A/ 'AC 5-19-65 AUDV i<T/ I a " / ' WEBB ST -7 /-4-' 250 \ • (9) " \ "V. / O' ^.\/4 '8 /4^/ (10) ^/\^' •r# / '0) 4/ / \^i\ Yhibi-B RUN DATE QZnZ/^7 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OI#€RS LISTBATCH 504 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 17-117-23 23 0006 01920 CONCORDIA ST JOHN E HEIST ETAL JOHN E HEIST 1920 CONCORDIA AVE HAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0011 01929 EAGERNESS POINT RO LLOYD DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 4015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS MN 55419 36 17-117-23 23 0017 01940 CONCORDIA ST ERIK A THOMPSON ERIK A THOMPSON 1940 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0011 01951 CONCORDIA ST J B HALORON A L H HALDRON JOHN B & LYNN H HALDRON 1951 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0014 01925 CONCORDIA ST THOMAS M KONAT THOMAS M KONAT 1925 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 506 00015 38 17-117-23 23 0007 00038 ADDRESS UN;\SSIGr^D LLOYD H DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 4015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS 55419 38 17-117-23 23 0012 01937 FAGERNESS POINT RD R D ROBERTS ET AL RICHARD D ROBERTS 1937 FAGERT^SS POINT RD ORONO HN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0018 01945 EAGERNESS POINT RD J P S P J THIMTiESH JOHN P S PATTI J THIMMESH 1945 FAGERNESS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0012 01945 CONCORDIA ST R H RAGATZ & J I RAGATZ RICHARD H 4 JILL RAGATZ 5709 AYRSHIRE BLVO EDINA MN 55436 38 18-117-23 14 0015 01905 CONCORDIA ST NIC BERGLUND NORMAN TENT4ER BERGLUND 1905 CaJCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 22 438 17-117-23 23 0010 01921 FAGERNESS POINT RO D L PETERSON 4 E M PETERSON DARRYL L PETERSON 1921 EAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA m 55391 0 38 17-117-23 23 0015 01932 FAGERNESS POINT RD BARRY J MARON BARRY J MARON 1932 FAGERNESS POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 *s J y ' V. i.| 38 17-117-23 23 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED J P A P J THIK1ESH JOHN P « PATTI J THIMMESH 19A5 FAGERNESS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 lA 0013 01935 CONCORDIA ST THOMAS H LYTLE THOMAS H LYTLE 1935 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 18-117-23 19 0016 01950 CONCORDIA ST H F A K A PETERS HILLIAM F A KARAN A PETERS 860 SADOLEBROOK PASS CHANHASSEN m 55317 I -John . •_ HARDC0VER„C^CULAT10M WOKK5il£Ji j SCIBACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (%7S!J 75-250' 25-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 20>^ A. House 500-1000'T) Xdeoffh Widen X X X B. Garaje •» • • C. Driveway 4 X X D. Sidewalk . to X X E.. Pario/Deck X X • • F. Landscape Underlain . By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X G. Odier • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE > + B w ^ X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70?^ A. House Lcngtli 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 d. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______• + B X 100 - • •••••* • •• •* 14 * *S.F. • S.F. ■■S.F.% ■• S.F.• 1 S.F.• 84 • ••to • S.F. .,5 V; r S.F. • • •S.F. f , ^^*... u.:-; « •S.F. • S.F. ‘ mi S.F. m S.F. ‘*»t f/" : V0 4 S.F. S.F. •• m S.F. \m m 84 S.F. S'SJo S.F.B at f.SR % * • • • • ••• • • • . S.F. # • S.F. • S.F. S.F. VB*•S.F. • •• • S.F.• S.F. •• •. S.F. •• ■»S.F. a.S.F. ■i S.F.# s;f. ■i •S.F. m S.F.• 1 » • • • 3.P. • V BtFi A S.F.B m % • • • t • •1 • • ^ • • • .1 ' Joi^H HARDCOVER CALCULAT4U£l^OKK5ll£E j SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7r VMS& 25-500’ 2-za-97 EXTSTINC HARDCOVra TN ZOWE A. House Leagdi Wklth SHED • • B. Caraje C. Driveway X X X X X D. Sidewalk c STgP$X X E. Patiomeck - f POOt.X X AREA iH$iO£ VJCOO R^^inin 6 V/ALL^ F. Landscape B£tlgN/C0 V? /}£. S.V>c2.7' • Underlain j x By Plastlc.\L x _____________ Or Fabric F G« Other 3V»"• I3.S- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A 450*^ + B y?,I34 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. 'House ____^________ • X Lcofth Width X X •X B. Garage • • •C. Driveway 3/ X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic • Or Fabric X X X G. Other 500-1000' 1801 //ta 72 07<* » /4 S.F.■■ S.F. S.F.• • S.F.• ‘ K S.F. yl * • » " ■* "3 • S.F. S.F. S.F. '*• S.F. S.F. S.F.' . V .j • ■ V. ■S.F.( ■■ S.F. I- • f S.F.{I •1 . r. !> • • -cf* • - ■ J* ^ • S.F.rf I i7. Z34 S.F. A B Rtf'. i6 « S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5*5*^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5"^^-7 ♦ B /7.Z3 4 soc7.%.v. / ?. 23~3r~ S.F. X 100 - A B • •#• t f • •• # t •! n[LININ[LrilN I T , MIINlNdOU I M » X- •- t.y^ r? .tJ U.- RALROAO SPKE N TREE ROOT 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 survey 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. €yKtb'iV tf L* .V < V U n. O O 1 A •• # / • s /Q Kj Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form^ I (we) d-ojlci^^ ^0 Lt.cj'S of /^3V /^^er/tf55 [print name(s)] [print address] Pf-RJ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prope^ located at /9VS referred to as Land Use Application No. ^ ^/ Y. 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. ^'^0 rrt-C Property Owner Date 2\hy Property Owner Date ♦♦**♦*****♦♦♦♦****♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*********A******************************************* I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ______^^so 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 (w'e) 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. L TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2221 Sven A. Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia, 3115 North Shore Dr.--Conditional Use Permit and Variances-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: To remove the e.xisting 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 is needed for excavation and fill in the 75' setback area. Pertinent Ordinances: 7.Section 10.24, One Family Lakeshore Residential District DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adjace 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 U222l Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 31 15 Sorth Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page-I i i The subject property is .439 acres which is less than the required 1 acre minimum lot size. The proposed residence would encroach into the 10' side yard setback. A variance of 8.5' for the side yard is required to construct the new residence. The iot width is 80 feet which does not meet the 140 ft. minimum lot width requirement. 2. Section 10.22, Siibd.2, Lakeshore Hankover ami 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 theie shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 fe '! of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,00U 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 0,297 sq. ft. (32.9%) 6,265 sq. ft. (32.73%) The hardcover analysis above was prepared based on the interpretation by the applicant and surveyor that tlie 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 for a long driveway which increases the total amount of hardcover. U222I Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr. - Varlances 4/21/97 page-2 LAKESHORE SETBACK 3. Seel ion 10.22, Suhd. 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 residenc*' ‘^ui' lings 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, Suhd. 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 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 ' ^,oon. The proposed residence encroaches approximately 65' forward of the average lak re setback line. FLOOn PI /\1N AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT 5.Section 10.55, Flood Plain and IPetlands Management, Suhd. 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 ivimnetonka between elevations 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands c^ !itaining soil types classified as wetland soils, whether or not there is water standing on those soils at an}' given time. #222/ Sven IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances ■t/21/9'/ page-3 The existing survey jhows 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 and the proposed first floor elevation is proposed at 932.9. The Watershed District will require a first floor elevation at 933.5. 6. Section 10.55, Subd. 7, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation A. 1 he Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross- sections shall be interpolated. B. The regulator}' flood protection elevation for Lake Mimietonka shall be 932.5 MSL. The subject property is located in part below th: 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 residence relative to the flood protection elevation. A conditional use permit is required for any fill or excavation in the floodway and flood fringe district. The elevations need to be revised to increase the elevation to 933.5 to comply w’ith the Watershed District requirements. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Property Owner's list Hardcover Calculations Existing Sur\ey Proposed SuiA'ey Topographical Map Elevations Floor Plans Acknowledgement Fomi from Adjacent Property Owner’s Letter from Architect Responding to Planning Commission Minutes Minutes from 3/17/97 Planning Commission Meeting U2221 Sven H'asbcrg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 North Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page-4 Description of Request Applicant seeks multiple variances for lakeshore setback, a\ erage 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 minimum 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 0'-75' setback. An average lakeshore setback variance is needed to encroach 65' into the required setback. The regulator}' flood protection elevation is 932.5 MSL. The proposed elevation for the new residence shows that part of the new residence will be above the flood protection elevation but below the 933.5 elevation required by the Watershed District. Issues 1. 2. 3. The lot does not meet the minimum standards for lot area and lot w idth. The proposed residence does not meet side yard setbacks from side property lines. The proposed residence is located entirely w ithin the 75' setback for Lake Minnetonka and the lagoon. 4. The proposed residence is located forw ard of the average lakeshore setback. 5. 6. The location of the >anoon and setback requirements restrict the location of structures on site. 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. 9. Any excavation or fill requires a conditional use permit. Detailed elevations and grading plans need to be reviewed by the Watershed District. The proposed residence does not exceed lot coverage requirements. #222/ Sven IVasberg and Arlene DeCandia 3115 Norih Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/97 page-5 10. The applicant’s architect has submitted a letter that states that tlie existing foundation will need to be removed. A new foundation should meet the side yard setback requirements. 11. The adjacent resident appeared at the previous Planning Commission and objected to the height. 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 requirement.' 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. A conditional use permit is also required f>r excavation or fill. Demolition and new construction on the subject property would be required to take precautions to protect the shoreline and the lagoon. Staff recommends that the proposed structure be located behind the 75' setback line and conform to the 10' side yard setback on the east property line. The applicant also needs to submit the fee for a conditional use permit. U222I Sven Washerg and Arlene DeCanJia 3115 Ncrlh Shore Dr.-Variances 4/21/07 page—6 Application if Date Received Amount Paid ^'10— 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 $J26.00 * After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) I ;• cJ i PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ It »» p^^\\y0: Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey, Date Property Acquired V-(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: yr residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:____________________________________ APPLICANT H Pr. Name Address: t7 P- Phone (home ) 4 7 i I ^ _____ Phone fworic ) City: _______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: __________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ Describe request in detail: _____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIA'^CES REQUIRED yt, ^ot Area y Lot Width X Hardcover.Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front Side Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condiUons preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: A ----------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) pay 370.00 • . 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, Govl Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/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. 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 SIGNATU 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 -2^/^ 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 i? 4’ V • I I XI ; 2/21/97 4»*' W I (\ ^ ■- Attachment to City of Orono • Variance Application For: Average Lakeshore, Hardcover, etc. Owner: Address: Sven Wasberg 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 fonA^ard than the exIstIng/heated home’s enclosed area. The hardcover request is to exceed the maximum hardcover permitted for new construction, however the total proposed hardcover is less than the existing total hardcover. HARDSHIP DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: Site The site is over 356 feet deep from the Minnetonka lakeshore to North shore Drive. However, 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 location. The existing home to be removed is very foerward of the line 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) 1 VARIANCE APPLICATION (coni) g r . • Ti J* • 1 Hardcover Hardship for hardcover is simply due to a very small lot size behind the buildable lake setback and a deep lot requiring a long driveway, in the proposed design, an overall hardcover reduction in zones O' - 75', 75' • 250', and 250' - 500' has been made as follows: Total lot area = 19,140 sq. ft Hardcover % of total lot»32.89% Zone Existing % of Zone Proposed %of Zone 0-75 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. 32.73% Summary The project's hardships requiring the variance: • Very narrow lot width and size permitting virtually no allowable buildable 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) / 'E.'/h'\bU HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500' 500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF. A. House 44.'^i4 Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 1 /4.3 X X /4.S D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck hS X X ^•4/ 4- •Z4.4 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X t . I TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1*1 + B Ah“^0 f « PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE c A. House \\Length 5 X X X Width ( o Vb.Garage 1-4 > C. Driveway ?'S V'-i* i; X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Ollier 'lip' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5- B Ah^O a a X 100 X 100 lo 990 I3S JL^ nc^ 4 Ip3o I \ph 64 /^ll s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ' S.F. % I 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. D A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250*250-500*500-11 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ■ Length Width -41 X X X O.S B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X “I Landsc^ Underlain By Plastic X X X /G. Other C :* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3441 + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE • I A. House Length Width X. -• lV B. Oarage X X X >4 35 C. Driveway loo X X D. Sidewalk ^4 X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X 0. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 34 B 44(gO X 100 - 41 41. 3o 4o 34fe>€> l4k>o X 100 S.F. __S.F. __S.F. S.F. S.F. 3/^6 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 34 4 /__S.F. ■7 4^0 S.F. 46».71^ % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. &4g S.F. iCOO S.F. lA'^O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. 4(p »5___% A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ■■ X 75-250’250-5001 500-1000' Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X X lO(t? fK)] \ . ' F. Landscape • *• .3 t ■ i Underlain By Plastic ''I-. . h . • O. Other Vj;/ ‘ X X X X X X X X X /X) 1C c/<■ '<1:^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B IfiSO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE% ' A. House ______________ X IIX.,Length WidUi B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X lOt>X X X X X X X G. Other T»vw <^,S TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE LohS> + B noSo X 100 lGk90 S 'I / Oio'O 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. IS.S'! % •3S) 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 to^h S.F. nost> S.F. /S.ST % A B A B CLRlinCAir. 01' SURVEY rOR RICHARD J. OLSON OF TRACTS A Sc B. R.L.S. NO. 269 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Tr«eli A. and a. Na9itl«r«4 lonA No 2tt f«tt of Iho MofioUflr of r*tto«w How«p«i Cot^tf. lbv«soU o iowolot iron iftoroor (tU«): Oonotot OMOiirtf o^l olo»o<iorv moon io««l tfotun iooriny mo««t oro OoooO %fon on TM oi^.t, tntonoo to if^ tho 0ou«09i«o of th« obo«o doocriOoO proporty. tno locolion of on onit^ houoo. ond lr>o tocoiion of el «io«o “ftsOcovor' IhorooA N ooto not p^^porl to oAo* any otntr *npre^«monla or orKroocIwnonIt. $4-0 MI'hl IMIt • • «4*\ *0 Coffin & gronberg . Inc. CVuvKfjity InfDhXT^, UjJ ifiirrkyun, j» .V Pkifirkr* V^2 Tjmjijik IjIu*. MN Sil5<i 612-173-im Oh l«w« *4 (tm <4 \t—' ■ «j MjfiS l*««*fKUMM.«CiUt«^\M«Kf trt* ^ r-X 7-I9H • w* 9iZ73 I subject pRoPgElV BUS N. snore • *rr *• I ■: P^aofiH^ Wfi^r —z ' / / '■ • . •• fi • > ^ *•. ^ 1 y i -t: » ^ ^?UT]^We^ d ) gj^yyA-nosJl ► ir V *•.Uk t\0,'»v.•v/! ;■ pcop T*eTU6cd> fsyena- V»H4. ^^UTH+£.■) ,&.L&s<ywric*>4 t?e^AWl7BiV/k4A«»l6eaiA HcMC. ■Hii l/»' »l'-o'‘ Sfe CO '■mhhh ' ■^. ^fi ** !1C • mT ^ >, iS'si\J • • ^ \ 'q\ ^/sp/il ■&»e-: ■ . --------------------^as. -V : ■ _. WCHE. B(Kibi+ 7 L Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) gU.*tMA CPRgAHg^lA _______of ^jA4K^gg [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^11$ K4/. 17^. 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 Date Property Owner Date t 1 (we) -r, ^ • [print name(s)] of ’Z\oc; M><8^ print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at-Tglitg ^a. gy^.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. ^ r L» [J Kj \J I ^ I ~ Property Owner Date . -r. 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. Exhibi-t-1 4/10/97 Second Attachment to City of Orono - Variance Application For: Average Lakeshore, Hardcover, Side aetbacka, Lot width and area, and Conditional uae permit for excavation and fill, etc. Owner: Addreas: Sven Waaberg and Arlene DeCandea Home 3115 north Shore Drive Orono, Mn 55391 Contractor: To be determined Architect: Sharratt Dealgn Company 471-1024 470-9750 RESPONSE TO 3/17/97 PLANNINIQ COMISSION MINUTES Requests in the minutes where for detailed grading plans and grade elevations. Please see attached refined grading plans of both the existing and proposed site plans. Contour lines and spot elevations are shown. The completion of soil borings and analysis are still in process at the time of this submittal, however, the conclusion has been confirmed that the existing foundation is inadequate for the reliable and structurally sound accomodation of the proposed home. The existing foundation will require removal and a new conventional foundation system or piling will be required to support the proposed home. The soil boring analysis being performed by Advanced / Engineering Company will confirm the recommended foundation type and such recommendation will be integrated into the the final drawings required for permit. There will be some excavation and backfilling required to install the new foundation and, accordingly, a conditional use permit is also part of this request to allow the proposed construction. All requirements for such permit will be executed In the proposed construction. if further information or clarification is required, please contact the Owner or Michael Sharratt. Thank you for your time and consideration. Michael Sharratt 470-9750 (on the behalf of Arnie Wasberg and Elaina DeCandea) — Pr>nf/“m ir I TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 16, 1997 SUBJECT: #2222 Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point Road, Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and hardcover variance to replace 6 ^rway and install random boulders for a retaining wall within 75' of lakeshore. This is an after- the-fact application. Work has been stopped. The boulder retaining wall is partially constructed. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Address Map D - Property Owner's List E - Hardcover Calculation F - 1/30/97 Letter to Eugene Strommen G - 1/31/97 Letter to Eugene Strommen H - 2/12/97 Letter to Stephen Spartz I - 2/18/97 Letter to Stephen Spartz J - 2/19/97 Letter to Applicant K - 2/24/97 Letter to Applicant L - 2/29/97 Letter to Consultant M - 2/28/97 Letter from Consultant N - 3/20/97 Letter to Stephen Spartz O - Survey P - Pictures Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 19 - Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing #2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page~I 2. 3. land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J)(2) - Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public ^\'aters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. Section 10.56, Subd. 7 - Classification of Public Waters. The public waters of the City of Orono have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County, Minnesota: A. B. C. D.Tributary Streams Painters Creek Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek U2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page-2 Protected Waters Natural Environment rNE") Lakes OHWI.Inventory I.D. # Lake Classen 974.5'167-P Dickey Lake 985.5’161-W French Lake 140-P North Ba^'n:930.5' Sewage Lagoon:934.3’ South Basin:930.0’ Lydiard Lake 970.9 159-P Lake Katrina —154-P Wolsfeld Lake (Medina)mm 157-P Protected Waters Rccrctitionnl Development fRD^ Lnkes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Long Lake 944.3’160-P Mooney Lake 988.0’134-P Tanager Lake 929.4’141-P Hadley Lake (Plymouth)961.4’109-P Protected Waters General Develooment CGD) Lakes OHWL Inventory I.D. # Forest Lake 929.4'139-P Lake Minnetonka 929.4’133-P 1 ! Wolsfeld Creek Dickey Lake Creek H.\RDCOVER ANALYSIS 4. Section 10.22, SuM. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Request 0 ’-75’4,540 sq. ft.None 220 sq. ft. (4.8%) 390 sq. ft. (8.6%) 390 sq. ft. (8.6%) The proposed boulder retaining wall and granite stairway increase hardcover from 220 sq. ft. or 4.8% to 390 sq. ft. or 8.6% where none is allowed. Description of Request The applicant has indicated that he wants to replace an existing stairway made of railroad ties with a granite stairway. The applicant also wants to have a retaining wall at the shoreline constructed of boulders for a more natural appe; ranee. Issues 1. This is an after-the-fact application. 2. It is difficult to quantify the stability of the random boulders. 3. The proposed stairway and retaining wall require a hardcover variance of 390 sq. ft. or 8.6% Staff Recommendation To approve the hardcover variance and conditional use permit, subject to the following: 1.The voids between the boulders shall be filled with topsoil and vegetative growth to prevent piping and erosion. 2.Good boulder to boulder contact shall be established during construction. If the boulders come loose in the future, they shall be replaced in their original position. U2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page-3 2. 3. 4. 5. I Good boulder to boulder contact shall be established during construction. If the boulders come loose in the future, they shall be replaced in their original position. If the boulders do not remain in place, then the boulders shall be restrained with heavy gauge wire mesh placed in front of the boulders and pinned into the hillside with earth anchors. Steel bearing places or similar devices shall connect the wire mesh to the earth anchors. If the boulders do not retain earth after reinforcement with wire mesh and earth anchors, the conditional use permit shall be amended and the concrete retaining wall referenced in the 3/20/97 letter from GME consultants shall be constructed. 1 The boulder retaining wall shall be annually reviewed by the Building Official to determine compliance with the conditional use permit. ^2222 Joseph Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 4/21/97 page—4 ■ -• ■ > ' ^ L Appl^tion 0 e^3i c3 ' DatefleceiTed /^: •“', Amount Paid / 7c ut it % ■■■■ ■ ■ \ ^r'S^) o /• CITY OF OROW - GENERAL LAND USE' APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . ^ ^ Site Address 2> f ^^ Type of Application to be Filed /^c<L€Sf^y'^"TJ/~ooy^ APPLICANT Phone (home ) Name JV^/< (/oc4^ ^ Phone (work ) ^7/-,f^/5r~ MAxtss2^fZ^C&/C'^ A<scjP City [/CfCLyZ^i^^ Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address Date Propert}' Acquired { ^ City Zip. (month/year) I (do) (do not) also ovvti the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - )( $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duple.x 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 6^^/^ Present Use of Property Residential 02/21/97 Pay 175.00 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 map from Henneoin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for surv'ey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey. 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). 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. Date i/ 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 (/ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I / c GOVT LOT 5 RUN DATE 02/10/97 BATCH 505PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR I / HEhWEPIN COWITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST58 20-117-25 51 000405705 CASCO AVE CARLOTTA F GABLES CARtOTTA F GABLES 5705 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 51 0021 D0058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 58 20-117-23 51 0026 02900 CASCO POINT RD D SI6AF00S ETAL DONALD SI6AF00S 2900 CASCO PT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 58 20-117-23 51 0032 02916 CASCO POINT RD . ROBERT H POI^LL JR ETAL ROBERT H PONELL JR 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 58 20-117-23 31 0035 02940 CASCO POINT RD S C A L M HANSON SCOTT C I LYNETTE H HANSON 2940 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA m 55391 58 20-117-23 31 0042 03600 CASCO AVE RICHARD J HAEFELE I WIFE RICHARD HAEFELE 5600 CASCO AVENUE NAYZATA MN 55391 58 20-117-23 31 000503709 CASCO AVE R PRESLERy^ J PRESLER TRSTES ROBERT PRESLER 5709 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 UNASSI6f4ED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 58 20-117-23 31 0033 02920 CASCO POINT RO PEGGY R SMITH PEGGY R PICHELMAN 2920 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0036 02948 CASCO POINT RD ROBERT C LAPINSKI AND NIFE ROBERT C LAPINSKI 2948 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0045 02975 CASCO POINT RD STENART R PERRY STEHART R PERRY 2975 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1238 20-117-25 51 002002874 CA^CO POINT RO 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 RO ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-25 31 0028 02910 CASCO POINT RO PHILLIP A BETTY NICCUM PHILLIP J NICCUM 2910 CASCO PT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 f % ’J/ 38 20-117-23 51 0034 02930 CASCO POINT RD MARVIN E MENTH ET AL N/L EST M E MENTH SEE MENTH 2930 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 51 0041 03630 CASCO AVE P GRAFFUNOER A K GRAFFUNDER PETER A KERRY GRAFFUNDER 3630 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0047 02941 CASCO POINT RD NILLIAM H HENNEY NILLIAM H HENNEY 2941 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 d RUN DATE 02/10/97 BATCH 505PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST3B 20-117-23 31 0048 02933 CASCO POINT RD A F 6ALLISTEL JR A F 6ALLISTEL 2933 CASCO PT RD ETAL NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0051 02915 CASCO POINT RD R C KAIL t C L KAIL RICHARD C KAIL I CAROL KAIL 2915 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0054 02879 CASCO POINT RD L D A K E ELSEN LANRENCE D A KATHERINE ELSEN 2879 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0063 02965 CASCO POINT RD JOSEPHINE B KNUDSON JOSEPHINE B KNUDSON 2008 PINEHURST AMES lA 55014 38 20-117-23 31 0072 02912 CASCO POINT RD M D BARRETT ADM BARRETT MICHAEL D BARRETT 2912 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1338 20-117-23 31 004902927 CASCO POINT RD FREDRICK JOHN HEY ET AL F J HEY A H A FRAHPTON 2927 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 005002925 CASCO POINT RO JOE VOCHKO JOE VOCHKO 2925 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0052 02905 CASCO POINT RO STEPHEN L NHITEHILL STEPHEN L NHITEHILL 2905 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0053 02895 CASCO POINT RD RICHARD G HELSTROM ETAL RICHARD 6 HELSTROM 2895 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 . u, * *••• .t • "x 38 20-117-23 31 0055 02917 CASCO POINT RD N N MAXNELL JR ETAL NAYNE MAX»*<ELL JR 2917 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0060 02970 CASCO POINT RD J a B MARTINSON JERRY a BOttNlE MARTINSON 2970 CASCO POINT RO S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0064 02967 CASCO POINT RO T a D ROZEBOOH THEODORE a DEBORAH ROZEBOOM 2967 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0065 00038 ADDRESS UNASSK^D CITY OF ORONO THE CITY OF ORONO 1335 BROrt4 RD S CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0073 02918 CASCO POINT RD JEFFREY L FAHBUSH ET AL JEFFREY L a RENAE T FAHBUSH 2918 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55.* 91 TOTAL BATCH 505 00032 - RUN DATE 02/10/97 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT N0« PI4S5401 PAGE 14 C 0 r{ *■ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEMTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE i.^1 •cfl i 03/14/97 16; 35 F J UOCHKO ■* 5469065 HARDCO SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ro.057 P005 I (^0-7^ CULATION WORKSHEET 75-250 ’ 250-500 ’500-1000?1- ■»* FTCTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________ - * M ■ Loigth /Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck _S3 X X '27.(0 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Zto B . •Z-T-O ff&i (J X100 » ranpnSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcn^ai Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck S\a\iO X X T-SO F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 4 { Me»nQc;0G. Other 40 x 2ehitritA5 \dc\\\^ total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^^ A ^90 ____ ^ B ASHO IbO •*>9 0 ^S4-0 xlOO 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. 4^40 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 B S.F. A S.F. B % • > GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Rip Rap Permit at 2925 Casco Point Road Dear Gene: It is our understanding based on the most recently amended improvement plan that the rip rap project will extend the OHWL a maximum of 8', even at the most indented piece of shoreline, and that no attempt will be made to straighten the shoreline as prohibited by DNR regulations. Any fill placed behind the rip rap or to the land side of rip rap is regulated by the City of Orojjo Land Use Regulations Section 10.03, Subd. 19 as follows: "It is unlawful for any person to ... change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use pennit issued by the Council ...." Also Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (2) states: (also reference Section 10.56, Subd. 7 enclosed) "Grading, filling and e.xcavating is prohibited within 75' of the OHWL ..." These specific ordinance section s are enclosed for your information. The City's ordinances will require both a conditional use permit and variance to perform any land alterations behind or to the land side of the rip rap. Please contact my office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Bruce Vang C-kyuS^ Building Inspector BV/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 I!• I.'v ’-T.-.' • »rWfr - cc:Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Greg Gappa, Director of Public Sen ices Elizabeth VanZomeren, Planner Steve Spartz Enc. Section 10.03, Subd. 19 Section 10.56, Subd. 7 Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (2) I § 10.03 B. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 C. Products produced on the farm may be so'f’^ at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be establisher’ .or conducting such business. One temporary business sign not eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard du-xng the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fil.l, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the'limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded, and such other information as the Council may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the City, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant. ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) § 10.56 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this section. 2. Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75 ’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. 3. Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section^y If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following considerations: a. Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. b. All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: ORONO CC 376 ju4 (2-24-92) S 10.56 Subd. 5, Compliance. The use of any shore land of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maxntenance of water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shoreland areas; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this section and other applicable regulations. Subd. 6. Enforcement. The Zoning Administrator is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements^ (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constxtute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Vxolations of this ordinance can occur regardless of whether or not a permi is required for a regulated activity pursuant to Subdivision 10 of this section. Public Waters. The public classified below consistent Regulations, Part 6120.3300, Map for Hennepin County, Subd. 7. Classification of waters of the City of Orono have been with the criteria found in Minnesota and the Protected Waters Inventory Minnesota: A. Natural Environment (NE) Lakes Lake Classen Dickey Lake French Lake North Basin: Sewage liagoon: South Basin: Lydiard Lake Lake Katrina Wolsfeld Lake (Medina) B. Recreational Development (RD) Lakes Long Lake Mooney Lake Tanager Lake Hadley Lake (Plymouth) C. General Development (GD) Lakes Forest Lake Lake Minnetonka D. Tributary Streams Painters Creek Stubbs Bay Creek Long Lake Creek Wolsfeld Creek Dickey Lake Creek OHWL 974.5' 985.5' 930.5' 934.3* 930.0' 970.9 Protected Waters Inventory I.D. # 162-P 161-W 140-P OHWL 944.3' 988.0' 929.4' 961.4' OHWL 929.4' 929.4' 159- P 154-P 157-P Protected Waters Inventory I.D« ♦ 160- P 134-P 141-P 109-P Protected Waters Inventory I«D« # 139-P 133-P ORONO CC 376-6 (2-24-92) a GlTYof ORONO Municipal Ofikcs Stmt Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mallinf Addresi- P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Minnetonka Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road Navarre, Minnesota 55331 Re: Rip Rap Permit, 2925 Casco Point Road Dear Gene: At your request, a copy of the amended rip rap plan for the above referenced property has been enclosed. You have also asked for more detail on the City's approval of specific land alterations to be completed on the land side of the rip rap project. You have already been advised that the City did not appro\ e the original plan that would have called for the filling of 30 cubic yards of material. This intense a filling project would have required a conditional use permit and variance approval from the City of Orono. Mr. Spartz and Bruce Vang, Orono ’s Building Inspector, have agreed that final land alterations required to the land side of the rip rap will be approved by Bruce at the time of a site inspection. Mr. Spartz has agreed to call Bruce when the snow has been removed and the distburbed area is ready for restoration. Bruce has advised that it is impossible to make a determination but it is hoped that the borrowing of fill will be limited to "a wheelbarrow full or two of black dirt". It is difficult for staff to make any definite estimates as the information presented to the City is limited to the cross section of the rip rap. We do not have a plan view, survey or topographic map. At the time the snow is cleared away, the inspector hopes to be able to see what the shoreline actually looks like. The goal for the City and we hope for the landowner is to provide an appropriate amount of topsoil so that groundcover is restored to all disburbed areas. The City has not approved any major changes in existing elevations or topography within defined work area of this rip rap project. Telephone «12) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. Eugene R. Strommen January 31,1997 Page 2 Please contact the City offices if you have any further questions of the City to complete the permit review for the land owner. Sincerely, Jeanflb A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ch cc: Stephen Spartz, Landview Landscaping, 3670 Highway 7, Excelsior, MN 55331 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Lyle Oman, Building Official .Gregory A. Gappa, Director of Public Services \/Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator I i Pri» L^ft«,r*iapv< i > « t* ii- •#T*-Tr'.wvTTTTRandom R^nf Cnss Section High and low onsite ^ois are leveki tobetter senrice the ripi Scale o Shoreward Distance Varies 5**X6** Brown Trailed Timber Boarder Topsofl Needed Underiyii^ Sand/Craral Base Rock neldstone 27-33" Material liver Rock 3/4 "-1 Crushed Limestone GTF 100 or Equh'alent 2:1 Maximum finished slope Project : Joe Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road 60 lineal Feet of shoreline Orono,MN 55391 The maximum finished rock slope shall not exceed slope 2:1 •/.3 C i i mS'5 CITYoT ORONO Municipal Offices Stmt Mrtmsi 27S0 Kelley Pailiway OrotM. MN S53S6 MaUlllt Mirttt: P 0 . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0666 February 12,1997 Stephen Spartz 3670 Highway 7 Excelsior. Minnesota 55331 Rc: Lakeshorc Work at 2925 Casco Point Road. Orono, MN Dear Mr. Spartz: Enclosed are citations #3970531228 and #3970531236 for working within 75' of Lake Minnetonka and working after a stop order was posted. Citation #3970531210 has been voided because of an error made in quoting the code section. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely. Lvie Oman Building Official I.O/ch Enc. Citations and Orono Municipal Code Sections 10.56, Subd. 16 (J)(2) and 12.08, Subd. 6. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bruce L. Vang. Field Inspector Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren. Planner/Zoning Administrator i i Telephone (^12) 47M357 • FAX 473^10 T GME CONSULTANTS. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21st Ave. No./Minneapolis. MN 55447 Phone (612) 559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720 February 18, 1997 *• \ till Mr. Steven G. Spartz Landview Landscaping 3670 Highway 7 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 GME Project No. 6721 RE: Design recommendations for the block retaining wall construction at the Vocliko ••residence in Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Spartz: This report presents our design recommendations for the proposed granite block retaining wall at the Vochko property in Orono. This work was performed in accordance with your written acceptance of our contract dated February 13, 1997. Project Description The property owner, Mr. Joe Vochko, has retained you to construct a granite block retaining wall on the residential lot at 2925 Casco Point Road in Orono. The existing wooden stairway and timber retaining walls leading from the residence down to Lake Minnetonka have been removed. You plan to reconstruct the stairway and retaining walls using cut Cold Spring granite blocks and slabs. Each granite retaining wall block is trapezoidal in shape with dimensions of 6-5/8 inches high by 10 inches deep by 14 inches long. Each block weighs approximately 80 pounds. We have attached with this report a copy of the site plan you prepared showing the location of the wall and wall heights. The wall will have a maximum height of 5.25 feet in one corner of the walkway (designated as the intersection of walls A and B) . From this corner, the wall will slope downward to a minimum height of 1.84 feet (three blocks) . At the tallest wall sections, you plan to anchor the blocks into the hillside using conventional helical screw anchors fastened to the blocks with threaded anchor bolts. The walls and stairway will be constructed at the same location and same heights as the previous timber wall. WILLIAM C. KWASNY. RE. GREGORY R. REUTER. RE. MARK D. MILLSOR RG. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA. RE. CHARLES M ALLGOOD. RE. SANDRA J. FDRREST. RG. An Equal Opportunity Employer WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL. RE. MERVYN MINDESS. RE. STEVEN J. RUESINK. RE. Mr. Steven Spartz GME Project No. 6721 - ■ • 'rr if February 18, 1997 As an additional component of the project, you have placed 3 foot diameter boulders approximately 4 to 5 feet behind the existing rock riprap along the level bench in the slope at the toe of the hillside. These boulders were placed for erosion control at the toe of the slope. This spring, you plan to fill the voids between the boulders with soil to establish a vegetative growth. Scope of Services Our scope of services for this project, as outlined in our contract, is limited to providing design and construction recommendations for the proposed granite block retaining wall, and also to present our evaluations concerning the suitability of the boulders for erosion protection. Our scope of services do not include a global stability analysis of the hillside. Our wall recommendations will only be provided with respect to local stability of the wall system and erosional stability of the boulder facing zone. Design Recommendations Soil information is not available, therefore, we have had to make certain assumptions for our design. We assume that the foundation and retained soil will consist of stiff sandy clay till having a moist unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot, a drained friction angle of 27®, and a remolded undrained shear strength of 250 pounds per square foot. The walls should be embedded at least one block course (6.5 inches) below final grade in front of the wall. We recommend that the lowest block layer bear on a compacted gravel or crushed stone base having minimum dimensions of 6 inches deep by 18 inches wide. The gravel should conform to Mn/DOT 3149.2B. The gravel or crushed stone base should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density, ASTM: D 698. Prior to constructing the granular base, the exposed clay subgrade should be observed for soft or loose zones. These zones would require additional subcutting and replacement with compacted granular fill. A 1 foot wide piece of filter fabric (Mn/DOT 3733, Type 1) should be placed on top of the gravel base course, beneath the joint between the lowest block course and the granite walkway slab in front, to minimize pumping of the base course through the joint. The fabric should not extend beneath the entire width of block. We recommend that the block wall be constructed with a slight batter of 6® (3/4 inch setback per block) back into the retained embankment. We recommend that the backfill within at least 6 inches of the back of the wall consist of free draining granular fill such as Mn/DOT 3149.2H. At the base of the drainage layer, we recommend placing a 4 inch diameter slotted pipe (Mn/DOT 3278) wrapped with a Type I filter fabric (Mn/DOT 3733) . The drain pipe should allow gravity drainage of accumulated water away from the walls. Therefore, the pipe should daylight down slope. OME CONtUlTANTB. INa Mr. Steven Spartz GME Project No. 6721 44-’ -?• V ■ /r • “Ul* .* February* 18, 1997 Where the walls are higher than three block courses in height, we recommend that each block (including the blocks below three Mock courses) be adhered together with a high modulus outdoor construction epoxy, such as Hilte ClOO or Seca 32. The use of the epoxy is required since the blocks have very little block to block shear resistance. Please be advised, however, that by adhering the blocks, some cracking may occur over time, due to frost induced movement. Where the wall is higher than four block courses in height, we also recommend restraining the wall by the installation of earth anchors. The anchors should be 5 feet long and have a single 6 inch diameter helix at the end. Anchors should be attached to the fourth and seventh block courses. We recommend that the anchors be spaced two block courses horizontally. We have amended your elevation drawings to indicate the location of the anchors. These amended drawings are attached. The anchors should be carefully rotated horizontally into the clay soil. Careful installation of the anchors will be required to reduce disturbance of the clay as the helix and shaft enter the soil. Each anchor rust be installed so that the entire 5 foot length is euutecdea into tne soil. The anchor should be properly tertsioned and appropriately secured to the block. In our opinion, the attachment detail you indicate on your drawings would be adequate. Included with this report is a diagram that you had prepared outlining the bluff toe protection that you have partially implemented by the installation of the 3 foot diameter boulders. During our site visit of February 12, 1997, we observed that the boulders had already been placed. We recommend that the voids between the boulders be filled with topsoil, and that the vegetative growth be established (Mn/DOT 2575) on the exposed topsoil between the boulders. Some slumping of the topsoil may occur with time, into the voids, and these slumped zones should be backfilled with topsoil, and vegetation should be re established. In our opinion, this toe protection should be adequate for erosion control of the exposed slope face at the location of the boulders, provided that adequate vegetation can be established and maintained between the boulders. Concluding CoT"*^ents We recommend that you complete the "Project Quality Contractor - Project Completion Form" after construction. It is understood by all parties that the contractor will be responsible for the methods and results of his/her work. We will not warrant, assure, or guarantee the work of the contractor. The contractor must comply with the latest OSHA regulations for trench and slope excavation, and general construction site safety. The contractor must designate one of his field personnel as the OSHA "Competent Person" who must be capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards on site, including temporary slope stability. The Competent Person must have authorization to direct prompt corrective measures to eliminate hazards. GME will not accept any responsibility or liability for construction safety on this project. i ! GME CONSULTANTS. INC. Mr. Steven Spartz GME Project No. 6721 4 February 18, 1997 The recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the project and represent our professional judgement. These opinions were arrived at in accordance with currently accepted engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty is implied or intended. Our recommendations are based on certain assumptions stated in this letter. If different soil conditions are observed during construction, we must be notified so that we can review our recommendations. If you have questions concerning this report, please contact us. Sincerely, GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Gregc/ry R. Reuter, P.E. Senior Project Engineer William E. Blomendal, P.E. Senior Project Engineer m\ • C: .r" tA t • Enclosures:Cross-Section Site Diagvam Elevations Sections Typical Cross-Section Slope Toe Protection Project Quality Contractor - Project Completion Form GRR;smc C:\GRR\6731.SR I hsreby certify thai this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Profeesicnal Engineer under the laws of the State ofi/linnesota y ^ /T) William E. Bloemendal Date 2 -/ft ~ ___ Reg. No. 19124 OME COM8ULTAMT8. IMC. 1 O O ' » y- •4*•ii y) t. •it" :• / } . •. jf .-'- .•! ^ SCALEfrr> ^ GME CONSULTANTS. INC. O«ot*ehnical • Mot«riol« • EnvJronin«ntd 14000 2tot Av«nu« N. Mnn«apola. Minnesota 55447 («2) 5504850 TYPICAL SECTION WALL A VOCHKO REiDBICE ORONO. MM^SOTA XH GRR FEB 97 GT€ Project No. 6721 ir»«y F\»c9i in Exact Location a« Praviou* ^tairtay.G^€N0.672I VOOKO RESCENCE ORONO. ht#€S0TA Draiinq Prepared by Lond^ Landscoping lith nodncotions by G^E ConsJtdits v«ii e I .M' Height ^ta^^ered ap Hill (Hfijht ^ta^florod Up Hill I .M* Height ^>taggored Up Hill 1 r _ v«ii c''"—I .&4* Height ^>taggored Up Hill ‘ V ^ /7 ‘A \ » 4 — ^hrul^% ♦ 6r«unicovfr rijnttdl in D^uNnr Voidi^ -16-23 Kandpm 3' 6«uN#r^ Ealrniiti Inta Dluff Tp« For To^t oV^zot . on >1^ r. . « I v..--i SITE PLAN 21^* vj! I c, 0, c, r nAOO 0» All C«r f\AOO AJba*l«a Dattaai DUcfc* W«l l« A • D i* 5/“4* Ora I a A||ra|a«a Aaataitlla Pillar PabrU 4* Praia Tlla With ^aeh aiaaita ^taf* « 9/0* Haljht 5* Laajht 16* Papth Cap Ualt 5’ Hal|ht I O' Papth I Uaapth 9/4* »at Paak Craalta Pl««k« C 9/6* Halpht I O' Papth I 4* Ufltfth C* Pa*a Matarlal IP* 9/'4‘ Mlnu« Data CaapactaJ Caataitlla Plltar Pakria PlaaaJ Pattaaa Paaa aaJ Craalta WALL SECTION C. D. E. F GME NO. 6721 VOOKO RESCeiCE ORONO. MMCSOTA Droaing Prepared by Londview Landscaping with nodirications by GME ConsJtonts ’ I,...*'. :n ■rLlw \ .>) ‘beoX ion W^i A Anch<?r Unit*> Are M^irke/I On Dc\ow ^leck*» Gap Unit^ YZ ^77A Y//A G<ip Unit Dl eck^ Tymiiii Anch#r UnI Tiralaf ^tp <h 9 luh Dlwfir Hifci Sfilai] Aiftkfr DfllliJ lit# Hill "i T«if«l#R«f% AiuNtr Aii^ D#lt Xlir#M|li Dl##li I /4* Tlir«yJ«i Aiicli#r D#lt Drill I /4* H#l# At Aii|i# In MNil* DIffli ‘j \J *<•> Nut uiii Wuuliur 6ruiiltu Di#ck wreFTTI WALL SECTION A GME NO. 672 VOOKO RESteJCE ORONO, «l€S0TA Ooiing (Vepared by Londvieff Londscoping with fflodincotiont by GME Constants • • ■' v: « •. V r . 6 1 \on Wa D GMENO. 672 VOCHCORESDBICE ORONO. ni€SOTA Draing Prepared by Landview Londscopng eith fflodrications by GME Consuhdits Aiuli#r Uiiltf Ar« Mjrk«i i7ii ^l#w Cap Unit^ i V77 a V/y T vS V7Z\V/y Dl«ck«K CM Tymliii Anckyr Unlt^ (a ^ bA Disitir Hifa 5 ft. lot) Afcktr Pr11 l«i lit# Hill J§n%\0m9r% Anckyr Ani D»lt Tkr#y|k Dl##k I /4* Tkr««i«i A«ck#r D#lf Drill I /4* H#l« At Am|I« In MNilf #f Dl#fk Nyt uni Vy«k«r 6r«nlty Dl#ck WALL SECTION A tf •a * ^ •*! V / * ^ ^ fV" ■# Xv 1 i u Dou oe rotect I on. atv OwXov 0 Aatrlcii CictUltf Cp»«l#a C#tfr#l Piltpp fgbrlt Pel 11 ^rii| fb«« Aiii W##icliiff Art Ittltllti. $ ^0 I x\ a Di fltcti OftKDlftrikti Artt Cxittlni 6f«it Y##Jthlp% ^frttil Ar#imJ P#Hl4trt tni 4hribt # 6rtimJttvtr ritnfti Dtfwttn Dtiiliitrt ^hrub rrtfiilt Crttltn Ctiitr#l r u b*? 9*gl4l»r« rtiCfii IN R«ni#« ra»hi#n (Ontcr*fpln|). ^Iirttb) DffulJtr* 4 rr«vlJ« C*th«tlc*. • ,1 /h w r • V # i.r.1 .. •» V *-V •“V-. V r? V\vr' 3* Dtulitrt Caktiiti Iji Ttt Of Dluff ftr Dluft Ttt Prtficf Itn/^ftlFt I iiit itn. BLUFF TOE EROSION PROTECTION GTC NO. 6721 V0CH<0 RESDENCE ORONO. MI€S0TA Droiinq Prepared by Londviet LondKoping with modirications by GME Consultants . - •• \% /•; A { •: V*. •.> ijll.GME CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnical • Materia • Environmental 140CX) 21st Avenue Na Mmeapois. MN 55447 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL PROJECT QUALITY CONTRACTOR - PROJECT COMPLETION FORM (To be submitted to GME Consultants, Inc. upon completion of the job) Project Name Address Wall Size Wall Height: Maximum Minimum Your Company Name General Contractor Wall Installer (if different) Your Project Manager Your Project Foreman Completion Date CERTIFICATION (to be signed by persons directly constructing and/or supervising said construction) I certify that the above noted project was completed in accordance with the design recommendations. Installer's Name Title Installer's Signature Date Company Officer Title (Please Print) Officer's Signature F J. VOCHKO CO. 2925 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Main; (612)471-8615 Fax: (612)471-8715 fjvco@pclink.com J DATE: February 19,1997 NO. OF PAGES: 2 TO: ATTN: RE: City of Orono Planning Commission Building Permit Application For Random Placed Boulders and Replacement of Hillside Stairway -J To whom it may concern: I live at 2925 Casco Point Road. My land is fiat, and as you approach the lakeshore, there is about a 20 foot hill descending to a flat beach area at the base of the hill, which then has rip rap descending into the lake. I purchased my property three years ago and this is where I plan to live the rest of my life and raise a family. I am getting married this fall. It was my dream to live on Lake Minnetonka and now it is my goal to improve my property. I would like to request a Building Permit to do the following. Replace Stairway The present stairway is built into the hill and has a switch back as it descends down the hill to the lakeshore. The previous owners built the stairway out of used railway ties which were probably half rotted when they put them in. It has reached the point now that the railway ties are totally rotting out. Because of their decaying condition they are becoming unsafe and allowing erosion. Specifically, the present four foot railway tie wall at the first platform is collapsing due to decay and allowing erosion. My plan is to replace them with granite steps with the proper foundation so that it will be stable and attractive for many years to come. Enclosed is a building plan by my contractor which has been reviewed and certified by a certified engineer for a stable, erosion resistant, long lasting granite block stairway. The new stairway will follow the exact same track as the old stain/vay. This spring, after the stairway is built, my fiancee and I plan to plant numerous shrubs, etc. to control erosion and beautify the hill surrounding the stairway. Random Placed Boulders At Base of Hill The base of my hill has had several mud slides over the previous years. I would like to stabilize the base of the hill by randomly placing large boulders into the face of the hill. These large boulders by their great mass will serve to stabilize the base of the hill. Enclosed is a building plan by my contractor which has been reviewed and certified by a certified engineer for a stable, erosion resistant, long lasting random placed boulder out cropping at the base of the hill. This spring, after the boulders are in place, my fiancee plan to plant various shrubs, etc. in between the boulders to aid in controlling erosion and to beautify the hill. We believe that the random boulders provide a much more aesthetically pleasing appearance versus a cold, stark timber wall or 1 #eifr fy something similar. The randomly placed boulders look much more natural on the hillside. We plan to add shrubs, etc. to give the area sort of a north woods boulder, shrubby appearance. \ Enclosed is my contractor’s permit proposal and his engineer ’s evaluation of this proposal. Also, enclosed is my check for $175.00 for the permit fee. If any additional information or money is required, please contact me and I will provide whatever is necessary. We hope that the above project will provide an environmentally sound and beautiful addition to our land. We believe that the view from the lake should be a great improvement over what was previously there. I hope that the above proposal will meet with your approval Sincerely, GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Maillnf Address: P.O. Box 66 CrysUI Bay, MN 55323-0066 February 24,1997 Mr. Joseph F. Vochko 2925 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 41 r ..-'■'Vs /--•■Sh' « „•? n *> ^ •• •* •• .V-* ;■ v-v. -/7 Dear Mr. Vochko: I have reviewed your application for a conditional use permit which was submitted at 12:30 p.m. (after the noon deadline) on Friday, February 21,1997, and am writing to inform you that the application is incomplete as submitted for the following reasons: 1.The application is filled out for a "residential accessor>- use". The application should be properly referenced as a conditional use permit for land alteration to allow retaining walls within the 0'-75‘ setback of the lakeshore. Additionally, the proposed retaining walls will also require a hardcover variance. The fee schedule for the conditional use permit and variance is: Application Fee After the Fact Fee Conditional Use Permit $250.00 $500.00 Variance $75.00 $150.00 TOTAL:$650.00 An additional $475.00 is required before this application will be processed. Please be advised that the only authorized body that can waive remittance of the penalty fee for an after-the-fact application is the Orono City Council after the full amount has been remitted. I will amend the application as noted on the enclosure to indicate that this is for a conditional use permit and a variance. 2.A certified survey of the 0'-75' setback area showing all existing and proposed improvements, excluding riprap along the shoreline is required. The survey must also include a hardcover worksheet which is enclosed for your use. (Normally, we would require a full survey of the Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 1 H 4.1-' t • ^ »^ •* •*• - / / *■ s .' •. : .• •?.- ■ * / entire site, however, in an attempt to expedite this application, we are requesting a partial survey for only the 0-75' setback area). 3.The GME Consultants Inc. report of 2/18/97 has been sent to the City Engineer for his review and comment. When I have received his comments on this report I will forward them to you. This item will not be scheduled for a public hearing until the fee has been submitted along with the additional information that has been requested above. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience at 473-7357. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator Enclosures: After-the-fact fee ordinance Hardcover worksheet for 0'-75' Copy of application cover page Letter to Mr. Vochko 2925 Casco Point Rd. February 25, 1997 page 2 of 2 i -'i L GITYof ORONO Municipal Oflices Street Mdress: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailinf Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Shawn Gustafson Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 233'? Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 Dear Shawn: Please review the enclosed report prepared by GME Consultants for Mr. Joseph Vochko, 2925 Casco Point. Road. I have included a copy of the letter that I sent to him indicating that this matter w'ill not proceed until your review and the additional requested information is received. If you have questions, please call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, 0 Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planner/Zoning Administrator Enc. Letter GME Report LVZ/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 02/27/97 14:15 S :01/01 NO:075 ^ i Bonestroo vS Anderllk& |\)| Associates Engineers & Architects Jj/ieilroo. Miitent AnJnnM ^iiOcKifri snr tf Afy Arf,tm.ft>^c Ot0^.»lututy Offh C3 B^nr\lrnn l»l • Joirph ( ff •Mdr#>ni Sur w.H.i At • t.vh.i.UP T.,fnrf rr • G/rnnK CwCI Tf • IhO^n^k f Mvci ft t auDril 6 V<huriM hi » Jerry A HOUfdwrr PC • »^.iOCfl M/ ftiUrm* Ft Arid M tOerim ('FA VoitOr Comulf \i»|} Af/iso.tif F.irw•/>,«! HwwAfii A Vmrotd PC • Arifn A Owriiuo Ft • ffuLerl t Ffrrf^fiic ft • R'ChiirU W Faster Ft • D.iwulO (Okkof.^ Ff • ifr.CcM C Fu\»et Al A • Mars a H aiiiu '! • M.fh.te; f fliLitmjnn PF • Tfduririd Kh • KCrvirlti P AnctCf I0f>. PC • M.Vii H Ru«fk Pf • Sidney F N|^!|.lArY^ion Fh . I ^ • ffuUr'r k KOUnUtn OffiiAl Si PAui Rochener WiiimAi Ar^j St Clouci MN t MrMuon \|M K February 2H. 1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van 21oincren, Plunncr/Zoning Administraior City of Oront) Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, \!it^nes«>ta 55?23 J• 4'-r Re: ViXrhko Retaining Wall File No. 139-gen Dear hliz.abcdi. We have reviewed Ihe propo.sed gramle block retaining wall construciion on the Vochko properly at 2925 C;o ,-o Point R lad. We have the following comments in regards to engineering inuiicrs. 1. Retaining Wall; T he design prepared by GME Consulianl.s, Inc. appcar.s to be acceptable from an engineering standpoint. The applicant should con'act the City at least 48 hours prior to the wall installation to schedule a scrie.s of inspections. The inspectors should verify that the construction reconunendaiions detailed in the GME report are implemented in the field. 2.Bluff Toe • iection: The random plnccmenl of boulders previously done al the properly includc.s K ders placed nearly on top of each otiicr ut u steep slope, with unconipacted fill placed bciwc,,!! them. The previously placed boulders should be reinsiallcd so that there is a horizontal separation between the front and back of the two rows of boulders, in accordance with the cross sectional detail provided with the GME design. 2.Erosion Control: Prior to suming the work, proper erosion control measures must be in place, such as sill fence. ,Shoilly after the work is completed, the di.sturl^ed are;ts should he .sodded or seeded w ilh a suitable ground cover. Please contact me al this office if you have any questions regarding this mailer. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. RC:)SENE. ANDHKI.IK & ASSOCIA TES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West MighwAy 36 > St. Paul, MN 55113-3096 • 612-636-4600 X N GME CONSULTANTS. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21 St Ave No / Minneapolis. MN 55447 Phone (612) 559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720 March 20, 1997 N <# ' N • •) Mr. Stephen G. Spartz Landview Landscaping 3670 Highway 7 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 GME Project No. 6721 RE; Boulder placement for erosion protection at the Vochko residence in Orono, Minnesota Lear Mr. Spartz: The owner, Mr. Joe Vochko, has requested our opinion concerning the stability of the boulders placed at the toe of the slope leading to Lake Minnetonka. This was pursuant to concerns raised by the City of Orono and the City Engineer, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates. On March 19, 1997, we met Mr. Vochko on-site and observed the boulder placement. We understand these boulders were placed during the fall and winter of 1996-1997. The boulders were randomly stacked to form a relatively steep angle approximately 4 to 5 feet high. There is a horizontal separation or terrace between the boulders and the rock riprap placed for shore line protection. We understand that the voids between the boulders will be filled with topsoil and a vegetative growth will be established between the boulders, to prevent piping and erosion of the retained earth through the voids between the boulders. To our knowledge, there is no accurate way to quantify the stability of the existing boulders. Howev'er, based on our experience, we offer the following opinions. In our judgement, the boulders should be stable in their current configuration provided that good boulder to boulder contact was established during construction. Please note, however, that over time some isolated boulders may loosen and become unstable. If this should occur, then additional boulders should be placed, or the boulders should be replaced to their original position. If this is unacceptable, then in our judgement, one method of increasing the stability would be to place additional boulders in front of the existing boulders to form a flatter angle. However, this would result in the loss of some area (terrace) separating the boulders from the shore line riprap which, to our understanding, is not acceptable to the owner. WILLIAM C. KWASNY. RE. GREGORY R. REUTER. RE. MARK D. MILLSOR R6. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA. PE. CHARLES M. ALLGOOD, RE. SANDRA J. FORREST. RG. V.'ILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL. RE. MERVYN MINDESS. RE. STEVEN J. RUESINK. RE. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Stephen G. Spartz GME Project No. 6721 March 20, 1997 As an alternative, you could consider restraining the boulders by the use of heavy gauge, galvanized wire mesh which is placed in front of the boulders and pinned into the hillside through the use of earth anchors. The wire mesh could be placed such that it would be, for the most part, hidden from view by the vegetative growth. We envision that this scheme would entail removing selective boulders and installing foot long, 6 inch diameter helical earth anchors into the hillside at approximately 5 to 6 foot horizontal spacings. It would be important to have appropriate structural connections from the earth anchors to the wire mesh, utilizing steel bearing places or similar devices. Please be advised that we were requested to provide an opinion concerning local stability of the boulders only. Our scope of work does not include global stability of the hillside, that is, stability of the soil beyond the boulders. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. Sinceisly, GME CC'ilSULTANTS, INC.•'A Greg^ory^. Reuter, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Mervyn Mtndess, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer h i /I GRR:MM:jm c:\grr\672l.ltr 1 TO ‘ 2.1 DCi n 3 O3 a Io o % n bo o » tfi 3 3fr <0 o S^i So ‘:!?3 I s iOo J D CD O CO 3 X O “n o 3 CL GO GO O O C_ OL CL (0 CO ”1 “> CO COo #-f7 9. 9. 0» o 9. =. S o z > oozo oz (/) “O 70o “Do (/)mo oo oz (/) ■M*nV '•• ‘i/IV.J n:> ' • .’i m • om Oo X o cr O)to o CO liP^::/Wli jy<^ ^''V'* Ssi rr vv. ^ 'i;cc. VV- ' ,5vt 'wjf, v; ^ • IT . *-'t>r- 1^^- ^ - ' .^ ifLWfi • >■ •• S'f'aS*?c. -iiT ■»- / ■ ■ •-1^ j3i w.y M M ^SPti.i, .V-5S if -5£Klt® iw' '^-rTT.’*': g :r:tia'^.± : ‘.'j •; . ,^. '. 'J •<V; j. i zMlA-^ < 4 .^^ii**— L,» i*.*l ‘vi'* Pi^S^ ffr Af’A Hr-'v i . ' '.’• A; JBiv'< I^Sm 1 r: 'm n ^•=c<a^ CA4>miMm%--:m . V T ■ ■ * m'\>’V * ^ r •■ •« • « m m fe:l! — ;• -^M m ■••■•■ *‘.. 4 •, • /::i -•. *'. ■ j.--. ' -2 .. - » ^ * l1^' • « ''' ‘^'4 *- - • t *;-v .';> *;2V'-IP^S :, r5?a) .'f*. vT^^lr / X Vr '.«• r mmtep oti:5s:4i/ •vN . \ fW^rarjf>y'' **>^ 'ymsi ^ ‘ *u ^K^v|v!-<J '%t V'/• ‘• >•' ■' \kI / V ' fcv^B>-v J*'. ' A.J I »» W1 li4^ MC .♦ TO:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michel P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2225 John Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Renewal Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Application Summary: Applicant requests renewal of variances granted in April 1996 for street setback, west side setback, east side setback, lot area and width, and 75-250' hardcover, to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner's List D - Resolution #3719 E - Sur\ ey F - Council Minutes 4/22/96 G - Planning Commission Minutes 4/15/96 H - Council Action Memo and Selected Exhibits of 4/18/96 Discussion This is a request for renewal with no change of variances granted in 1996 to allow the replacement of the existing small residence on this substandard lot, with a new residence. The variances granted in 1996 and requested for renewal are: A. 25' front or street setback where a 30' setback is required. B. West side setback of 9.5' where a 10' setback is required. C. East side setback of 6' where a 10' setback is required. D. Variance to allow lot area of 8,550 s.f. where requirement is 43,560 s.f. E. Variance for lot width of46-50 ’ where 140' is required. F. Variances to allow 75-250 ’ hardcover of 1,956 s.f. or 40% where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% is normally allowed. The prior applicant, Eva Theobald, recently passed aw'ay and her son now' owns the property. The findings of fact supporting Planning Commission's and Council's prior approval are listed in items 3 A through H of Resolution #3719. The general conditions at this location have not changed, and staffs principal concern remains that suitable drainageways must be established by working with the Zoning File #2225 - Theobald April 16.1997 Page 2 adjacent property owners, so that applicant's construction has no negative impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. This is addressed in approval condition No. 3 of the prior approval. It should be noted that this proposal meets the 1500 s.f. lot coverage limitation. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that the findings of fact supporting this variance request are still valid, then a recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions established in the prior approval resolution, would be appropriate. ----- 1 Application if Date Received 3-/*4 ’~97 Amount Paid /Ao •* 4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 C") (no change from original application) ", Variance for non-conforming structures $^^00 / After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) .■ V ✓ .. t PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address A lO ^ A^r'Ac^ Propert>‘ Identification Number (P.l.D.) O 7// “T- Z.T *4*4 ________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prop er^ Acquired___________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do*not^lso ovm the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)______________________ / /P ^ /S________________________________Zoning District: APPLICANT Name T Q t c/ Address:Oi^/7^ /U^7jc-u. iVt Phone (home) ^7^ _____ Phone(woric) 7/ 3 City: /hou AJcf Zip: */ OWNER (indifferent than applicant) Name -Jc>hfrJ V M/c/ Address:Cit>”. Phone (home), _ Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe reauest in detail: ^cOt£'C^.j 4t’ /Ofy. rAlL^L . k I A*l>^cv.'^r'o rVV\ ^i r^o ■* sJ'T' S)p.u-^cW.^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED y, Lot Area _X. Lot Width X Hardcover A Lot Coverage X Setback: X 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:^____________________________________ aVU/q? Pay lgQ.00 (attach additional sheets if necessary) RUN.DATE IZni/^SBATCH 507 PROP ADDA ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 07-117-E5 44 0010 04079 H16HH00D RO JOHN T SANBORN ETAL J T SANBORN 4079 HX6HN00D RD HOUND MN BSIM f ( PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NaHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 44 0013 04101 HI6HW00D RD EVA THEOBALD EVA A THEOBALD 4101 HI6HN00D ROAD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0031 04132 HIOHNOOO RO SCOTT 6 I CATHERINE ANDERSON SCOTT 6 « CATHERINE ANDERS0f4 4132 MIGHNOOD ROAD HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0086 04l04 HI6HN00D RD GLEN I BEVERLY SAUER GLEN A BEVERLY SAUER 4104 HI6HNOOO RD MOUND m 55364 HEftlEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST38 07-117-23 44 0011 04091 HIGHHOOO RD F L JOHNSON A D L FOSS FREDERIC JOHNSON 4091 HIGHHOOO RD MOUND MN 55364 £ cV 38 Q7-11/-23 44 0014 04105\hIGW«00 RO ^ CHARLES>^A MART MILLIAH/€^ICKLEY 4105 MfGHWOOO nAP tSr MOUND m SSZW^ V^> . /r REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1738 07-117-23 44 0012 04099 HIGHHOOO RD 0 L A R NELSON ALONZO B SERAN III 4099 HIGHHOOO RD HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0015 04109 HIGHHOOD RD GEORGE H APPLEBAUM GEORGE APPLEBAUM 4109 HIGHHOOO RO MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 04108 HIGHHOOD JASON M THEIS JASON THEIS 4108 HIGHHOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 0033 RO 38 07-117-23 44 04125 HIGHHOOO JOHN H A ROBERTA JOHN H A ROBERTA 4125 HIGHHOOD RD ORONO MN 55364 0084 RD J HENRICH J HENRICH 38 07-117-23 44 C087 04116 HIGHHOOD RO PHILLIP M OTTO PHILLIP OTTO 19050 STRATFORD RD 1209 MINNETONKA MN 55345 TOTAL BATCH 507 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 KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. cT) I DATE I 2’12’S^Sby # 8 8 8 K f -X> CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 19 ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; .\ND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE #2098 WHEREAS, Eva Theobald (hereinafter "the applicant") is o\vner of the property located at 4101 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1.5. Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter 'the property'"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existins residence on the property', the new residence to be located ..5 from I e front or sti *et rieht-of-wav line where a 30’ street or front setback is normally required, and requesting a west” side setback of 9.5 ’ where a 10’ setback is normally required, and requesting an east side setback of 6’ where a 10’ setback is normally required, and requesting a ot area variance for construction of a new residence on a property' of 8.550 s.f. in area where lot ^ea of 43 ^6(» s.f is nomially required, and requesting a variance for the existing lot wdth which is 50’ at tlie shoreline and 46’ at the 75' setback line where the lot '•'idtli is normally required to be 140’ at such locations: and requesting a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision - a.nd 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone of l.9o6 s.f or 40 o v. er onlv 1.220 s.f or 25% hardcover is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City' Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Tills application was review'ed as Zoning File #2098. Page 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 19 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, requiring 1 acre in area and 140' of lot width. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1996 and further reviewed revisions to the application on April 15, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The propert>' currently contains a small 600 s.f. house and no garage, yet the property already exceeds the 25% 75-250 ’ hardcover limit due to the ext'-emely small lot area and narrowness of the lot. B. The proposed house and attached two car garage will comprise of 1,492 s.f of structural footprint on the property, meeting the 1,500 s.f. limitation for lot coverage on extremely small lots established in zoning code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). C. The proposed house is located less than the normal 30' required setback from Highwood Road in order to minimize the amount of hardcover needed for driveway. The proposed 40% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone is not dissimilar from the hardcover percentages on other properties in the neighborhood. Further, no hardcover is proposed for the 0-75’ zone, and overall hardcover on the property is proposed at 22.9%, within the 25% standard of the DNR. D. The west side setback of 9.5' only occurs at a midpoint comer of the proposed house, while the majoriw of the structure will meet the 10’ west side setback requirement. Further, the proposed construction has been revised such that the setback beuveen the proposed attached garage and the detached garage on the neighboring properU' exceeds the 10 minimum structure-to-structure setback requirement. F The proposed 8' east side setback, including a 10'x2' cantilevered segment approximately 6’ from the east side lot line, is necessary in order to maintain a functional house width for room layout. The house in total Page 2 of 6 II CITYoffORONO esHo. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 19 _ 4. 5. is only 24' in width as proposed. The adjacent house on the propertj to the northeast averages 18' from the lot line, hence the separation between the structures will be maintained at appro.vimately 26', greater separation than might be obtained if all houses in the neighborhood were constructed right up to the required 10' side setbacks. G.WTtile the lot at 8.550 s.f. and width of 46-50' is relatively small compared to the 1 acre/140' standards of the LR-IB zone, other developed lots in the neighborhood are of similar size. Further, the property has contained a single family residence for many years and has remained in single separate ownership. H.Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan which will adequately manage the runoff from the property. Because the neighboring property to the east has recently been reconstructed, the opportunity exists for an appropriate drainageway to be developed along the common lot line. The Citv Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, satety and welfare of the community. The Cin- Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar pose a f.re hazard or other dans« to neighboring property; would no; merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to ttUsviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spint and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 CITYof ORONO liK BSHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 8^19 -NO. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 3). granting lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence on the propert>- which is 8,550 s.f. in area where lot area of 43,560 s.f. is normally required and where existing lot width is 50 ’ at the shoreline and 46' at the 75 ’ setback line where a 140' lot width is normally required at such locations; and hereby grants further variances to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow the residence to be located 25' from the front or su^t right-of-w-ay line where a 30' street or front setback is normally required, and to allow an east side setback of 6' where a 10 ’ setback is normally required, and to allow a west side setback of 9.5' where a 10 ’ setback is normally required; and further grants a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone of 1,956 s.f or 40% where only 1,220 s.f or 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Construction of a single family residence on this property shall adhere to the site plan and consuuction plans per the survey by Ron Krueger and Associates, Inc. dated November 19, 1995 revised April 1, 1996 (Exhibit A attached). Any friturc revisions to the site plan which change the location or size of the house footprint, or which result in additional hardcover, will require additional review by the City. No hardcover shall be allow’ed in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. In the 75-250 zone, hardcover shall be limited to 1,492 s.f including the house and attached garage, and 462 s.f in walkways and driveway, for a total hardcover allowance of 1,956 s.f or 40% of the 4,882 s.f 75-250 ’ zone. Any hardcover in addition to that noted will require variance approval by the City, and is not likely to be approved in the future unless concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover result in no hardcover increase above the 40% allowance. J. 4. Applicant shall w'ork with neighboring propeity' owner to the east and with the City to establish suitable drainageways so that the applicants construction has no negative impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Autliorities granted by this variance run with the property' not with the applicant, Page 4 of 6 < 111 ai CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. —8 ------ but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 22, 1997). 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono Cit>’ Council on this 22nd day of April, 1996. )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of April 1996, by Edward^^J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument w-as executed on behalf of the City'. _ —^ iiarrtiAki nCAROLE A HASEMANtAHULtA-riAStlVlAN H NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA M r HENNEPIN COUNTY S i' My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2<'00 ^ Notaiy Public Page 5 of 6 ■i Miiuk GlTYof ORONO CSHW RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 19 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Qjq/?lM/[/u., 199 ^before me a Notary Public within¥-and for said county, personally aj^peared T/lQ nha/cJ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (tliey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Paee 6 of 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, 1996 (#5 Teresa Fogarty - Continued) Callahan said he would like to see the design of the signs. Jabbour said he would be in favor of such signage if the merchants in the city collectively decided to market themselves as a group. Fogarty said the sign will be designed and presented at a later date to the Council for their approval. Fogarty also presented the City with a banner recognizing the maiden voyage of the Minnehaha on May 25, 1996. She asked the City to hang the banner in support of this endeavor with the cities of Excelsior and Wayzata ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 mGETVVOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3719 Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3719, granting lot area, lot width, 75-250 ’ hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to Eva Theobald at 4101 Highwood Road for replacement of the existing residence with a new home. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCEL REPORT Hurr asked Gaffron to inspect Lakeside Marina to ensure that the marina is in compliance with ordinance regarding use of styrofoam dock floats. Gafiron said he is awaiting a 1996 license application as well as conditional use permit application from Lakeside, although he has been advised that the styrofoam conversion is complete. Gaffron will submit a report on the marinas on May 13. Hurr volunteered to assist with the inspections if needed. Jabbour asked Staff to look into fire safety inspections within the Long Lake fire district to ensure there are no hazardous areas within the businesses. He is concerned with the possibility of such hazards in practice. Gaffron will follow up on Jabbour’s request that such inspections be conducted by tiie fire marshall. Hurr asked that box lunches be provided for the Council on Wednesday evening due to back to back meetings at the school and Board of Review following in the Council Chambers. Goetten asked, and Callahan volunteered, for a Council member to stay the entire length of the first meeting to represent Orono before proceeding to the board of review meeting. 1 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2088 for a 15' w»est side street setback for the garage, a 3-1/2' north side lot line setback, structural coverage not to exceed 15%, setback of 5' from Bayside Road for covered porch, with the understanding that the existing foundation will be used with the exception of the east foundation wall, which would be replaced. The Building Official must confirm that existing foundation, except for new support wall at east side, is to remain. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Smith, due to excess structure. Motion approved (#6) #2098 EVA THEOBALD, 4104 HICffWOOD ROAD - VARLANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARLNG - WRITTEN RE NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS 7:40-7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted Stuart Hoarn represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the original application has been revised The street setback remains the same as originally proposed. The west side lot setback, originally proposed at 6.8', has been revised to 9.5', where 10 ’ is required The separation of the neighbor's garage to the house has been revised to 11', meeting required 10' separation. The lakeshore setback is met by the proposal. The lot coverage has been revised to 1492 s.f. meeting the 1500 s f allowable The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback, originally proposed at 46%, has been revised to 40%. The code allows 25% in this zone. The lot area and lot width remain the same. Hoam commented that the applicant and he reviewed and followed the Planning Commission's direction, which resulted in the amended proposal. Hoam asked that the application proceed on to the next Council meeting. There were no public comments Hawn asked if the driveway was of the size to allow a visitor's car to park. Hoam said the driveway would hold two cars w ith two cars inside relieving some of the street parking problem in the area. Commissioners commented that the proposal was in keeping with the neighborhood, and the applicant's addressed the concerns previously brought forward by the Planning Commission. Hawn said she was concerned with precedent setting and noted the need for the Commission to discuss the overall codes and set specific guidelines. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 1996 (#6 - #2098 Eva Theobald - Continued) Peterson noted that the lot width was a problem with the application. iMabusth commented that drainage and storm water was a problem for this particular neighborhood. Hawn commented on the 40% hardcover being proposed in the 75-250' zone Lindquist noted that the applicant was allowed 15% structural coverage. Peterson added that the coverage was behind the 75' line. Hawn said she would like the resolution to note that no additional hardcover be allowed. Smith added that the proposal was in keeping with the area. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2098 for side setback on east and west, street setback, hardcover in the 75-250' zone, and lot area and width variances, with the understanding that Staff, Engineer, and adjacent property owners review the drainage to the east. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2124 JOHN A. EARLING, 2165 COLIN DRIV^E - VARIANCES - PUBLIC IIEARLNG 8:11-8:29 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present. The property is located on the south side of the cul-de-sac on Colin Drive, off of Brown Road. Mabusth noted that the proposed detached garage has been increased in size to 18'x30'. The garage is proposed 10' from the road outlot extension, and will maintain the 50' required setback from the cul-de-sac and 50' in front of the principal structure. Mabusth reported that the maximum height of the structure is 18'. Peterson inquired if the City had any plans to develop the outlot road. Mabusth said it would only be built if needed to connect with development to west, but this would be decided by City at a future unknown date. Peterson asked how the garage location on the lot was determined. Earling said the other tw'o options considered were affected by the location of the wellhead and visual impact on vdew from the master bedroom. The only variances required for the application is the 40' variance from the street with the garage being located in front of the principal structure. 8 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. GafTron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2098 Eva Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Request for lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to replace existing residence with a new home. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/18/96 C - Memo and Exhibits of 4/9/96 Discussion Please review me memo and exhibits of April 9th. Briefly, the applicant intends to sell her property, and is working with a realtor, Stuart Hoam, to obtain variance approval for construction of a new residence on the property. A specific house design has been developed for this limited site, which requires a number of variances as follows: 1. Street setback (25* proposed, 30 ’ required). 2. West side setback (9.5’ proposed, 1 O' required). 3. 4. East side setback (8' proposed/6’ cantilever, 10 ’ required). 75-250’ hardcover (40% proposed, 29.7% existing, 25% allowed). 5. Lot area (8,550 s.f. existing, 43,560 s.f. required). 6. Lot width (46’-50 ’ existing, 140 ’ required). This item was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, at which time it was tabled for revisions. The applicant was advised to reduce proposed lot coverage to the 1,500 s.f. limit, eliminate the structure-to-structure setback variance to the neighboring garage, and attempt to n.aintain 10 ’ setbacks from the side lot lines. The revised proposal was reviewed by the Planning Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 2 April 18. 1996 Zoning File #2098 Commission at its April 15th meeting, at which time it was noted that the structure-to-struclure setback variance had been eliminated, proposed lot coverage had been reduced to within the 1,500 s.f. limit, but due to the narrowness of the lot, side setback variances were still requested. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and recommended approval as presented, subject to City staff and engineer working with the applicant and adjacent property owner to the east (A1 Seran, who recently reconstructed his residence) to jointly address drainage needs for the site. Neighborhood Drainage Concern It should be noted that an anonymous person submitted a letter (Exhibit F of April 9th memo) expressing concerns about neighborhood drainage. Staff agrees that the Highwood Road drainage situation should ultimately be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution #, 2nd series, granting lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to Eva Theobald for replacement of existing residence with a new home. _, seconded by , to adopt ResolutionProposed Motion: Moved by_________ #_______, granting lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to Eva Theobald at 4101 Highwood Road for replacement of the existing residence with a new home. Vote: ^ ayes, O nays. r TO;Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM;Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE;April 9,1996 SUBJECT; #2098 Eva Theobald, 4101 Highvvood Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoninr, District; LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Revised request for lot area, lot width, 75-250' hardcover, front (street) and side setback variances to replace existing residence with a new home. Note: Applicants, Kari and Paul Romportl, are no longer involved with this application. The owner of the property, Eva Theobald, is continuing the application in conjunction with realtor, Stuart Hoam. The proposal has been revised to address the issues noted by the Planning Commission at the January 16th meeting. The neighboring property owners have been re-notified. List of Exhibits A - Letter of Revision B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/17/96 C - Revised Site Plan D - Revised Floor Plan E - Revised Sur\'ey F - Letter from anonymous Person G - Memo and Exhibits of 1/8/96 Revised Proposal On January 16th the Planning Commission tabled this application in order that applicant provide a revised site plan attempting to reduce lot coverage by structures from 1,795 s.f. to the 1,500 s.f. allowable limit; and to maintain 10' setback from the side lot lines. Applicant has made the following changes: Zoning File #2098 April 9, 1996 Page 2 EXISTING ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL CODE REOMT VAR REOD? 1. Street setback 70'25'25'30'Yes 2. West side setback 13'6.8'9.5'10'Yes 3. Gar. to Gar. setback NA 9'11'+10’No 4. East side setback 10'8'8' (6' cant.)10'Yes 5. Lake setback 75'88'99'75’No 6. Lot coverage 690 s.f.1,795 s.f.1,492 s.f.1,500 s.f. (17.5%) No 7. 0-75' Hardcover 0 s.f.Os.f.0 s.f.0 s.f.No 8. 75-250’ Hardcover 1,452 s.f. (29.7%) 2,551 s.f. (46%) 1,956 s.f. (40%) 25%Yes 9. Lot area 8,550 s.f.8,550 s.f.8.550 s.f.43,560 s.f.Yes 10. Lot width 50'/46’50'/46'50'/46'140 ’Yes As noted in the letter of revision, applicant has reversed the house and revised and reduced the floor plan. The result is that the lot coverage by structures limit of 1,500 s.f. is met; the "structure to structure" setback of 10' between applicant's proposed garage and the existing detached garage to the west, is now met; and 75-250' hardcover proposal is revised downwards to 40%. The proposed side setbacks are mostly conforming on the west side and still at 8' (except for the section of cantilever, at 6') as originally proposed on the east side. The proposal appears to be more in keeping with the standards for this small size lot in this constantly redeveloping neighborhood. Also, while drainage is a concern in the neighborhood (see the anonymous letter), it appears that drainage from the new construction on this property can be dealt with on site, and the City will work with the property owner and Mr. Seran to the east to address their joint drainage needs. Issues for Discussion 1. Has .adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting lot area and width variances? Zoning File #2098 April 9. 1996 Page 3 2.Have the rev isions to the house location adequately met concerns the Planning Commission had regarding side setback variances? 3. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding this proposal? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that adequate hardship and justification are present for granting of the variance proposal as revised, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per revised proposal, with City staff and engineer to w'ork with applicant and adjacent property owner to the east, in addressing drainage. 2. Table for further review. 3. 4. Recommend denial. Other. Request for Early Council Action Per applicant ’s written request, if Planning Commission recommends approval, this item will be placed on the Council ’s April 22nd agenda. 1^1 BUKNm \ I 1 1 April 1, 1996 Minnetonka Office 19400 Highway 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 612/474-2525 Fax 612/474-9583 TO: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono FM: Stuart Hoarn (470-2550) RE: 4101 Highwood (revision for variances application) On behalf of Eva Theobald, here is the revision for consideration by the Planning Commisior.. Pursuant to direction provided by the commissioners on January 16, we have: 1. Reduced "lot coverage by structures” from 1795 sf to 1492 sf, slightly under (by 8 sf) the 1500 sf target set by the Commission. 2. Increased side setback and separations from structures on the adjacent properties by (a) narrowing the house by one foot (from 25' to 24') and (b) "mirror-reversing" the footprint. - While these changes don't result in ideal 10' setbacks on both sides — pretty unrealistic on so narrow a lot -- improved separation from sur rounding structures was achieved. - Of particular concern to the Commission (as expressed 1/16/96), sep aration between the proposed garage and the garage on the property to the west was increased by an additional 3.5 feet (as a result of revers ing the footprint of proposed home). - The revised proposal increases the already generous lakefront setback by an additional eleven feet. - Note that separation from the new house to the east is 27 feet, seven feet more than would be the case if both structures were the standard current setback of 10' from the common property line. 3. Also herewith is a copy of the floor plan as revised. Elevations are not included for the smaller floor plan footprint because the exterior ap pearance of the structure has been essentially retained — only reversed and downsized. 4. We hope you and the Commission agree that the revisions substantially comply with the Commission's direction, and that the Commission will give favorable consideration at the April 15 session. If so, we also request that the application be put before the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. I Atch.: 1. Revised site plan 2. Revised floor plan (3 pp) 3. Commission recommenda tions, notice, 1/17/96 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Kari & Paul RomportI 10132 lv7wood Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 ZONING FILE #2098 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 1/17/96 COPIES TO;Eva Theobald 4101 Ilighwood Road Mound, MN 55364 Stuart Hoam Burnet Realty 19400 Hwy. 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: 1/16/96 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order that applicant provide a revised site plan attempting to: Reduce lot coverage by structures from 1,795 s.f. to the 1,500 s.f allowable limit. Maintain 10’ setbacks from side lot lines. Applicant's ne.xt scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the February 20th meeting is Wednesday. February 7th. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 0 N J D A -------------------- 'JAN 1 8 1996 ^ • Xy'^ A-^ x^A x\.>c Lt___ O-^ ^ M I o I l XXa1A4^c^ TijCo ^ \DA a ^ Oc^ - ^L><^^'*t:>Zi-‘^^^0 )n /•y-w Ai-0-r~cr^ OL-Ci__> ^ 3 w-2.*^Xw v-^ c^Lo ^ I ■~<L_r. -£3<aa.tjC3w^ / oO-rr-e-^ 4^—-c - ''‘‘ ' ,y^V>— J3:^ j^AjlP 1^-0 I ‘ A r\U ibJU A^Ax^SrZi e,-><a_< ^iz.JlJLxr^ L.*-^ ,^d-<J ■ -d?^ /»vi^c~>^rw-a^ C-f ^ T3fco«^ >f JU^W. J)i r- -Q r’>-iL:^ 4:::^ jOS-rCct' <3— /'V'^,^JiJI% —■_J<:P->r-'-Jdfcifcil_i3±=± *1} djjL^i-je^^ V^- ^-KvJ:>^-^ (rg dO C.VJ-3CK. -------^ O—tr-cQ.0^ f\iixzj/\ji^sy\^ ~70. fv<*.XA_<jLt_^ ^ *~ U.-u ;jC3: % /^ yert^Sj ----cQ, crvr-i«--<0 c>v> JLAxO ^2/14-i^u:i t=!■ ■✓^iA«*»^ **^-i4-i-*2-l pi^.^.'Tk.-C—--^L^OrCt—^_:r^^—C ~ ■^~t-^^ ^ L^D > y^ O J^J^/i^j[y'tr^-‘:^ ■■______________ Oo>C.^i^£Ly d^^^-xa>LcQAO O-JlJl t^-ti/^ a3 dA^.T_J — o e>t-^v—>» *Qc *■< &.^=?C3TT MPI-3 MH 33*4 01-^1£'''^6 10*20 130 \Z JAN ‘- /5SO 0 A. / I. * • 4> J tWje „ , 1: I I 6745AMHERSI LANE \. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN BYStuart Hoam612/937-20M •. ©1996 EDEN PRAiOE. MNNESOIA 55546 / ? / / ® I*AO/ j I '^/A-cP / /............................ 4)-(? / 7^"V i .Ik' / % r*- • .• • • » • . 'i • •, • f I • 6745AMHBSUANE RESIDENTIAL DESteN BYStuart Hoam. 612/937-2033 -©1996 « EDEN PRAIRIE* MNNESOIA S5346 • I . •••6745 AMHERST LANE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN BYStuart Hoam612/937*2033 . ©1996 EDEN PRAIOE. MWNESOVA 55346 i II- TO;Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:January 8, 1996 I \ SUBJECT: #2098 Kari and Paul Romportl/Eva Theobald, 4101 Highwood Road Variances - Pub!i.: Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakcshore Residential, 1 acre. Application: Request for lot area, lot width, 75-250’ hardcover, lot coverage by structures, front (street) and side setback variances to replace existing residence with a new home. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survev F - Hardcover Worksheets G - Floor Plans and Elevations H - Topographic Sur\ ey of Neighborhood Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): A. Required lot area = 43,560 s.f Existing = 8,550 s.f. B.Lot width required = 140' I.ot width existing = 50* (46' at 75' setback line) C.Existing front (street) setback = 70'± Proposed front (street) setback = 25' Requ ’red front (street) setback = 30' D.Existing north..asl side setback “ !0' Proposed = 8' Required = 10' E.Existing southwest side setback = l3' Proposed = 6.8’-7.1' Required = 10' Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 2 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage by structures limited to 15% or 1,500 s.f., \vhiche\er is greater. Existing lot coverage = 690 s.f. or 8.1% Proposed lot coverage = 1,795 s.f. or 21.0% 3. Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56. Subd. 16(L): Hardcover limited to 25% of 75-250' zone. Existing 75-250 ’ hardcover = 29.7% or 1,452 s.f. Proposed = 46% or 2,551 s.f. 4. Section 10.75, Subd. 3: "Additional heights on sloping lots. On any lot sloping downhill from the street, which has an average ground slope on that portion of the lot to be occupied by the main building of 25% or more (measured in the general direction of the side lot lines) an additional 12' of height may be permitted in such main building and the garage or parking space may be in the required front yard provided a yard of 10' or more is maintained.": fhe average slope of the northerly 1/3 of the lot is 25%, although the area to be occupied by the garage/house structure has a slope of only 20%. It can therefore be argued that this code section does not apply and a front (street) setback variance is required. (Note also that staff has determined this is not a bluff situation.) Discussion Please review' the applicants' statement of hardship and description of unusual property conditions. Exhibit D. A significant number of variances are requested for construction of a new house to replace the existing residence structure on the property. The lot area and lot width variances are not, of course, created by this specific house proposal, although the small lot area impacts the hardcover and lot coverage percentages, and the minimal lot width results in the need to construct a relatively narrow residence. The steep slone downward from the road clearly has a significant impact on the house location, suggesting th.- appropriate use of a spancrete floor garage with living space below it. The 25% slope provi. ions of zoning code Section 10.75, Subd. 3 (if applicable) would allow the garage to encroach into the 30' front (street) yard to within 10' of the street right-of-way. In this case a 25' setback is proposed which will leave enough depth for off-street parking of two vehicles side by side in front of the garage. The proposed 8' side setback (2' variance) on the northeast side still leaves a setback of approximately 25' from the adjacent residence of A1 Seran, which was recently rebuilt. However, on the southwest side, the comer of the proposed attached garage will be Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 3 approximately 9' from the neighboring detached garage. The City has consistently attempted to maintain a minimum 10’ setback between structures, and the code requires a separation of 10’ between principal and accessory’ structures. The proposed house will be setback approximately 22’ from the neighboring house to the southwest, which also encroaches its required side yard (see survey). Lot coverage by structures ’s proposed at 1,795 s.f. or 21.0%. \Mien the lot coverage ordinance was developed, it was recognized that even on very’ small lots the property owner should be allowed a minimum 1,500 s.f envelope for structures including the principal structure and the garage (Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Exception ^. In this case 15% of lot area would be 1,282.5 s.f, so the applicants ’ 1,500 s.f allowance would be equivalent to 17.5% lot coverage. The proposed excess therefore is 295 s.f or 3.5%. It can be argued that this is a variance created by attempting to constmet a house of a certain size. Applicants ’ hardship statement suggests that in the context of new construction, this house is not oversized and the footprint is not excessive. Certainly a house can he built that meets the 1,500 s.f standard, but to do so would essentially eliminate the porch, deck, and another 50 s.f of house or garage. The hardcover proposal for 46% in the 75-250' zone where only 25% is tillowed, might be somewhat tempered by the fact that there will be \irtually no hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone. Also note that the overall hardcover on the property yields appropriately 26% where the DNR standard would be 25% of the lot in hardcover. Drainage Drainage on the property is of significant concern to the City, because this property and the Seran property adjacent are the receivers of significant amounts of runoff from Highwood Road. One change which staff would strongly recommend is that the bottom of the swale to the northeast b( centered on the lot line between applicants ’ residence and the Seran residence. Staff will be discussing this drainage plan with the City Engineer to determine if there are additional concerns. Note that the existing catch basin, storm drain tile and rip rap spillway Wi re apparently constructed by the neighboring property owner, and it may be appropriate to keep that stoim drain in place if the rip rap spillway is moved back to the 75' setback line. Issues for Discussion i.Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting the lot area and width variances? 1 •nTir- ‘ Zoning File #2098 January 8, 1996 Page 4 2.Does the narrow lot width justify the granting of side setback variances on both sides of the proposed house? Should the house be shifted or redesigned to meet a 10' separation from the neighboring garage to the southwest? 3.Does the topography of the lot suggest that the requested street setback variance is appropriate? 4.Given that the existing house meets the lot coverage standards and the total house replacement* proposal would allow something new to be constructed that meets all standards, is there any justification for granting a lot coverage variance? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds adequate hardship and justification for granting of the variances requested, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. Conversely, if Planning Commission finds that certain aspects of the proposal are not justified. Planning Commission may wish to provide the applicants an opportunity to revise the proposal. Options for Action •. . 3. 5. Recommend ipproval as proposed, with City staff and engineer to review' drainage. Recom.mend partial approval Recommend denial. 4. Table for further review (provide applicant direction) Other. u f,'K ,v .i» i"--: o HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Subject property is encumbered by several hardships: It is very small (8550 SF) ; dimensionally narrow and deep; the grade drops steeply from street-level; the condition of the obsolete existing dwelling is beyond reasonable repair; the property lacks adequate off-street parking while being located on a narrow roadway lined with narrow lots resulting in exceptionally poor on-street parking capacity. Originally constructed as a "lake cottage" with no garage, the tiny existing house is now over 73 years old. Its utility is adversely affected by deferred maintenance, areas of decay and structural failure, and functional obsolescence. Some unsafe conditions are also present. This building isn't a candidate for rehabilitation or expansion and should be replaced. Applicant therefore needs to replace the structure with modern improvements: a new dwelling which should reasonably include two-stall garage and additional off-street parking. Applicant's hardcover variance (46%) seeks to overcome the hardship of the lot's small size and steep terrain while allowing for a modest-sized modern residence, garage, and driveway for added minimum off-street parking. Applicant's proposed improvements call for a 25-foot front/street setback instead of 30 feet which (1) permits a more compact structure and building "footprint"; (2) reduces hardcover with shorter driveway than is the case with 30' setback; and (3) , helps to overcome the hardship of the steep grade, while still accommodating off-street parking for four vehicles (two garaged and two in drive). The minor side-setback and the 5' (25' vs. 30') front- setback variances seem more than offset by the fact that the proposed new structure is 15 farther back from the lakeshore than the existing house .(which is at the 75' minimum). The proposal maintains ample sideyard separations from neighboring buildings. With relatively modest "footprint", the overall proposed improvements represent a reasonable solution for substantially overcoming the hardships. These improvements would also enhance the neighborhood by (1) replacing the worn, outmoded building in a way that offers an attractive new home which meets the modern needs for year-round permanent residenf’v without disproportional "over-building" or adverse impacc on adjoining properties; and (2), by providing adequate off-street parking for four vehi':les (two garaged, two in 25' driveway). ^ x/y/ ^1 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 16,1997 SUBJECT: #2226 John and Susaime Koob, 3065 Jamestown Road, Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres). Application: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow ‘he construction of a 10' berm to mitigate noise and views from the schools and its athletic fields. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.03 General Provisions Subd. 1 9 Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excarate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similai material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore oflakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. Subd. 20 Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded,... List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Letter C - Plat Map D - Property Owner's List E - Topography Map F - Survey Description of Request The applicant seeks a conditional use pennit to establish a berm that measures 1 O' in height and 350 ’ in length. The purpose of the berm is to screen the view and noise from the school and athletic fields. The elevation of the applicant's residence is approximately 1 O' lower than the school ’s property. Issues 1. 2. The applicant has agreed to provide truck access to the school property. The subject property is impacted by noise from school activities. The baseball fields and concession standards are adjacent to the subject property. 3.The applicant has indicated that the slope of the berm will meet the ratio requirements of 3 to 1. 4. The berm will not impact the primary or secondary septic sites. 5.The berm will not block the natural drainage on the site; it will continue to flow to the south and west. 6.The applicant has indicated that it will take several years to acquire the 3,100 cubic yards required to build the berm. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit subject to: 1. The berm shall be constructed at a 3 to 1 slope. 2. The berm shall be landscaped with grass and trees when completed. 3.The applicant shall update City staff annually as to the progress of berm construction. The applicant shall be able to extend the construction time to 30 months from date ot approval to establish the berm. U2226 John and Susanne Koob 3065 Jamestown Road- Conditional Use Permit April 17. 1997 page 2 ( Application # Zi ^ <o A Date Receiyed 3 — J cj - ^ / Amount Paid 3 p" f A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATI^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3065 Jamestown Road Type of Application to be Filed Land Alteration mQ23 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ?q-ii R. 2333non;i APPLICANT Name John .•:»)r..iTinr> K oo K AHHrg « ROfiFi Jamestown Rd. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone fhome^l 476-7694 _________ Phone (work'! 476-6997 _ City Orono __________Zip SS3S6 Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired March 31, 19^------- I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ’ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ” $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use vyyy $250.00 Land Alteration ■ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain XXXX Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or inore 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 u . r \ $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 PjROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property XXXX_ Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. 4. 5. 6. Certified Property 0\vners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 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. - v«^f It ^ 7. 8. 9. \/ 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). V r'rmcrnif'tinn nlan. if aDolicable (see staff for requirements). I L ^ 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.<n 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 - / S " ------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City ofilces 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. . \ 6 JOHN P. KOOB III 3065 JAMESTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 March 15, 1997 Ms Jeanne Masbusth City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 M ■■ 11 ■ Dear Ms. Masbusth: Attached is the revised berm proposal, we discussed on Friday. Please include it with the other paperwork for the Conditional Use Permit. I would like this permit to be included on the City Council Agenda of April 28.1 i Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, in P. Koob 41 €4 • • '/• ■% II fe-'r---.• .• BERM PROPOSAL 3065 JAMESTOWN ROAD The purpose of this project Is to construct an earthen berm that will provide privacy from the adjacent school property. The bern will act as a barrier to the noise and activity of a concession stand, bleachers and parking which are located within 30’ of my property. The berm will be approx. 350’ in length and 10 ’ In height. It will be contured with a 3 feet of width for each 1 foot rise. The berm will be landscaped with grass seeding and tree planting following construction. An agreement has been reached with Neal Lawson, Assistant Superintendent of the Orono Public Schools, to provide truck acces.s through the school property. I ' i RUN DATE 02y^e/$7 BATCH 501 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHT«RS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 1PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR S8 28-118-23 31 0004 02995 JAMESTOHN RO J A K SHANSON JAMES T SHANSON 2995 JAMES T0I«4 RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 000502945 JAMESTOHN RD M a J HAHLIGMICHAEL J a JO ELLEN HAHLIG 2945 JAMESTOHN ROAD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 0008. 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNEO LORRAINE M NIICHEL LORRAINE M NIICHEL NO 4 JAMESTOVM ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 28-118-23 32 000703i.05 SIXTH .VE N BAD YOUNGBENEDICT E A DENISE E YOUNG 3105 6TH AVE NO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 000803045 SIXTH AVE N JAB RYDERJOHN D A BARBARA Y RYDER3045 6TH AVE NLONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 000903025 SIXTH AVE N B A A F A MCKEE BRENT A ANGELA MCKEE 3025 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3M eec 3 38 28-118-23 33 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ORONO IND SCHOOL OIST NO 278 ORONO INO SCHOOL OIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0003 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNEO ORONO INDEP SCH DIST 8278 ORONO INDEP SCH OIST 8278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0008 03065 JAMESTOHN RO J P A S K KOOB JOHN P A SUSANNE K KOOB 3065 JAMEST0(«4 RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 28-118-23 33 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES R GRABEK ET AL JAMES R GRABEK 3050 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0010 03085 JAMESTOHN RD GAB LARSON GARY A LARSON 3085 JAMESTOl-84 RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0012 03155 JAMESTOHN RD S A S STROUP STANLEY S STROUP 3155 JAMESTOHN RO L(»46 LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 28-118-23 33 0014 03175 JAMESTOHN RD MICHAEL AMES A LAUREL AHES MICHAEL A LAUREL AHES 3175 JAMESTOHN ROAD ' ORONO MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0015 03050 JAMESTOHN RO J R GRABEK A P J GRABEK JAMES R A PENELOPE J GRABEK 3050 JAMESTOHN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0016 03135 JAMESTOHN RD H H LURTON A S E LURTON H HILLIAM LURTON 3135 JAMESTOHN RD LONG LAKE m 55356 V PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 28-118-23 33 0017 03145 JAMESTOl-IN RD KAREN ELIZABETH NELSON KAREN ELIZABETH NELSON 3145 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 34 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES R GRABEK ET AL JAMES R GRABEK 3050 JAMESTOHN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 501 00017 ■ I A .. 4. ' •jjj. ^ w V\V .V - • 4 RUN DATE OZ/ia/97 BATCH SOI ► • 1 . A) **1R HEftlEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATItJN SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REP«rr NO. PZ435401 PAGE 2 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. Z-/9-57.,DATE . I t n % ri »r, f: ‘f,io ^ r % N t\^}IN LOI O, bLUUrs I, UDLr^iT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator i)Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 17, 1997 SUBJECT: #2227 Gary Tucker, 3466 Iv}’ Place-Variances-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre, Sewered Application: The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck on the lakeside of the residence and construct an entry over the front door. The existing sidewalks will also be modified. An average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75'-250' setback area, and side yard setback variances are required. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section J 0.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Siihd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width From Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet ISfeet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Side Yard Street Side 15,541 sq. ft. .356 acre 60.35 ft.120 ft. to structure 1.8 ft. on north side, 21.7 ft. on south side 10.1 ft. from garage The subject property is .356 acres which is less than the required minimum lot size. The proposed new concrete slab and front entry would continue a partial encroachment into the required 10' setback. The proposed concrete stoop would be smaller than the existing front stoop. #2227, Gary Tucker 3466 Ivy Place 4/21/97 page-J 2. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline U'-75' 75'-250’ 250'-500’ Total Area in Setback 4,505 sq. ft. 10.600 sq. ft. 436 sq. ft. Hardcover Allowed None 2,680 sq. ft. (25%) 130.8 sq. ft. (30%) Existing Hardcover 188 sq. ft. 3,420 sq. ft, (32.26%) 215 sq. ft. (49.31%) Proposed Hardcover 188 sq. ft. 3,637.8 sq. ft. (34.3%) 215 sq. ft. (49.31%) Variance Requested 188 sq. ft. (4.11%) 987.8 sq ft. (9.32%) 84.2 sq. ft, (19.31%) The applicant is proposing to continue the existing amount of hardcover in the 0’-75' setback and the 250'-500' setback. Changes are proposed in the 75'-250’ setback to increase hardcover from 3,420 sq. ft. (32.26%) to 3,637.8 sq. ft. (34.3%) for an increase of 217.8 sq. ft. or a variance of 9.32% to allow for a new deck and stairs and reconfiguring the sidewalk. J.Section 10.22, Subd. 1, B, Lokeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.56, Suhd. 16, C, 6, Average Lakeshore Setback No principal or accessor>' structure .shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, e.xcept that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The applicant's residence currently encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed deck is for\vard of the average lakeshore setback. List of Exhibits A Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Hardcover Calculations Existing Survey Proposed Sur\ ey Front Elevations for Porch Lakeside Elevations for Deck Acknowledgement Fonn B C D E F G H I U2227, Gary Tucker 3466 Ivy Place 4/21/97 page-2 • 1 Description of Request The applicant seeks hardcover, side yard setback, and average lakeshore variances to make improvements to the front entry by adding a roof over a smaller front stoop. The sidew-alks will also be redesigned. On the lakeside, the applicant seeks to expand the existing deck and to improve the stairs. The front entry requires a side yard setback variance. The lakeside improvements require an average lakeshore setback variance. Issues 1. 2. The lot area is .356 acres. The minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district is .5 acres. The lot width is 60.35' where 100’ is required. The narrow lot with 10' side yard setbacks provides a 40 ’ wide strip for two building pads. 3. 4. The current residence does not meet the 10' side yard setback along the north property line. Much of the existing hardcover on the site is due to topography - to provide stairs to the lake and to retain soil from the higher elevation to the south. Staff Recommendation To adopt or amend as proposed. if2227, Gary Tucker 3466 l\y Place 4/21/97 page~3 A Application # Date Received 7 Amount Paid fv___ 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) J i ]% » 3 4.' /y Pi^cc ccoAx:,, ................ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Lot iCi _r/\nk^ ZO -///- 7 A i^rrfsi Hpcrnntinn to annlication if not included on rcQuircd SUl ‘Crropeny luciiuiiv-auijii —- ■ — ^ ~~------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Probity Acquired __________________________(month/year) I (do) (do noB ' also own the adj/cent parcels of land. _ . \/__________/Present use of propert>". \ residential ZoningDistrict:_ L RJ.C __________ other (specify) applicant Name Gs AHy _ • / c>c/^ Address: !\J^ PL^ic_ Phone (home") V 7 / ~ ? ZS'S’ _____ Phone (\\’ork'l 4/ 7 / •* 9 Z City: C'fZCrjQ________Zip: "SSVll OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: Deck Cou e.z^c/ f,t£'^icfot^________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ X Setback: ___Lot Width JC Hardcover Coverage Front Side __Rcoi _K_ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or n^usual proper^ conditions preventing rnmnliance with Zotting Code tequirements-.^t. '■iitac±ssL-5M£L------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 03/26/97 Pay P?0.0a REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11” for reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that 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 I Date 3/ loh 1 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^rification of this request. Owner's Sisnature X' / --il ■! Date 3/?6A/ ? Applicant must have aM 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 Ji 4^ O W A- HARDSHIP/DFSCRIPTION OF UNTISIIAI. PROPFRTY CONDITIONS rnvered Fntry -There is no cover at all for the main entry. No cover from rain or snow. -Existing concrete slab with basement foundation already encroaches into side setback. New stoop will be smaller than the existing stoop. -A portion of the sidewalk needs to be rerouted for entiy. Overall routing will remain unchanged because of a hill between the garage and the house. -Average lake shore variance is needed because lot is less than 1/2 acre and because existing house is forward of the "line". Deck -Existing deck is completely rotted and needs replacement. Its size does not accommodate a table with chairs or seating of more than 3 adults. Stairway protrudes into deck area and is a safety hazard(several people have stumbled or fallen on stairs). -Side variance is needed because existing house is already encroaching into side setback. -Setback variance is needed to accommodate a wider deck. The views for the two adjacent property owners are not affected because their houses are a fair distance from mine. Also, the adjacent neighbor to the north has a hedge of bushes on the lot line that blocks their view of my house and all of the proposed deck. -Average lake shore variance is needed because lot is less than 1/2 acre and because existing house is forward of the "line". 4 RUN DATE 09/04/96BATCH 505 PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORMAnON SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 003158 20-117-23 42 03486 IVY PL 6 L NILLIREN A S L MILLIREN GUY L MILLIREN 5486 IVY PL NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 20-117-23 43 0008 03249 CASCO CIR R 6 LUESSE ETAL ROBERT LUESSE 5249 CASCO CIR HAYZATA.MN 55391 58 20-117-23 43 0053 03271 CASCO CIR PATRICK J NEUVILLE PATRICK J NEUVILLE 5271 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 ... r‘- ‘.-X % 0* •* •I'" ' ^ • s REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 18 38 20-117-23 43 0006 03466 IVY PL J GARY TUCKER J GARY TUCKER 3466 IVY PL HAYZATA MN 55391 58 20-117-23 43 0007 03251 CASCO CIR PATRICIA M DIEGRE ET AL PATRICIA M.A. DIEGRE 5251 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 ■ 0 38 20-117-23 43 0009 03247 CASCO CIR KURT CARLSON t HIFE KURT A LUCILLE CARLSON 3247 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-25 43 0054 03509 IVY PL M E LANG ADI GOMEZ THOMAS A LEISEL COX 3509 IVY PL HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 505 00008 I 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 COWTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE / V 6rARY HARDCOV^^t-GALCULATlOiN VVOiavi>tlfc;jii ■ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE)^^-75^ 75-250’ 25-SOO’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE LifTlCA bpp/Mrf, 500-1000’ ^ A. House S.F. Length WidA COfJC 12frf 4.^ X X X luZ B. Garage C. Driveway . I X X S St^i?5 f --------------- X X '■-Vj i. *• E. Pailo/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain '• By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X Cor<o2fTf ^ G. 'Other VA/A ^ I r* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -r D PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House .X* Length T^l- X X X B. ^Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic _ Or Fabric X X X G. Other 3^1^.6 S.F. S.F. S.F. . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4-3 • t •• H S.F. S.F. S.F. 112 S.F. S.F. • • • • • •»•S.F. S.F. 1I S.F. S.F. S.F.“ ^4-S.F. idS . i ,S.F. X 100. I ^ l| A B M « WidA S.F. 'X S.f. •*. •! S.F.? S.F. S.F. I •S.E. S.F. J m S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 - S.F. S.F. % A B :-i4 . .1 V* » • C^Afzy I i/o<fi2 hardcover CALCUL^U:W^*-A(J(Ol<AJ>tlEE i ■ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ^_75-250|^ 25-500’ • ' f r EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House_______________ • •■•ta »* ••• • Lengilv WOU/. r. WaL.X$ B. Garage X X X Width 'S .e,ii 3(9.1 22.1 C. Driveway X X K D. Sidewalk __ icohcaext. Stoc^(> _ E. Pati^/D«p _ X X ti n,8 X X lO 1*.; *!? F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN tONE X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Lengdi • , C9V<- 2X1= i X X X wiitih •so *6.-t sc, . <e B. G 5C '^O. I t %2.2.) C. Driveway ■SO. I X X n D. Sidewalk 5/aX X 3 5^ r. *E. Palio/^^ Peclc.'SwV.«A 2€.5 20. b X X 12.7. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN.ZONE A ----------B X IOC - ■ •• «.« • •• 14 • ■ 500-1000' IZ07 -••s:f. • 2*3 *S.F a S.F. ss ilA S.F. a 4>C^S.F. m ••• 0/7 S.F. a .S.F. car 141 S.F. • a \o^S.F. • m • • • ••na-S.F. S F. ■ • • « • m -S.Ft - a *S.F. s S.F. • • ^ . . . • • •• S.F. • • • 1 « • • 342(5 S.F. 10 600 S.F. • • Z £ •0 • •• % 1 a 1287 S.F. a 2^ ••S.F. a /7-S.F. a //y •S.F. *6t6'"S.F. > • »zn (d O S.F. "s.F.mm •• . • a •• • • 153 s.F. a ts:S.F. '3^7.7 S.F. • « >• 9 S.F. a S.F. S3 .S.F. •S.F. •ib'3'7.%• S.F* •to f,00 S.F. --------- ■ ?4 -'i % • i A B • • • A B m • ■ ~Tix<fS I » • • •» M • » ^ • HARDCO. ER CALCULATlOiN VVUl^ SETBAC’ ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ V25-500'500-1000' • I • ! •T, EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A, House _____ X I Length ii X •X • X I’r V B. Garage t C. Driveway L/yALL U L«F> V. li •,i s . i « . I w _n.* • i D. Sidewalk X X ••• k % 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 . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ . ^ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 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 . B * • S.F. Widtb j_S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. • • • • ZOA-S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2/5 X 100 = __S.F. ___S.F. 4-*?. 31 % S.F. Widih S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • * S-.F. S.F. - .* • •■ S.F. "'S.F. “s.F. • •» t » • » ••• •• A B • - ••S.F." • • S.F. S.F. I • • • X 100 - S.F. A S.F. B % / ' ' I i ---------4-- • / X'N • / /r .* / ! :l-i— 11 i .' » • •« 1 t ft 1 J 11114_ * ,' • ••■•/ •i . ; i .•mi • • ♦ ‘R.VI c l.U t hr-'H- "fx:) p V • » < 1;..!. i I i • * - ] i t 'tt i i 1 «s|rr;.» O ■■'...'' , ■*■', / /I • ‘ ■ i 1 i Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we)~ ^Vvu>\^>KA of [prii\^name(s)] ttOi pLfiCg. [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Pl^cc also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare ^>proval 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. feilsa Property Owug Date Property Owner Date « giip di 41 4i di 4i 4i 4i 4i 4i ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4i 4i 4t dt dr dr #r * dr * * dr dr dr dr dr dr dr ir * ifc dr dr dr A * ilr dr dr dr dr dr dt driik A A dr dr dr ^ ^ f ^ 4* 4* 4> I (we)/ tjyX’ ^ f ~7~^ ! i~.r\ C r of c.'Cf t c (t [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /Vy also referred to as Land Use Application No. < I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to derlare 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 4 ■ A iTTiBriiiihiiti TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator \/l_ April 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2228 Frank and Kathleen St. LawTence, 253 Cygnet Place - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District, 2 acres, sewered. Application: The applicant is seeking a hardcover variance in the 75*250' setback area and a front and side yard variance to build an addition to an existing residence. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.28, Subd. 5 - RRl-BArca, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements RRl-B DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 46,800 sq. ft. (1.07 acres) 265 ft.41 ft.31 ft. existing 16.4 proposed 107 ft. The subject property does not conform to the minimum lot size or front yard setback for the RRl-B district. . The proposed addition would enroach 13.6' into the required 30' side yard and approximately 9' into the required front yard. The entire site is restricted by the 75' setback requirement from the pond on the north and the creek on the east. The rear yard is 107' where 50 ’ is »-equlred. U2228, Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence 253 Cygnet Place 4/2F97 page-1 J 2. Section 10.22, SuhJ.2, Hardcover HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from Pond/Creek Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allow'ed Hardco\er Existing Hardcover Proposed Variance Requested 0 ’-75'28,500 sq. ft.None None None None 75'-250'18,300 sq. ft.4,575 sq ft. (25%) 3,827 sq. ft. (20.9%) 4,749 sq. ft. (25.9%) 174 sq ft. (.95%) Total Lot Size = 46,800 sq. ft. = 1.074 acres. The applicant proposes to increase hardco\ er in the 75-250' setback area from 3,827 s.f. or 20.9% to 4,749 s.f. or (25.9%) where 4,575 s.f or 25% is allowed. List of Exhibits A Application Applicant's Letter Plat Map Property Owner's List Aeknowledgment Fomi Topographical Map Survey Elevations Hardcover Calculations B C D E F G H I Issues 1. 2. The subject property is 1.07 acres where 2 aeres is required. The subject property currently confomis to the side and rear yard setback, but does not meet the front yard setback. 3.The subject property is limited by the 75' setback requirement from the pond and creek and the topography. 4. 5. The lot is sewered. The proposed expansion is located over a filled-in septic area. The proposed addition increases hardcover by 922 s.f., of which 174 s.f. exceeds the 25% allowed. A variance of .95% is required. #2228, Frank and Kathleen St. Lawrence 253 Cygnet Place 4/21/97 page~2 i 1 1 staff Recommendation To amend or approved as submitted, i' M2228, Frank and Kathleen St. L 'iwrence 253 Cygnet Place 4/21/97 page~3 Application if Date Received In 1^1 k Amount Paid <9PvO.- r.irr.T. •• » -• / . } .. V r vr CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 a m (no change from original application) ' Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00*#^ J After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ^ ^ ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION .. Site Address 3 Cy<^A/^ ^L_L_ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) J/H 60/^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired lA J^(£> I (do) fdoliotj^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; w^esidential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:________________________________ ,(month/year) APPLICANT Name ? knTnLtr£/o or. Address'./^S?) Pi____________ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________________ Phone (home) -f/73 ___ Phone (work ) V7^ •“ City: tJLcnc_________Zip: SS?>S^- Phone (home)_ __ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. Estimated Constmction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: a <u fyi'ptTi&yud. ArrHChed sr/tLl, i.B/>i£>'b6~L /}A,b ■Cc/^ fi Rcom^ itd/np e-niAe.^-.eh Lnu/ihP^y/mu\ >!a;> j7^C£eASi?'Ji »sro^^<5 ’<ir«(attach additional sjieets if necessar>') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width l/^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback;Front i/'Sid(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: A ai /c /j T^£Sh_X Lot £o/Q/Ai(h. Tkit Loi- An-6 *75 ' ^T6ACMS A Si))gS.*TKi5 CytlE:/^TL^) mi/oi 'rhB fjui __7^£1 ptr-TfiCp/e^h i'oC 'ii\£ sibetdr serjsyfCA^^ TKf /fbTACfc~y?7~ Laf hcn^oiT^Eebt _____^_________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessar>^/27/97 Pay 220.00 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH of the following infor mation must be submitted bv the aPDlication deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. v/ 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, Go\t Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons w'ith 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-/^'-^,Z^/^-;^ 6. OWNER'S SIGNATURE Date f/;/ /<n 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 /? 7 -C> Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements tc have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I ST.LAWRENCE, Frank & Kathy 253 Cygnet Place Orono, MN 55356 Telephone (612) 404-9173 Fax (612) 476-6524 March 26,1997 Orono City Council City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P O Box 66 Orono MN 55323 Ci'&\ Dear Council Members, We respectfully request that you add to your April 28, 1997 council meeting agenda the review of the request for Variance Application at 253 Cygnet Place, also referred to as Land Use Application No. This application is scheduled to be reviewed at the April 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Frank and Kathy St. Lawrence 4 RUN DATE 03/06/97BATCH 510PROP AODR- 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NA»C TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR » HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST3B 04-117-23 22 0012 00145 CYGNET PL GORDON V JONES GORDON V JONES 145 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 3S 04-117-23 23 0012 00253 CYGNET PL FRANK 0 ST LAFIRENCE ET AL FRANK A KATHLEEN ST LANRENCE 253 CYGNET PL N LONG LAKE HN 55356 3B 04-11/-23 23 0018 00250 CYGNET PL J S A L M BR0M4LEE JAMES S BRONNLEE 250 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 510 00009 h .• . t.*' w ' • /u / »V > : REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 2938 04-117-23 22 002600200 LEAF STL R BELLAMY ACM BELLAMY LOUIS R A COLLEN C BELLAMY 200 LEAF ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0011 00185 CYGNET PL R F A R 0 EZELL ROXANN A ROGER EZELL 185 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 ^ ""i)"M 38 04-117-23 23 -0013 00261 CYGNET PL MICHAEL P DALE ETAL MICHAEL P DALE RT 1 BOX 501J LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0017 00248 CYGNET PL DEAN K MOLIN ETAL DEAN K MOLIN 248 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE HN 55356 • 11 38 04-117-23 23 0019 00258 CYGNET PL T P LUTZ AML LUTi' THOMAS P A MARY L LUTZ 258 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0020 00240 CYGNET PL EUGENE C OETERLING A NIFE EUGENE C OETERLING 240 CYGNET PUCE LONG LAKE MN 55356 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 KNOMLEDGE AND BELIEF.. . > [3by_DATE M m i TAXATION, TO * u < a ri’ r * V ' t t i / • \ i!i •r » .r •• ^ * •»• ^ * 1 <% £. Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) /tlidjlAct 9 [print name(s)][print'^ddi PI ddress] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at c3b3 PL______also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. 1 (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. 7 Property Owner Date Property Owners Dale I (we) 7^/77 ^ i u.4^. [prihi name(s)] of X’SZ^ fl [print^address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at <^53 PL. also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. U'W'i Property Qwner Date DaleProperty Owper 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. r U r. 4 ”*M J . - ♦'. • . • Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I {we)*^Q^^ (^CyCiin^t^ £^£)f_ of l^S~ Gr'^.NJ^'^LA [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^>53 PU.(jJi. also referred to as Land Use Application No.________, 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declat: 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. 3 ~ j'? Date Property Owner Date » . I (we) -< ^ of *r .f/ y [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 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. 77; -^ Property Owner Date DateProperty Ovvner 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. 0 'X -«« • A t Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) Ums ^dc €(LM 8£||curv [print name(s)] of S(CO Sf [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at AS3 also referred to as Land Use Application No.________.1 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. S-J1' f7 Date Property Owner Dale ****♦**♦***♦♦•********♦•♦♦♦*♦**************************************•♦♦♦♦**♦*** I (we) [print name(s)l [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 DateProperty Owner Appli^atfon'! Jkay^bmU ^rco^^^ Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. E 1 i*:*r,■ •I• •* 0i * ^ (iiL-* / I s» ,.5 ■fc*r^ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR FRANK ST. LAWRENCE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 1. SWAN LAKE ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 8 CYGNET PLACE IFGAI DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 9, Block 1. Swan Lczke Addition o : denotes rcn marker Bearings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove ^scribed property, the locotion of on existing house, ond the locotion of ofl visible "hordcover** thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or erKroochments. NOTE : Accuracy of hordcover location and extent of oddlUonol hordcover is limited by iced over cor>ditiofM. Corns k CRONBtKC;, Isc.I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me ur ur^der my diri\'t super* » t. vision, and that I am a duly re^stered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor urider dirthe bws of the Suie of Minm-urta I , . , , . l.-vl-.l. M' Mark 5. Cronberg Minnesota Lic;nse Number 127S5 8 DAT* 3-U-97 • ♦»______ SCALE I " * 30* urn NO. 97 ’066 Q I APPmcW PLAN SCALff. !/©• • r-O'y NORTH ELEVATION SCALE. I/E* ■ r-O- il KC5T ELEVATION SCALE. I/S* ■ l*-C* 1I IIIIIII T'lll II A-l I, '-I" JT, lAcuAfA^cf hardcover calculation worksheet 75-250 ’250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN r.ONf, A. House ______________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidew^^i: E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _______O + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVRR IN 7QNE A. House __________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 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. O F. *9 % ».# « X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S;F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. f.F. S.P^ S.F. S.F. S.F. % H A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Frank St. Lawr ^hce^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION i 50 CoeiFj AVjq Tainih ^ W'AklS Len|(h b P, L. C. B. Garage __________ C. Driveway ___________ • • D. Sidewalk ________ E. Patio/Dcck • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • % X X X X X X X X X X X 75-250 Width O.i 25-500'500-1000 Lor 1^ ^Mh4 ^OOlTldAl lesb__S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ( «••• iAso S.F. S.F. 6ao< ezq S.F. ^Nt \o a S.F. S.F. S.F.i S.F. .S.F. /: _SF. ^ G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • A J B / 8^ 3 O O X 100 m PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Horne AfAAs AnOirtCt^X • Length Width X •X n •• • X • B. Garage • X C. Driveway A < /" • • a "“if D. Sidewalk A Fai e-i/f X • •X E. Petie^Deck X as X • • F. Landscape U/COv ^cc<^f X Underlain X ‘ By Plastic •X Or Fabric • G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . . A y7 V9 + B iP.i 'OO xlOO • • • • • • • • • • • ► • • • • ' • • • S8Z7 Q O 20. <9/ ^ yes 92 r - 3 SS t CO • • - 8J -S3 S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ yy S.F. *» / i. / S.F. S.F. / 72X ' >3y2 7^S>P» - yyVf ^s.P. A B • t. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B .» •» /<o' TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 17, 1997 K SUBJECT: #2229 Charles and Pamela Schroeder, 1925 West Farm Road -Variance-Public Hearing Application: The applicant has requested tabling until the May 19,1997 meeting. 13 TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator diiLiz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator ^ ^ ^ April 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2230 Georgine Hackney, 2184 Shadywood Road-Variance-Public Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1/2 acre. Sewered Application: The applicant seeks a side yard setback and hardcover variance to allow an addition to the kitchen. Pertinent Ordinances: 1.Section 10.25, LR-lCOne Family Lakeshore Residential District Stibd. 6. Area. Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements LR-IC DISTRICT STANDARDS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT AREA AND YARDS Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Side Yard Street Side 16,012 sq. ft. .367 acre 50 ft. at lake front 57 ft. at street 53 ft. at 75' setback Approximately 98 ft. 13 ft. at south 6.6 ft. proposed at north 37.8 ft. to garage The subject property does not conform to the minimum lot size requirements for the LR-IC zoning district. The property also does not conform to the side yard and lot width requirements. #2230, Georgine Hackney 2184 Shadywood Road 4/21/97 page-I «^-y VTrrt t rfl’* 2. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lake shore Hardcover HARDCOVER ANALYSIS Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'3,860 sq. ft.None None None None 75'-250'9,652 sq. ft.2,413 sq. ft. (25%) 2,419 sq. ft. (25.06%) 2,450 sq. ft. (25.38%) 37 sq ft. (.38%) 250'-500'2,500 sq. ft.750 sq. ft. (30%) 1,363 sq. ft. (54.5%) 1,363 sq. ft. (54.5%) No Change The subject property currently exceeds the hardcover requirements in the 75-250' setback by 6 sq. ft. The addition would increase the hardcover by 31 sq. ft. which requires a variance of .38%. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Hardcover Calculations Existing Survey Hardship Statement Acknowledgement Form Applicant's Letter Request for Early Consideration Elevations Description of Request The applicant is seeking hardcover and side yard setback variances to improve the width of a staircase and traffic flow in the kitchen. U2230, Georgine Hackney 2184 Shadywood Road 4/21/97 page—2 Issues 1.The subject propert>' does not conform to the minimum lot size requirements for the LR-IC zoning district. 2.The subject property does not conform to lot width and side yard requirements along the north property line. 3.The proposed addition is to make an internal staircase more conforming to building code and improve traffic patterns in the kitchen. Staff Recommendation To adopt as submitted. #2230, Georgine Hackney 2184 Shadywood Road 4/21/97 page~3 »• Application it Date Received 3 '*9 7 Amount Paid /V CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) / / Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^^ 0 (no change from original application) / ^ .J Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) i*. v.-v «/.' V.-. j '- ^-C ' •*..• • PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address '>V V’ Propert}' Identification Number (P.I.D.) - U V ^r"rro <7 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert\' Acquired P^v.v-c ’ %v ^ _______________^(monfli/year) I (do)^do no0/*also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>': \/residential __other iother (specify) Zoning District: \—\ ^ APPLICANT Namer- v .c. • »_____ Address: ~ V v. ■--> ^ Cit>" •- Phone (home ) A-^\\ - ~ J T, Phone (work) ________ Zip: - • OWNER (if different than applicant) Name r"-'x Phone (home) Phone (w'ork)_ Address:^ O-City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ^'£.e Estimated Construction Cost $ vS, coo.^ i vj :: c\_________________________________3JV\ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary ’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area __Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage X" 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) 03/31/97 Pay 220.00 »_4,*r». tjl-- T.-TT'i. ..^74'' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered completes 1. 2. J. 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, Go\1 Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\^ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Z'A" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic surv’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 S'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, plei'se 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 yfiur vflrinncc 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 ap^^'ication, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatu^'^.p^ ^Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE J) The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and hirther 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 - 9-^ - 9"/.__ Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittali 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 RUN DATE 03/25/97BATCH 502 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR O^tER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST58 17-117-25 42 0001 02240 SHADYNOOD RO CHRISTINE ARKO FREEMAN CHRISTINE ARKO FREEMAN 2240 SHADYNOOD RD NAY2ATA MN 55591 38 17-117-25 42 0004 02216 SHADYNOOD RD JANES 6 GOTHHANN ETAL JAMES 6 GOTHHANN 2216 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0007 02190 SHADYNOOD RD R F POTAS ET AL CO-TRUSTEES RONALD F POTAS 2190 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0010 02172 SHADYNOOD RD TIMOTHY T NELCH TIMOTHY T NELCH 2172 SHADYI^IOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0015 02158 SHADYNOOD RD JEROME J UGUE 2 NIFE JEROME J LAGUE 2158 SHADY NOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0022 02171 SHADYNOOD RD JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON 2171 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0002 02252 SHADYNOOD RD RICHARD LEE KOKESH RICHARD L KOKESH 2252 SHADYVIOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0005 02208 SHADYNOOD RO B L BEWETT 2 M E BENNETT BARRY L 2 MARY ELLEN BENNETT 2208 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0008 02184 SHADYNOOD RD GEORGINA L HACKNEY GEORGINA L HACKNEY 2184 SHADYNOOD ROAD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0011 02166 SHADYNOOD RO J M 2 L M PILCHER JAMES M 2 LINDA M PILCHER 2166 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0020 02150 SHADYIKXX) RO DONALD F HAGEN TRUSTEE DONALD F HAGEN 1014 EXCELSIOR AVE HOPKINS MN 55545 58 17-117-25 45 0152 02215 SHADYNOOD RD S A E 2 A J C BREMER SCOTT A E/ANN JEAN C BREMER 2215 SHADY»*IOOO RO NAYZATA MN 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 958 17-117-25 42 0005 02224 SHADYNOOD RO MICHAEL PIRICH TRUSTEE MICHAEL PIRICH 2224 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0006 02200 SHADYNOOD RD V N YOUNG ETAL VINCENT N YOUNG 2200 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 . t C 9 ) -‘:i 58 17-117-25 42 0009 02178 SHADYNOOD RD C 2 S AT^DERSON CURTIS ANDERSON 2178 SHADYNOOD ROAD NAYZATA MN 55591 •i ' II 58 17-117-25 42 0012 02142 SHADYNOOD RD P C 2 M A MERLO PAUL C 2 MARCIA A MERLO 2142 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0021 05601 TOGO RD THOMAS L SNYDER THOMAS L SNYDER 5601 TOGO RO OROfK) MN 55591 58 17-117-25 45 0155 02205 SHADYNOOD RD G D ERICKSON 2 J M ERICKSON GREGORY DEAN ERICKSON 2205 SHADYNOOD RO NAYZATA MN 55591 o RUN DATE OS/25/97 BATCH 502 PROP AOOR ONTIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR Q i ' HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTSB 17-117-2S AS 01S4 02199 SHAOYWOOO RD COLLIN F REESE ETAL COLLIN F REESE 2199 SHAOYNOOO ROAD MAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0137 02189 SHAOYNOOO RD D S FRIEDRICH>n R FRIEDRICH DERRICK A MICHELLE FRIEDRICH 2189 SHADYNOOD RD ORONO MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00024 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1038 17-117-23 43 0135 02195 SHAOYNOOO RD JOHN H ANDERSON JOHN H ANDERSON 2195 SHADYNOOD RD MAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 02177 SHAOYNOO MAfm A SHEPHARD MARK A SHEPHARD 2177 SHADYNOOD RD MAYZATA MN 55391 0136 RD 38 17-117-23 43 0143 02227 SHADYNOOD RD GEORGIA J SPAULDING GEORGIA J SPAULDING 2227 SHADYNOOD RD MAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0144 02229 SHADYNOOD RD T N I S M PIEPER SUSAN A TODD PIEPER 2229 SHADYNOOD RD MAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE c 'I .. . r' •= V. • > « • » 1 •s --t'f r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CmCLE ONE)75-250’250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lxngfh Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway Oi 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 A B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width t X X X B. Garage o C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B_ _ X 100 500-1000' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. 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 B S.F. A S.F. B 1 Vi - I ' .- I i HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*250-500’500-IO0O’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House faCi ^*1 Length X X X Width JT 0.5 ^ B. Garage 3 C. Driveway /X.3^> 2> 3.3/2.3Z.Z X X “ ” * D. Sid(^^l^‘^^ 3'2 ’.S' O E. Patio/Deck *19. Z X X ^o- X X /2- F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic / G. Other r X A / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ✓%4 9 D. Garage A JS C. Driveway Length /AS ^5'- 0 X X X Width AS' v_-> 3 //. 0 32^ 3 3-3/su 32.5 X X • • • D. Sidewai^^^'^' '9 j2 .X X 2 -S 0 C< Patio/Deck 71.2 X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic /c/oi G. Other X 100 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ + B X 100 3A 2o 35*0 7A / I 70 a /9'2. 0(. 3SO 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.,:-^ V. S.F. '• _S.F. _S.F. 2^. o_ _% 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) 0-75’75-250 ’ EXISTINC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X 9) B. Garage ^ 3- 8/^ i C. Driveway J/- ^X X O. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Pla'tic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X IS B. Garage ^ 0* ^ C. Driveway 57^ ^ 3?. 3 X X ^.3 D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -H B 500-1000' />;2 / X 100 /3^3 X 100 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. /O 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 B .•4- 1 \ ■ f r \ ' • .• i! gtit:, S.F. A S.F. B HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED AOOmON — <o<o LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF .PREMISED • Lot 16, Block 1, Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka o : denotes iron marker @ : denotes Judicial Landmark Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. NOTE : All information shown on this survey, with the exception of the location of the. garage, deck, proposed addition, and 929.4 contour line, is taken from a survey by others. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, and deck, and the proposed location of a proposed addition thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. 0-7S : n-uo - XSO *soo s = 0/Z t 38<o J€SZ // 2Soo // i ' O; O•af i . ■■■ )■ V" i March 31.1997 n M Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions Currently our stairs at 27 inches v^de (from finished wall to finished wall) are 9 inches narrower than current building codes. This situation presents a serious safety problem when a minimum of a 3 irn:h railing is added. Our kitchen is a galley style kitchen which serves as an entrance hall (31 inches wide) between the front door and the living room. We would like to increase the size of this narrow corridor. It presents constant problems while cooking and can be dangerous with too many people in the kitchen. We have investigated the possibility of expanding the stairs arnt the kitchen by moving the wall that bounds them, but have found it to be a load-bearing wall. The only other option is to expand by 2 1/2 feet on the north side of the house. 1 s >i &■ -•I . • Adjacent Property’ Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) 1^0 r\-4 ^o'f~g S of ^1*^0 3Ke^cjP ^ ^ [print name(s)] [print address]^ MTt! ^ 5 i^ / have review^ the plans foe the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propert>’ located at Aai^x~rA also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in e.xecuting 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 Q Date Prt^perty Owner ■h^a^^ /jo/ -1 Date I (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) aw'are 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. March 28.1997 City of Orono Planning Commission City Council -'V To Whom It May Concern: We are formally requesting a variance to add 2.5 feet cantilevered our from our existing kitchen. This will allow us to; 1. Widen our narrow stairs from 27 inches to a new width of 33 inches. 2. Widen our kitchen passthrough 2 feet, from 31 inches to 55 inches. The proposed addition does not extend beyond the existing roof line which extends 3.1 feet from the house. We appreciate your review of this matter. T March 28.1997 City of Orono Planning Commission City Council To Whom it May Concern: I am requesting that our variance proposal be reviewed at the next City Council meeting on April 28,1997. Sincerely, Ct.' Gena Hackney ,v^ r/ ^ .f\ f .. Ji ' : Vr':. V‘ #■ S<-ALe -k =■ f-i V 'VL ■<- ' <: V ^Vr. • •;-i I • I. V e* i ' % ■*v U/I.lKiU£Y' . Ml‘^i ■i I TW*TT-r7T^T^ »■: - I . r,. .- . n*^' It^JUt \MM1 afclllll »*>T9' To:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator April 18, 1997 Subject: #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Variances/CUP - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits: A - Staff Memo 4-18-97 (Outline/commentary/recommendations) B - Schoell & Madson Letter 4-16-97: Responses to 3-13-97 Staff Memo C - Revised/Updated/New Plan Sheets Per Exhibit A D - Ostvig Tree, Inc. Letter, 4-15-97 E - City of Medina CUP Approval Resolution Adopted 4-15-97 F - Letter from West Lakes Life Center G - City Engineer Letter 4-16-97 re: Access, Roads, Etc. Additional Past Exhibits (Please Bring for Reference If You Wish) Staff Memo & Exhibits 2/5/97 (Initial CUP/VAR Packet) Staff Memo & Exhibits 2/18/97 (Additional Information) Staff Memo & Exhibits 3/13/97 (Variances-Supplemental) Staff Memo & Exhibits 3/14/97 (Review Process Discussion) Staff Memo & Exhibits 3/26/97 (Big Woods Discussion) Gappa/Moorse Memo 3/31/97 (Access Discussion) Large Plan Sets & EAW Book EAW Comments Received (Staff Memo 4/11/97) Draft EAW Responses (Staff Memo 4/18/97) Update on Application Status The Medina City Council has granted conceptual, conditional approval for the Medina CUP needed by the Golf Club (See Exhibit E). The Golf Club’s Orono CUP and Variance application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 18, March 17 and March 31. On February 17 the applicants presented an overview of the project. On March 17 Planning Commission briefly reviewed additional information. On March 31 Planning Commission toured areas of the site related to the variances and Big Woods, and reviewed the variance issues at length with staff and applicants. The EAW comment period ended April 9, and numerous comments were received. Applicants consultant drafted responses to the comments which are currently being reviewed by staff and the City’s environmental consultant. Northern Environmental Technologies. Council will review the EAW status at the April 28 meeting. i #2209 4-18-97 Page 2 Applicants engineers and consultants have responded to issues raised in the March 13 and March 26 staff memos (See Exhibits B & C) in regard to: Oversize Accessory Structure Variance (Provided revised site plan, grading plan and landscaping/planting plan) Wetland Alterations Variances (Provided rationale for impacts to wetlands #5 and #12) (Revised buffer widths on wetlands #2,4,5,7,1 1 to more closely adhere to City requirements) Bluff Impacts Variance (Provided new plans indicating reduced bluff impacts, including less grading and less tree removal) (Provided rationale/statement of need for bluff impacts remaining) Big Woods Impact (Provided description of golf course layout planning process) Richard Krueger Wetland Concerns (Met with Mr. Krueger, devised a plan intended to resolve his concerns) Golf Course Maintenance Concerns (Provided a summaiy Golf Course Maintenance Plan detailing: Plant Materials - types, location, maintenance Integrated Pest Management System - including policies for pesticide, fungicide and fertilizer use and application Membership in Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program Irrigation System - water management program) Applicants have provided a letter from Ostvig Tree, Inc. (Exhibit D) indicating approximately 600- 800 existing trees on the property are transplantable, within a May-June timeframe. Issues for Further Planning Commission Discussion The attached memo dated April 18 provides an outline, commentary, and in many cases staff recommendations for topics which may require further Planning Commission discussion. The applicants obviously would like you to reach a conclusion on this application and pass it along to the Council. Planning Commission should determine what additional information if any is needed in order to reach a recommendation. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the variances/CUP with conditions. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table. Continue the hearing to a later date (special meeting on this item only). Possible evening dates meting the 3-day notification requirement are Tuesday April 29, Wednesday April 30, Thursday May 1, Thursday May 8, Tuesday May 13, Thursday May 15. Your next regular meeting is Monday, May 19. 2. 3. 4. i /} To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator April 18,1997 Subject: I. #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - CUP - Discussion and Staff Recommendation on Various Issues ZONING CONFORMITY Should site be rezuned from RR-lB-l to RR-IB? Rezoning is not required for the golf course to be approved. Rezoning would, however, eliminate any future ' otudy and research center" use of the site. The RR-lB-1 subdistrict was created specifically to accommodate the Spring Hill Conference Center, which will no longer exist if the golf course is developed. Once a golf course is established at this site, future conversion back to a conference center use is unlikely. Further, while Spring Hill was generally a 'good neighbor*, it would not be prudent to allow a redevelopment of the site for "study and research center" use due to the lack of municipal sewer and water as well as potential incompatibility with the surrounding rural residential neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the golf course is approved, the easterly portion of the site currently zoned RR-lB-1 should be rezoned to RR-1B. II. LEGAL COMBINATION The 10 separate tax parcels as currently configured result in zoning issues as noted in the February 5 staff memo, namely the need for the maintenance facility to be accessory to the principal use, and the potential impact on setbacks. STAFF REC0MMENL -.\T10N: All portions of the property in Orono should be legally combined. If Hennepin County will not do so because of the Co. Rd. 6 separation, a Special Lot Combination should be required as a condition of approval. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Bluff ImpactVariances (Also See March 13 staff memo, and Exhibits B & C of April 18 staff memo) Applicants have provided a new grading and tree removal/preservation plan for the area of the bluff. This plan appears to have much less impact than the original plans provided. The cart path 1 #2209 4-18-97 Page 2 has been slightly relocated. It appears that the bi^er of trees to the south of the gravel pit area will remain, so that the impacts of grading will be better screened as viewed from the lake. Applicant’s indicated justification for this variance is the layout of the course, the fact that this bluff is in many respects a man-made feature, and that the potential visual impacts as viewed from off-site have been minimized by narrowing the corridor of grading and tree removal. The proposed acces oad has been moved further north to reduce its impact on the bluff, and while still appearing to be within the bluff impact zone, it is above the top of the bluff and behind a significant stand of trees which will tend to minimize the visual impact of the driveway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If Planning Commission finds that the proposed changes to the bluff have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, that the proposed visual impacts of the changes are acceptable, and that there is suitable hardship and justification shown, then a recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate, subject to: 1 . Adherence to the plans as proposed. 2. Use of Best Management Practices for erosion control during construction, including but not limited to use of silt fencing and erosion control blankets where slopes exceed 3:1. 3. Any retaining walls exceeding 4' in height must have an engineered design. B. Wetland Impact Variances (Also see March 13 staff memo, and City Engineer's comments in March 14 memo). Applicants have provided a rationale for the proposed impacts to wetlands #5 and #12. In the case of #5, the basis for extensive filling of the north half of this wetland is its location at the second-shot landing area of the 5th fairway. For hole #12, the rationale for filling is again based on the need for minimum fairway width at the specified distance from the tee. Applicants indicate the fairway at this point is at a minimum functional width of 50 yards. Applicants have also revised the final buffer widths on wetlands #2 and #5 (which are being impacted by grading) and on #4 and #7 (which are not being graded) to meet the City's 26 ’ requirement. Wetland #11 (not a City wetland) will have a 16.5' buffer width. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If Planning Commission determines that the requested wetland grading/filling variances are supported by valid and adequate hardships, staff recommends approval as revised, based on the applicant having provided substantial ^iliigation 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. r #2209 4-18-97 Page 3 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. C. Big Woods Alteration Impacts (See also March 26 staff memo) It is clear from the EAW comments received that the commenting parties wish to have the Big Woods preserv’ed in substantially its current state. Preserving strips of trees between fairways as proposed will yield a result that will no longer be Big Woods. This fragmentation is necessary if the golf course use is to occur. Applicants have indicated it is not possible to push all the golf course impacts to one side of the site and preserv e a substantial (say, 20 acre) block of Big Woods. Commenters have also provided much discussion about the unique, fragile and threatened nature of remaining Big Woods parcels in Hennepin County as well as how this one relates to Wood Rill and Wolsfeld. The fact remains that the City has no regulations which would specifically prohibit destruction of this Big Woods. At best, in staffs opinion, the City has a limited number of potential options for preserving this Big Woods remnant, some of which may not be practical. Options include: 1. Purchase the property. 2. Approve the CUP subject to no tree removal or grading within the Big Woods. 3. Deny the CUP. Purchase of the property would be expensive and presumably cannot occur unless/until the Golf Club drops its purchase option. Then, there must be a willing seiler, and the City must have the funds. Also, it is problematic that 2/3 of the Big Woods is in Medina and the Medina City Council has granted conceptual approval to the project. Options 2 or 3 would presumably rely on a finding that the fragmentation and therefore resultant destruction of the Big Woods is not in keeping with the specific Goals and Policies of the Orono Comprehensive Plan relating to preservation of woodlands. The City is perhaps in a more defensible position under Option 2, since a 'golf course' is supported as a rural area use in the Comp Plan, is an allowed conditional use in the RR-lB/RR-lB-1 zones, and there are no specifically defined CUP performance standards which are not being met. Although there may be a number of private groups searching for alternate uses of the Spring Hill properties with the hopes of preserving the Big Woods, the City is obligated to review and come to a conclusion on the application at hand. And, if the City eoncludes the golf *• #2209 4-18-97 Page 4 course is not appropriate and this proposed use goes away, it is a fact that any developer could propose a residential subdivision of the Big Woods which under current ordinances the City would have to approve. Absence of the golf course proposal does not guarantee preservation of the Big Woods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Planning Commission should assess all relevant information regarding the Big Woods and conclude whether it is appropriate to take steps to preserve it. D. Alteration of Wildlife Habitat and Movement Corridors The EAW addresses this issue in some detail. There are few City codes specifically intended to preserve wildlife habitat and corridors. City wetland regulations do intend to preserv'e wetland habitats. The applicant acknowledges there will be impacts to wildlife, but suggests those impacts w ill be less impact with the golf course proposal than there would be with a housing development within this 195 acre site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (none) E. Impacts on Surface Water Runoff Quality/Quantity 1. Drainage. City Engineer Shawn Gustafson i.r wJ the proposed improvements related to stormwater quantity and finds them acceptable from an engineering standpoint, noting that the hydraulics and hydrology arc consistent with the routing calculations and drainage patterns cun ently being prepared as part of Orono's Storm Water Management Plan. His letter of March 14 makes a number of specific comments which are incorporated into the following staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: a. Storm sewer lines should be extended to the normal water level of the wetlands or ponds. b. There may be a need for a drainage culvert along the north side of Co. Rd. 6 to direct drainage past the tunnel entrance. c. Existing roadway culverts near the site should be field surveyed and if damaged or deteriorated, should be replaced (Staff note: since applicants' plan does not require upsizing of culverts, their replacement would normally be done at City expense). 2. Wetlands (Also see March 13 staff memo). An adjacent Orono property owner, Dick Krueger, has expressed concern that the proposed impoundment of Wetland #17 in Medina will act to reduce the long-term elevation of, i.e. dry up, the immediately downstream vvcclaiiJ oa hi" rmpp.rtv (the larce wetland between Willowbrook Drive and Wiadmere #2209 4-18-97 Page 5 Readjust north of Co. Rd. 6). Applicant’s consulting engineer has addressed this concern to the satisfaction of Mr. Krueger. The soulution appears to be a proposed sectional weir w'hich can be raised or lowered incrementally. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve wetland variances and mitigation subject to the recommendations in item III-B above. 3. Water Quality . The City Engineer has reviewed the water quality assumptions used in applicants report, and has preliminarily indicated some concern with the total reliance on NURP ponds for water quality management. The concern is that nutrients in golf course runoff are soluble and may tend to not settle out but be discharged. One way to reduce this concern is through increased use of managed vegetative buffer strips. The Engineer also requested additional information regarding the types of turf grasses to be used, since this impacts the nutrient budget. He has been provided this information as well as a proposed turf management program to reduce the amount of excess nutrients leaving the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Withhold approval of the water quality plans pending recommendations from the City Engineer. Approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will also be required. 4. Hardcover Calculations. Applicants have provided hardcover calculations for the site(included in February' 18 supplemental information) showing that the proposal will comply with City hardcover ordinances: Zons.Existing Proposed Allowed 0-75'0%0%0% 75-250'0%4.6%25% 250-500’1.5%2.9%30% 500-1000'6.5%7.2%35% STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the hardcover proposal as conforming with City ordinances. F. Septic System A ’ " f • * The existing conference center septic system should be more than adequate to serv'e the clubhouse. No site evaluation or design information has been submitted for the maintenance facility septic system due to ground conditions, but applicants have indicated this work is now underway. Preliminary indication are that the 100’ x 120' drainficld area 1 i #2209 4-18-97 Page 6 designated on the site plan is suitable for a single mound system, but a secondary site must be located somewhere outside that designated area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Condition approval of the Maintenance Facility site plan on submittal and approval of a satisfactory site evaluation and system design. G. Groundwater Usage/Impacts Water supply is not anticipated to be a problem at this site. The existing 10 ” well is 178' deep, cased down to 143' (was drilled to 429', apparently caved in so that it only has open hole from 143' to 178'), approximately 100 ’ lower than the surface elevation of Long Lake, terminating in a coarse sand layer. Static level per the 1984 State well record is 99 ’, with a 20' drawdowm at a pumping rate of 750 gpm. A resident of Hollander Road, Paul Bruer, has requested that the applicant be required to perform groundwater modeling studies to predict the impact of the golf course's irrigation water appropriations on the local water supply (see attachment'd.' of May 14 memo). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Applicant should provide an analysis of possible groundwater impacts. H. Storage of Fuels and Agricultural Chemicals An above-ground fuel storage system will be installed at the site meeting all pertinent code requirements. Applicants have indicated chemical storage will be as follows; The chemical andfertilizer 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 secured 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of fuel and chemical storage facilities as described and as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A of March 13 memo) subject to the appropriate permits and pertinent code requirements, and subject to appropriate screening as discussed in the March 13 staff memo. 1 i i #2209 4-18-97 Page 7 IV. INFRASTRUCTURE/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING A. Maintenance Facility Access Location The most recent set of plans indicate the access location moved northward to the crest of the road to enhance sight distance. This appears to be the safest location for an access to serve the maintenance facility at this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised location of the acces s to the maintenance facility. B. Clubhouse Access Location (See Moorse/Gappa memo of 3-31-97, City Engineer letter of April 16, and Hennepin County letter of March 19) Staff and the City Engineer have concluded that the most appropriate access location is on Spring Hill Road as proposed, and Hennepin County public Works concurs. This is consistent with City codes and policies limiting direct access onto arterial roadways whenever possible. STAFF RECO.MMENDATION: Approve new driveway access onto Spring Hill Road for clubhouse, subject to closure and removal of all current field entrances and driveways abutting the site on County Road 6. C. Spring Hill Road Condition (See letter of April 16 from City Engineer) The Engineer has indicated that the condition of Spring Hill Road and East Long Lake Road warrant more than normal maintenance. He is recommending that Spring Hill Road be overlayed at Spring Hill's expense, based on the increased intensity of use associated with the golf course use. The overlay would be expected to last 10 years, estimated cost for the overlay is $131,732. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Per City Engineer’s recommendation dated 4-16-97. D. Intersection Upgrades The City Engineer has indicated that Hennepin County should determine whether intersection upgrades, including turn lanes, are needed at the 6/Tamarack and 6/Hunter intersections as a result of this development. If so, the Engineer recommends those upgrades be assessed to jthis ^sv^^oment. ^tsiX is meeting with Hennepin County on April 18 to review this. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending #2209 4-lg-97 Page 8 V. E. Trail System Medina has conditioned their approval on a trail easement along Tamarack coinciding with Orono's trail. Orono's adopted trail plan does not include a trail heading north on Tamarack Drive. It does, however, indicate a trail coming up East Long Lake Road and continuing westward on Spring Hill Road. Applicant has indicated he will cooperate to the extent possible in establishing trails on or adjacent to the perimeter of the site. Neithei staff nor Park Commission have investigated the specific trail needs or routing as of this writing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending F. Utility Needs Municipal sewer and water are not available for this propert>'. The property can be developed as proposed without the need for municipal utilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None G. Tunnel Under Co. Rd. 6 See Hennepin County March 19 letter. A number of issues regarding the pedestrian/vehicle culvert under County Road 6 were raised by the County. This will require additional discussion between the City and the County. However, staff conceptually has no problem with the tunnel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITE USES A. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (TO BE DISCUSSED) B. Comparative Impact of Potential Alternate Uses (INCOMPLETE) Development Analysis to determine # of 2-ac. lots possible in Orono: Gross Orono Acreage 147 ac. Less Orono Wetlands 10 ac. Net Developable Acreage 137 ac. Average Lot Size in 2 ac. zone inch interior roads = 2.5 ac. Number of Lots Possible = 137 / 2.5 = 55 lots C. Private vs. Public Course (TO BE DISCUSSED) 1 #2209 4-18-97 Page 9 D. Tax Base Implications Annual Taxes on 55 homes of average valuation of $600,000 each = 55 X $13,500 = $742,500 City Portion of Same = 0-11 x $742,500 = $ 81,675 Annual Taxes on Golf Course: Example: VVoodhill CC -120 acres in Orono Taxable Market Value: Land $ 835,200 Bldgs $ 189,900 Total S 1,025,100 Taxes $59,300 City Portion $6,500 Example: Wayzata CC -150 acres in Orono Taxable Market Value: Land $ 1,255,100 Bldgs $1,326,000 Total $2,581,100 Taxes $ 144,600 City Portion $15,900 £. Park Fee Implications 1997 Tax Book Land Valuation of Orono Parcels: Total Acreage in Orono: Valuation per Acre: Applicants Stated Property Costs (incl bldgs) Per acre costs ($5,500,000/195 ac.) Cost of Land if Intended for SFR is higher, say Cost per Acre for Housing ($6,000,000/195) 8% Orono Park Fee based on Sale Price (147 ac.x $30,800 X.08) $ 1,620,000 147 ac. $ 11 ,000/ac. $ 5,500,000 $ 28,200/ac. $ 6,000,000 $ 30,800/ac. $ 362,000 Park Fee Per Acre ($362,000/147)$ 2,460/a- Park Fee Per Lot = $362,000/55 = $6,600. (This is not out of line with park fees charged in other subdivisions on Orono since 1990.) VI. OTHER IMPACTS (ALL FOR DISCUSSION) A. Archaeoligical/historical sites B. Aesthetic impacts #2209 4-18-97 Page 10 C. Preserv ation of Open Space Character, Maintaining Natural Rural Vistas Tree Replacement D. Architectural Compatibiltiy With Surrounding Neighborhood E. Maintenance Activity Impacts F. I. J. Golf course Amenities G. Special Events Potential Impact of seasonal Use Lighting Land Alteration CUP r W Schoell Sl Madson, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Elenners Soil Testing • Environmentsi Services 10500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka. MN 55305-1525 Office B1 2-5<4B-7B01 Fax B12-54B-S065 April 16, 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Subject: Spring Hill Golf Club Dear Mike: This letter and related enclosures will address the review comments in your March 13, 1997 memorandum. Transmitted herewith are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revised plan sheet 12 showing the area of the club house and hole 5. New plan sheet 13 showing the revised and expanded plan for the maintenance facility. Revised plan sheet 10 showing the addition of an irrigation pumphouse by NURP basin 2 and removal of the detail of the maintenance building area. Site and landscaping plan for the maintenance facility. Building plan for the irrigation pumphouse. Following are the responses to the staff recommendations. These are in the same sequence as in the March 13th memorandum. I. Oversize Accessory Structure 1.The facility is located at the best location when all factors including road access, impact on wetlands, impact on big woods, availability of suitable drain field location, and ability to screen the facility from view outside the golf club boundary are considered. @/u<>yK ^ 0 ^2/ea rd Se r vice Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Mr. Michael P. Gaffron April 16,1997 2.A revised site plan of the maintenance facility, as shown on plan sheet 13, has been prepared which screens the facility from view. This shows the existing trees in the area, some of which are retained for screening. The building floor elevation has been lowered four feet to facilitate the screening. Natural looking landscaped berms are shown on the west and south sides of the facility. The south berm extends about 600 feet east of the building and then curves north to screen the view of the building from the east. Significant plantings of spruce and pine trees on top of the berms complete the screening. Site lines from several locations on County Road 6 will be provided demonstrating that the building is screened from view. The site evaluation for the drain field was started on April 15th and preliminary recommendations will be available by the Planning Commission meeting. II. Wetland Impacts 1.The following reasons for the impacts to wetlands #5 and #12 were presented by Dennis Wise of Fazio Golf Course Designers at the last Planning Commission meeting. Wetland #5 which is located at the second landing area on hold #5 is proposed to be filled a total of 0.88 ac. This was due to the fact that the golf hole plays into the wind and the carry from the first landing area over the wetland would be 225 yards. This is a carry that the average golfer cannot accomplish. By forcing the majority of the golfers to lay up short of the wetland, hitting a shot of 135 yards, leaving the golfer 170 yards to the green. This is not a desirable situation for a par five golf hole. The remainder of the 1.04 ac. of this wetland was converted into a NURP basin with wetland benches surrounding the edges. Wetland #12 Is located on the left side of hold #7. This wetland was modified in order to establish a playable fairway width. If this modification is not done, the average golfer playing the members’ Ites would have to carry their tee shot 220 yards over the wetland hazard. This carry would force the golfers to lay up short with their tee shots to a place in the fairway that has sufficient width. This then leaves a shot into the green of 210 yards which would make for an awkward golf hole. By making this modification, the play width of the fain/vay and rough combined is at a minimum width of 50 yards. Another reason that this wetland was modified was to place a cart path in a location that was not visible from 8CHOELL S MADSON, INC. the tees. Mr, Michael P. Gaffron April 16.1997 2.Enclosed is a revised tabulation of the wetland impacts which reduces the variance requests. The changes from the previous tabulation consist of: a. b. c. d. e. Wetland #2 > the 26' buffer width will be maintained around the entire wetland. Wetland #4 - The buffer width is increased from 16.5' to 26' as recommended. Wetland #5 - a 26' buffer width will be maintained around the entire NURP basin. Wetland #7 - the buffer width is increased from 20' to 26' as recommended. Wetland #11 - a 16.5' buffer width will be maintained around the entire NURP basin. III. Bluff Impacts 1.The bluff Impacts, as shown on reused plan sheet 12, are significantly reduced from those shown on the previous plan. These modifications consist of the following: b. c. d. Elimination of the lower tee which was located in the bluff slope on the east side of the bowl. Shifting the cart path north which eliminated grading and tree clearing close to Spring Hill Road. The revised plan shows a minimum of 120 feet of undisturbed vegetation next to Spring Hill Road. Reduction of the grading on the bluff slope on the west side of the bowl. Reduction in the tree clearing on the bluff slope on the north side of the bowl. The remaining impacts in the bluff area consist of: a. b. c. Hand trimming along the #18 hole at the top of the bluff slope to provide a sight line to the green. Trimming and selective clearing on the east side of the bowl below the #5 tees to provide an adequate sight line to the fairway. Grading and related tree clearing on the west side of the bowl to provide a sight line down the fairway. 8CHOELL & MAD8QN, INC. Mr. Michael P. Gaffron April 16, 1997 The need for these impacts is provided in the following comments by Dennis Wise: The modifications in the gravel pit area are proposed for two main reasons. The first being site line of the golf holes and secondly playability of the golf holes. On hole #18, we are proposing an average of 25 ft. of hand trimming to be done on the slope of the gravel pit. This is needed for a sight line for the golfer that is hitting a shot from the right side of the fainway. This trimming will be consistent with what has historically been done on the slope for lake views. Photographs will be provided to document this trimming. The slope In front of #5 tees to the base of the slope on the west side of the gravel pit area, will be hand trimmed and selectively cleared. Any of the trees that will be cleared in this area will be done by hand and removed without disturbing the area. All of this trimming and selective clearing will be done in order to get an adequate site line to the fairway. The west side of the gravel pit area is showing two modifications. One being the cutting of the slope and the second as a result of the first the removal of trees. There are two reasons for the need to cut the slope back. First of all, there is a safety issue with the site line. As the slope is now, a golfer standing on the tees cannot see a golfer standing in the fairwa ■ This being the case, you would not know when it was safe to hit your tee shot. The other reason for the cutting of the slope was to reduce the cross slope in the fainway. As the grades are now, there is a cross slope of 20% running from right to left in the fainway. The maximum cross slope that we use In a fairway is 7%. If this cross slope is not taken out, a tee shot would easily be able to end up in wetland #4. This would mean that a portion of this wetland would need to be modified. Although this work is being done on the gravel pit area, it will not be able to be seen from Spring Hill Road. This is because a buffer zone of trees is being left along ttie edge of the property. The height of these trees is higher than the highest point where we are disturbing the gravel pit area. This will then screen anything on the golf course from any views from the outside. Sight line drawings along the center of hole 5 and also from Spring Hill Road to along the west ridge of the bowl area will be provided. BCHOELL B MAD80N, INC. Mr. Michael P. Gaffron April 16. 1997 \ The driveway to the clubhouse has been shifted north to pass on the north side of a line of mature spruce trees. This removes the driveway fromf- bh.ffarea. In summary, the bluff impacts have been reduced as much as possible. It should be noted that those impacts remaining are on manmade bluffs resulting from the gravel mining. All impacts to the bluff slope will be screened from view from Spring Hill Road and Long Lake by the trees and vegetation on the north side of Spring Hill Road which will be retained. Three additional Issues, the big woods impact, Mr. Krueger’s concerns about an adjacent off-site wetland, and the golf course maintenance plan are addressed as follows: BIG WOODS The Fazio Golf Course Design Group has provided the following description of their planning process for the property north of County Road 6: The routing of the holes on the north side of County Road #6 has gone through many modifications. The total acreage of this side of the plan is 84.10 acres. Of this acreage he maintenance site takes up 1.50 acres which leaves 82.60 acres for the 7 goi les on this side of the road. This equates to a ratio of 11.80 acres per go. .ole which contrasts to a ratio of 9.07 acres for the 12 holes •n''luding the range on the south side of County Road 6. There are many reasons for the exact locations of the golf holes on the north side of the road. One these reasons being the configuration of the property lines. This means that the property lends itself to the holes going north and south. This is because the width of the property will only allow a short par 4 to run east and west. Once this is done, however, you have then blocked out any other holes going north and south. Another reason for the routing of the holes on this side io the desire to maintain as much of the wetlands as possible. Of the 19.89 acres, a total of 0.40 acre was modified. Of the 43.11 acres of the Big Woods, 21.69 acres were saved, this is just over 50%. There are two main reasons behind the clearing. First of all, a sufficient width to play golf is required on all of the holes. As it stands now, we are at a minimum of 50 yards from edge to edge. Secondly, sun light and air movement are needed to grow quality turf grass. SCHOELL & MA080N, INC. Mr. Mich'^e! P. Gaffrcsn April 16. 1997 The clearing process on this golf course will go through many stages. The first stage will be a clearing 30 foot width on either side of the center line of the golf hole. After this initial clearing is completed, a representative from Fazio Golf Course Designers will flag all of the clearing from that point on. Any tree that is in question as to being needed to be removed will be left until the golf hole has been roughed in. At that point, a decision will be made on the trees. MR. KRUEGER’S WETLAND CONCERNS Mr. Richard Krueger met with Marshal Braman and John Karwacki of our office on April 7th. The plan shows an impoundment of one foot in wetland 17. It is anticipated that this impoundment would take several months to fill during which time no water would flow into the wetland on the Krueger property. Once the wetland impoundment has raised 1 foot, it is anticipated thal the wetland will annually discharge typically 70-80% or more or existing flow volume depending on climatological conditions. If for some reason the project flow rates do not develop as projected and the water levels drop below average levels during normal precipitation years in the downstream v/etland adjacent to the Krueger’s home provisions would be made with Orono, Medina and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as part of the development agreement, to adjust the stop log height at 6" increments. The above plan was reviewed with Mr. Krueger, and it is our understanding that it is acceptable to him. GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE Enclosed is a summary of the proposed Golf Course Maintenance Plan which has been prepared by Tim Johnson, the golf course manager. We will be available to meet with you to review this information and answer questions. Please contact us. Very truly yours. SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj !. Wetland Impacts for Spring Hill Golf Club Wetland }: Size: 0.55 ac. Type: 2 (PVC conversion of Type 2 PEMB to Type 3 PEMC) Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. •V; 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: *City Designated Wetland Size: C 79 >c. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. City=26 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: Citv: None Excavation for NURP basin 3 (0.55 ac.) A 26 ft. buffer will be maintained around the wetland including the mitigation area. Orono NURP Basin Wetland Excavated- Upland Com' jion= (968 Contour) 0.71 ac. 0.55 ac. 0.16 ac. Wetland 3: Size: Type: drainage channel 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained Cirv: Orono . ... ■! -rit r»»».«tttHfc WLlLa-J Wetland 4: *City Designated Wetland Size: 0.85 ac Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. City= 26 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 26 ft. buffer will be maintained City: Orono Wetlands: Size: Type: Buffer Requirement: MCWT>=20 ft. Cit>-=26 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: *City Designated Wetland 1.92 ac. 2 City: 0.88 ac. Excavation for NURP basin 2 (0.84 ac.) Buffer: A 26 ft. buffer will be maintained around the NURP basin. Orono NURP Basin 2= 0.99 ac. Wetland Excavated^ 0.84 ac. Upland Conversion^ 0.15 ac. (905 Contour) 0.31 ac. drainage ditch Wetland 6: Size: Type: Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: 0.13 ac. Buffer: A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained will be maintained e.xcept for the 100 ft. width of the fill area and the cart path. City: Orono Wetland 7: *City Designated Wetland Size: 1 .72 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MC\\’D=20 ft. Cit>- 26 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: A 26 ft. buffer wll be maintained around the entire wetland basin. City: Orono Wetland 8: Size: 0.04 ac. Tyqje: 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. T)T5e: 2 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: City: None Mitigation along the east end (0.76 ac.) A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained. Orono Wetland 10: Size: 0.03 ac. Type: 2 drainage ditch 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 11: Size: 0.12 ac. Type: 2/3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: City: None Excavation for NURP basin (0.12 ac.) A 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained around the NURP basin. Orono NURP Basin 1 - 0.42 ac. Wetland Excavated - 0.12 ac. Upland Conversion- 0.30 ac. *City Designated Wetland 0.70 ac. Wetland 12: Size: Type: Buffer Requirement: MCWD=16.5 ft. Cits-26 ft. 9 Impact: Fill: 0.07 ac. Buffer: A 26 ft. buffer w ill be maintained except for along the 260 ft. wetland fill line. City: Orono Wetland 13: Size: 2.59 ac. Type: 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=25 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: None 4 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 IS (DNR 837W^: *City Designated Wetland Size: 3.50 ac. Type: 3 Buffer Requirement: MCWD=25 ft. City=26 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: Buffer: City: None Mitigation along southern end (0.57 ac.) The 26 ft. buffer will be maintained around the entire basin, including the mitigation area. Orono Wetland 16: Size: Type: 1.79 ac, 3 Buffer Requirement: MCUT)=20 ft. Impact: Fill: None Buffer: The 20 ft. buffer will be maintained around the entire basin. City: Medina Wetland 17: Size: 9.87 ac. Type: 2 (PVC conversion of Type 2 PfA/S to Type 3 P£A/C) Buffer Requirement: MCWD=35 ft. Impact: Fill: Other: \ City: 0.23 ac. Impoundment for Public Value Credits (3.15 ac.) Mitigation (0.18 ac.) Buffer: The 35 ft. buffer will be maintained except for approximately 165 ft. along the mitigation area, where the buffer will only be approximately 17 ft. \nde. No buffer is proposed around the approximate 450 ft. of the wetland fill area. Medina Wetland 18: ^ - l&’T^TYTX'XTT*.. ~r. A^’rz^rmr-77 Size: 0.10 ac. Type: 2 Buffer Requirement: MC\VD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: City: 0.10 ac. No buffer proposed; fill area Orono Wetland 19: Size: Type: 0.03 ac. 2 Buffer Requirement: MC\VT)=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: City: None The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained for the entire basin, Orono Wetland 20: Size: Type: 0.41 ac. 2 Buffer Requirement: MC\VT)=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: City: None The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained for the entire basin. Orono Wetland 21: Size: Type: 0.09 ac. 2/3 ditched Buffer Requirements: MCWD=16.5 ft. Impact: Fill: Buffer: City: None The 16.5 ft. buffer will be maintained for the entire basin. Orono Total Mitig^ation: 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: 0.23 Total 1.45 ac. Type 2 PEMB: Type 3 PEMC: Total 1.35 ac. Q.IQ ac. 1.45 ac. Proposed Replacement Ratio: 5.01:1 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB- GOLF MAINTENANCE SUMMARY Spring Hill Golf Club will be designed with great attention paid to the natural features that are indigenous to this site. Tom Fazio was chosen as the Golf Course Architect not only because of his reputation as the worlds top Golf Course Designer, but he is an architect who preserves as much of the natural topography and vegetation as possible in all of his designs. In addition, his golf courses are known to be playable by golfers of all skill levels, yet very challenging to the best players as well. PLANT MATERIAL Grasses During the planning stages of this golf course, we will be choosing grasses that are most suitable for the climate in this region. The golf course greens, tees, and fairways will be creeping bentgrass that has been bred for the northern regions of the country. The primary rough will consist of a 70/30 blend of Fine Fescue and Kentucky Bluegrass respectively. The Fine Fescue will give us quick germination and establishment while the Kentucky Bluegrass is added for durability during cart and maintenance traffic. The secondary rough will be comprised of a blend of at least four different varieties of Fine Fescues. We are also planning some areas of extreme rough w hich will be a blend of prairie grasses that are native to Minnesota. The secondar>’ and extreme rough will be used in out of play areas for texture and contrast in grasses as well as providing a natural habitat foi wildlife. Trees and Shrubs During construction of the golf course, every control measure will be in place to assure that we save as many trees as possible on site. The east side of the site will receive the heaviest plantings due to the lack of trees on holes #2 and #3. We will be moving trees to these holes from the west end of the Spring Hill site where a tree nursery' was established a few years ago. In addition, we will be bringing additional trees in from local nurseries as we need them during construction. Deciduous trees will be different types of Oaks and Maples as well as some mass plantings of Dogwoods if needed. White and Red Pines as well as Spruce trees may also be needed if our local populations on site are not enough. We will also have a local Arborist on site during and after construction to assure proper care is given to all trees on site. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Construction The IPM program will begin by providing the best possible growing conditions for the tiu-fgrass during the construction phase. Daily quality control measures will be employed to assure quality construction is upheld. i ^ ♦ariflT-XT'TV* Post Construction 1. Cultural Practices -Extensive dethatching will help provide a denser, healthier grass that will absorb nutrients and pesticides more effectively, reducing the chance of runoff or contamination of ground water. -By maintaining sharp blades on reel and rotary mowers, grass will be accurately cut and not opened to diseases and insect damage like that of a grass plant being tom by a dull mower. -By controlling root zone compaction both during and after construction, the plants will maintain better o.xygen and gas exchange and the soil will maintain its percolation rates reducing the chance of runoff and erosion. 2. Con.prehensive Soil Testing -By accurately forecasting our exact fertility needs, we can avoid adding unneeded components in our fertilizer analysis. We will accomplish this with seasonal soil testing as well as monthly tissue te«^^'ng of the grass plants to determine exact fertility needs. Through these methods and custom blending fertilizers to met our specific needs, we can avoid lush growth, as well as insufficient growth, which are both causes for a grass plant to become infected with turfgrass pests. 3. Pesticide Applications -Pesticide and fertilizer applications will be applied by those employees with Minnesota Pesticide Applicators License. Pesticides will be applied on a curative basis only after microscopic identification or weather monitoring deems it necessary or tlie pest threshold is above the tolerable level and damage occurs. Pesticides will be mixed and applied in a safe, effective manner using the latest technologies and low active ingredient rates. The weather will be mcniiored both before and after the application to assure proper uptake of the pesticide. Pesticide application will be documented and kept on file. 4. Fertilizer Applications -We will use a combination of natural organic and synthetic organic (slow release) fertilizers in our programs. The use of slow release fertilizers will benefit the golf course in two wavs: 1) There is a slow degradation process of this fertilizer, giving the plants small amounts of nutrients at a time, leaving linie or no fertilizer for leaching. ?) Because of its slow release rates, the fertilizer will not subject the grass to lush, unhealthy growth. In addition, the use of soluble fertilizers at low rates will allow for immediate foliar uptake of the nut'ients eliminating the risk of nutrient leaching or runoff A UDUBON COOP EM TIVE SANC WAR Y PROGRAM Spring Hill Golf Club wil' he a member golf course of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) and w ill work toward their “Signature”status. The i ACSP promotes ecologically sound land management practices and conservation of natural resources. This program provides an advisory information service on how to conduct proactive environmental projects for golf courses. The Certification Process entails several different categories to achieve the ‘Signature” designation for new golf courses. These programs include such things as Environmental Planning, IPM Program, Water Conservation, Water Enhancement, and Wildlife Food and Habitat Enhancement. By establishing this program. Spring Hill Golf Club can and will enhance and protect wildlife habitat and water resources. IRRIGATION SYSTEM The irrigation system will be a state-of-the-art computerized system giving us great flexibility during our normal evening irrigation cycle. By using the latest computer programs, we will be able to control with great accuracy, when and how much water will be applied to specific areas. This will provide us with precise water management programs which will, in turn, apply w'ater to the golf course in the most effective way possible. The computer will also have a weather station which will monitor environmental conditions which will aid in our irrigation application decision^. From the data collected, we will be able to compute the amount of water that the grass looses each day due to environmental conditions (evapotranspiration rate) so that we can apply only the water the grass needs and avoid needless irrigation applications. Water will be supplied to the irrigation system by a 1500 g.p.m. variable frequency drive pumping station. The w'ater will be drawn from a well fed pond on the fifth hole. The pond level will be monitored with electric sensors to start and stop the wells as needed. GENERAL The overall focus of this golf course w ill be to provide the golfers w ith the best possible playing conditions while impacting the environment as little as possible. We will do this b> maintaining healthy turf through culturally and mechanically sound practices explained in the IPM program. We feel the culmination of these agronomic practices and our desire to blend this golf course with its natural surroundings, wil’ give us the opportunity to provide a top quality golf course while acting responsible toward the environment. Ii )- iiuuuunuMunnuunim u4niiMmiiiun4mmnmu miumiLum u uuuinnn ‘4;iuiuuu niuinuuiuunnuruuiu u g n u Li 1 u \....... ........unnuunuu ..inu^unfuuiiuurtiiufiun igiiuvunuunguiuiuiu tuuuuuuiu uuninun..nun\ ni!l uurtiinfiuu^ u 14 n u \f! vu i itnnunuuuunuuu ...................... imuiniwuiuuuiinuwmuiuufimMimiuuMimwnnimi < ....munliun'uuMunmuifumlmirtunfiuulniminiJiuulii mnufuui* ikuuu\mviuiumu4iun<miiMmi4mU(mukmu4uir«umtnuuimi(iuukun n n 11 n I 111 II t n I n 1111111111111111 imi tiiiiiiin i • • ■ • 111 • i i « ............ 7.. in UU :niu UU uuuuuuuuuunuufuui mu mu^uufuul uiim^mu uuuuuuuu u uuuuuiu mmuufuuuuuMuum iguuvuuuu uuuuu mu uurtuufuui immummi uuuuu uuuuu lUUmumu ,umiuuUiuifmuimmwmmmwumni ufimwumnuiMU uuu uu vuuiiu UUUUUIU uuuuuuuuu lUUUUUUUUlUUUUU lrUUU’*'’^””UUU u1um*umtum^^u^-^^M»»- -ii; IUUU)U4HUV ^,- **p ' ' uuuuu n uuuuuumu mu U4UUMUUIUU.kmUWU i u 144m'ki UUUUU uufum UfU iuiuuuumi>i^umu UUI<1\U1UUU1> i>UU! muuuuuu uunuu U4U.UU UUVUU ummm'umi-Umifmutu ulmu^mufm <u . pUMlUl_____________________luuuwmuuu-tii'Siuuuuuuwumuuuuuuuu^miu.......................uiuiimf muum uiuuumufu uuuuu uuuuu um*u iguu uuuuu \\<Uuigu u immwuumuMuuwuuiuumuuuuuuuuui uuuuuuuumuufumm4Himuu4uiU(Uuuu miuuuuuuuu •‘Munuuf ,um...huuk.....mr.^uurum^ um uuu imu UfUlvumimuu uuuuu nuunuu UU UU UiUUVUUl^UUuuummmmuufuuUiiumufuuuuu.4uuuuuuuuuunuufuurmmiuuummuuiuuu uumuuu\ r+i >« 2:o« ♦ ♦ i —^ ^ NkI i i 1 w. ■V/.1 i i < mmmm15g::1 4 4 mmm 11 B i i » I ! i iI ’ i VI 5a r% Xry 3 o•o n 2 > -t 6z •n 3 O;o 3) n o 31 5 zo 1 11 1 o3 J If CO •V o|SS mo oo SO 31 COm lO (O V (/) s s > D 33 rn O g OS m zo (7) K>o> xl CJ> I O O Sii > S2 mm H (/) Imm O > 3m > i/) Imm /A'.-rm iin in nilnn era1i4 4 4 11*.y/. \yy i 4 4 nrnnnn i O zo 5o I 8 m lA P! i!!! nomzo tA Im CJ i u> ■n 5 S Oa) I i ^ 90 fn p; 6z XA O u zo o J? in i c< OSTVIG TREE, INC. SINCE 1933 A Tradilioo of Excellence AprU 15,1997 Mr. Tim Johnson Project Manager Spring HiU GoU'Club 700 Spring HiU Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Tim: The inventor)' of the trees that can be transplanted and relocated on the Spring Hill Golf Course site is finished, and we need to complete our moving and nursery plans fairly soon. lliere are approximately 600-800 trees that can be considered for transplanting. They consbt of the foUowing species: Norway Pine, 'WTiite Pine, >Miite Spruce, Amur Maple, Sugar Maple, Norway Maple, Hawthorne, Red Cedar, Green Ash, Burr Oak and Balsam Fir. Because of accessibUity and survivability issues, it probably would not be possible to transplant aU the trees that are present; however, we need to develop a complete plan quickly so as to be able to transplant as many as possible. It is imperative that these trees be transplanted as early as possible so as to minimize the mortality rates. Optimum moving times would be May and June with the general rule being the earlier the better. If you can complete the land purchase the week of May 26,1 suggest we stan immediately. The weather after July 1 can get very hot which will substantially increase your likelihood that the trees will die. Some species can almost be guaranteed to die if transplanted after that time, and 1 could not, as your consultant, advise you to even make the effort. As discussed, I am contracting for two tree spades beginning the last week of May and running through June. Weather permitting, w'e should be able to move 100-150 trees per w’eek. Given that time table, it is not too soon for us to both mark and prioritize the trees. Also, for those trees that need to be moved from where they are presently growing without the pennanent placement being currently available, a temporary nursery or two Suite 200 • 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. • Wayzata, MN 55391 Business: 473 0534 Residence: 479-3711 Fax: 473-7863 A Family Owned Business For Three Generations I i D win need to be established. The trees then could be in close proximity to each other and receive the proper care they would need until they could be moved to their permanent positions. The two sites you showed ms both look adequate for this purpose. I hope this information is useful for your scheduling. Let's plan to get together as soon as possible to finish the plan. Hopefully I can give you some better cost estimates at that time. Sincerely, / Jim D. Ostvig President * A Member introduced the following resolution end moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE SPRING HILL GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, Spring Hill Golf Club (the "Applicant") ha$ requested permission to construct and operate a golf course on e site containing ±210 acres and located in Orono and Medina; and WHEREAS, the portion of the golf course proposed for Medina (±48 acres) is located on property zoned rural residential; and and '^'HEREaS. golf courses arc a conditional use within the rural residential zoning district; WHEREAS, on February 11,1997, the planning conunission reviewed the appUcatlon and recommended approval thereof subject to certain conditions; and ^TIEREAS, the city council reviewied the matter on April 15. 1997 and concluded that the Applicant's proposed use of the property is not likely to adversely affect the development of ar^acent pro perty for uses for which h is zoned. NO^, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina, Miimescta that a conditional use permit is hereby granted to the Applicant for the construction and operation of a golf course, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project must be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2. o. Refuses to the issues raised in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, for which the City of Orono is the responsible governmental unit, must be satisfactory in form and substance to the city*; The Applicant must make a coirtribution to the city ‘’s park fund and/or carry out restoration plans on the property consistent with a tree ordinance of chy wide application to be adopted pnor to .April 15, 1999; provided, because the tree Ordinance does not presently exist, the contribution shall be subject to a maximum amount mutually acceptable to the AppUcani and to the city; The Applicant must dedicate to the city a trail easement on the east side of Tamarack Drive to be consistent with the trail system in Orono; 5. The retaining wall to be constructed on the 9th tee ruu^'t be acceptable to the city; 4. unamni ^^^iO•2SZ fr/C aswd eteaccceis’oi N3AVan V X.Q3NNa}l • MOBdl 9V»5t AB-il-acSU The drainage and erosion control plans for the project must be acceptable to the cin*; 7.The Applicant agrees to give full consideration to picsscrving the Big Woods area as must as possible, consistem with the construedon of a golf cotnse; 8. 9. There shall be no golf coitrse buildings constructed in Medina; If the status of the prt^ect as a private golf club changes, the Applicant must come back to the city for further re\dew. 10. The Applicant must dedicate the easements for utilities, drainage and ponding purposes required by the and 11. The Applicant agrees to pay an administrative fee to the city in the amount necessary to reimburse the city for its costs in reviev»^g this application. Dated: April 15, 1997. jonn r ems, Mavor ATTEST; The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor tiiereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 0-252 ^/'b 3SVd olCB^.ec^ 19 * a I 1 Naoviio -9 AOHNNaU^HOdd 9b'Bl ^B-Al-UdV/ TOThL P.03 CITY OF MEDIMA 2052 COUNTY ROAD 24 MEDINA, M.M 55340 473-4643 473-9359- FAX FAX TRAVSMISSIO.N DATE: # OF PAGES ISCLUDI.VG CO\'FR PAGE: 3 r TO:. /Acdo ;FAX:# OR6AVIZATJOS SUBJECT: / /7> g6V^ REMARKS:, , V-/S'^7 N'OTE)IF AU PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED CALL SLVDER AT 473-4643 West Lakes^west LOKes — ------- LIFE CENTER Pastor • Tiruvnay L. Ekblad (612) 449-9271 r April 16.1997 Mr, Michael P. Gaffron Ass’t. Planning & Zoning Admin. City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RECEIVED APR 1 6 1997 CITY v,/.- OROiVO Dear Mr. Gaffron, We would like to propose a use for the Spring Hill Conference Center grounds located In Orono West Lakes Life Center is an Assembly of God congregation that has been located in the Creek Ridge building of Long Lake for the past 6 years. We have expanded within our current facilities to the point that future expansion would likely no longer be possible. For most of the past six years, we have been looking intently at the possibility of acquiring the Spring Hill property. More specifically, we have been formulating a plan for the property’s use since the congregation of Woodridge Church opted to not purchase Spring Hill and move to a different site. We are well aware of the golf course currently being proposed for the property. We would like you to consider our alternative, more community-minded proposal. Our Intentions would be to move our congregation ’s facilities into the conference center, for use as we would normally conduct business. Secondly, we intend to utilize large portions of the facilities for conferences and retreats as the center was originally built to provide. Thirdly, select portions of the facilities would be subleased to other non-profit organizations for office space. And, fourthly, approximately 50-65% of the undeveloped land would be turned Into a combination trail system and large-lot residences (similar to the Sugar Woods development, also in Orono). Please note that the property that we are interested In does not include any of the Big Woods area to the north of County Road 6, and would therefore leave it untouched. This proposal would retain the natural beauty of the property as it already exists, provide benefits that all of our community could enjoy, leave the Big Woods alone, and add a significant tax base to the City of Orono. As you further consider the golf course proposal that is now before you, we hope you will prefer our plan as a better one for the community and the City of Orono. Respectfully yours. cc:Gabriel Jabbour Mayor, City of Orono West Lakes Life Center • 1935 W. Wayzata Blvd • Long Lake, MN. 55356 1 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Andertik and Associates, inc. Is an Affirmative Action/Tqual Opportunity Smptoyer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin L Sorvalu. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Thomas E f^oyes. PE • Robert G Schumcht. PE. • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberiin. C PA.. Senior Consultants m Associate Principals Howaro A Sanford. PE • r^ith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster, PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. Al A • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K.Fic!d. PE • Kenneth P Anderson, PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. P£. • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Mequon. W'l RECEIVED APR 1 7 1997 CITY OF ORONO April 16,1997 Mr. Greg Gappa, City St ices DirectOi City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Spring Hill Golf Club File No. 139-2209 Dear Greg, We have reviewed the road and access issues 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. We offer the following comments. We concur with Hennepin County that the golf club access should be on Spring Hill Road as opposed to CSAH 6. We recommend that the City limit direct access onto arterial roadways whenever possible, especially when an alternate access is available on a local roadway (see Orono Municipal Code 11.32, Subd. 2.D.). Because the projected traffic for the proposed golf club is low, the increase in traffic on Spring Hill Road from a volume standpoint will be relatively the same regardless of whether the access is on Spring Hill Road or CSAH 6. The present structural condition of Spring Hill Road and East Long Lake Road warrant more than normal maintenance. We would recommend that a bituminous overlay for the full 1.15 mile length of Spring Hill Road be done by the City as a requirement of the golf course development. The cost for the improvement should be assessed to the development due to the increased intensity of use associated with the golf course. We would expect a projected life of ten years from the overlay, meaning that an additional overlay may be needed after ten years. A complete reconstruction of the roadway would have a projected life of twenty years. The estimated cost for the overlay is $131,732 and is attached for your review. Hennepin County should detennine if turn lanes are needed at the intei section of Hunter Drive/Spring Hill Road and CSAH 6 due to the proposed development. If they are necessary, we would recommend that the development be assessed for the improvements. If the proposed limited membership and/or projected traffic volumes for the golf club changes in the future, the county should complete another review of the intersection at that time. Hennepin County should also determine if any safety improvements are needed on CSAH 6 between Hunter Drive and Tamarack Road. We would recommend that they be coordinated with the proposed tunnel installation. 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. Loren Kohnen, City of Medina 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 Feasibility Study City of Orono APPENDIX COST ESTIMATE SPRING HILL ROAD OVERLAY:r' Rrrj'-' ^mm Remove bituminous surface Bituminous patching Bituminous material for tack coat Type 41 bituminous wear course 4” side solid line, yellow paint 4" side solid line, white paint S.Y. S.Y GAL. TON LF. L.F. $1.50 15.00 1.50 34.00 0.20 0.20 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,900 12,000 12,1 III I $3,000 30,000 1,500 64,600 2,400 2,400 Estimated Construction Cost +5% Contingencies +15% Design, inspection, administration +5% Capitalized interest & bonding TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $103,900 5,195 $109,095 16,364 $125,459 6JI73 $131,V32 139GEN2.WB2 To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator April 18,1997 (Items V and VI revised 4-21-97)l- v)^S Subject: I. #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - CUP - Discussion and Staff Recommendation on Various Issues ZONING CONFORMITY Should site be rezoned from RR-lB-1 to RR-IB? Rezoning is not required for the golf course to be approved. Rezoning would, however, eliminate any future "study and research center" use of the site. The RR-lB-1 subdistrict was created specifically to accommodate the Spring Hill Conference Center, which will no longer exist if the golf course is developed. Once a golf course is established at this site, future conversion back to a conference center use is unlikely. Further, while Spring Hill was generally a 'good neighbor*, it would not be prudent to allow a redevelopment of the site for "study and research center" use due to the lack of municipal sewer and water as well as potential incompatibility with the surrounding rural residential neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the golf course is approved, the easterly portion of the site currently zoned RR-lB-1 should be rezoned to RR-IB. II. LEGAL COMBINATION The 10 separate tax parcels as currently configured result in zoning issues as noted in the February 5 staff memo, namely the need for the maintenance facility to be accessory to the principal use, and the potential impact on setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All portions of the property in Orono should be legally combined. If Hennepin County will not do so because of the Co. Rd. 6 separation, a Special Lot Combination should be required as a condition of approval. in. EIWIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Bluff ImpactVariances (Also See March 13 staff memo, and Exhibits B & C of April 18 staff memo) Applicants have provided a new grading and tree removal/preservation plan for the area of the bluff. This plan appears to have much less impact than the original plans provided. The cart path \ #2209 4-18-97 Page 2 has been slightly relocated. It appears that the barrier of trees to the south of the gravel pit area will remain, so that the impacts of grading will be better screened as viewed from the lake. Applicant's indicated justification for this variance is the layout of the course, the fact that this bluff is in many respects a man-made feature, and that the potential visual impacts as viewed from off-site have been minimized by narrowing the corridor of grading and tree removal. The proposed access road has been moved further north to reduce its impact on the bluff, and while still appearing to be within the bluff impact zone, it is above the top of the bluff and behind a significant stand of trees which will tend to minimize the visual impact of the driveway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If Planning Commission finds that the proposed changes to the bluff have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, that the proposed visual impacts of the changes are acceptable, and that there is suitable hardship and justification shown, then a recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate, subject to: 1. Adherence to the plans as proposed. 2. Use of Best Management Practices for erosion control during construction, including but not limited to use of silt fencing and erosion control blankets where slopes e.xceed 3:1. 3. Any retaining walls exceeding 4' in height must have an engineered design. B. Wetland Impact Variances (Also see March 13 staff memo, and City Engineer's comments in March 14 memo). Applicants have provided a rationale for the proposed impacts to wetlands #5 and # 12. In the . ^ case of #5, the basis for extensive filling of the“nbr!trhalfof this wetland is its location at the ^ second-shot landing area of the 5th fairway. For hole #1 2, the rationale for filling is again based on the need for minimum fairway width at the specified distance from the tee. Applicants indicate the fairway at this point is at a minimum functional widjh of 50 yards.y^^i ^ Applicants have also revised the final buffer widths on wetlands #2 and #5 (which are being impacted by grading) and on #4 and #7 (which are not being graded) to meet the City's 26' requirement. Wetland #11 (not a City wetland) will have a 16.5' buffer width. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If Planning Commission determines that the requested wetland grading/filling variances are supported by valid and adequate hardships, staff recommends approval as revised, based on the applicant having provided substantial mitigation resulting in a net gain in wetland acreage, and based on appropriate integration of w'etlands into the stormwater management plan, subject to the following conditions: a. Use of proper erosion control methods during construction. #2209 4-18-97 Page 3 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. ^ C. Big Woods Alteration Impacts (See also March 26 staff memo) It is clear from the EAW comments received that the commenting parties wish to have the Big Woods presetted in substantially its current state. Preserving strips of trees between fairways as proposed will yield a result that will no longer be Big Woods. This fragmentation is necessary if the golf course use is to occur. Applicants have indicated it is not possible to push all the golf course impacts to one side of the site and preserve a substantial (say, 20 acre) block of Big Woods. Commenters have also provided much discussion about the unique, fragile and threatened nature of remaining Big Woods parcels in Hennepin County as well as how this one relates to Wood Rill and Wolsfeld. The fact remains that the City has no regulations which would specifically prohibit destruction of this Big Woods. At best, in staffs opinion, the City has a limited number of potential options for preserving this Big Woods remnant, some of which may not be practical. Options include: 1 . Purchase the property. 2. Approve the CUP subject to no tree removal or grading within the Big Woods. 3. Deny the CUP. Purchase of the property would be expensive and presumably cannot occur unless/until the Golf Club drops its purchase option. Then, there must be a willing seller, and the City must have the funds. Also, it is problematic that 2/3 of the Big Woods is in Medina and the Medina City Council has granted conceptual approval to the project. Options 2 or 3 would presumably rely on a finding that the fragmentation and therefore resultant destruction of the Big Woods is not in keeping with the specific Goals and Policies of the Orono Comprehensive Plan relating to preservation of woodlands. The City is perhaps in a more defensible position under Option 2, since a 'golf course' is supported as a rural area use in the Comp Plan, is an allowed conditional use in the RR-lB/RR-lB-1 zones, and there are no specifically defined CUP performance standards which are not being met. Although there may be a number of private groups sec4. ching for alternate uses of the Spring Hill properties with the hopes of preserving the Big Woods, the City is obligated to review and come to a conclusion on the application at hand. And, if the City concludes the golf #2209 4-18-97 Page 4 course is not appropriate and this proposed use goes away, it is a fact that any developer could propose a residential subdivision of the Big Woods which under current ordinances the City would have to approve. Absence of the golf course proposal does not guarantee preservation of the Big Woods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission should assess all relevant information regarding the Big Woods and conclude whether it is appropriate to take steps to preserve it. D. Alteration of Wildlife Habitat and Movement Corridors The EAW addresses this issue in some detail. There are few City codes specifically intended to preserve wildlife habitat and corridors. City wetland regulations do intend to preserv'e wetland habitats. The applicant acknowledges there will be impacts to wildlife, but suggests those impacts will be less impact with the golf course proposal than there would be with a housing development within this 195 acre site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (none) E. Impacts on Surface Water Runofl* Quality/Quantity ’ 1. Drainage. City Engineer Shawn Gustafson has reviewed the proposed improvements related to stprmwater quantity and finds them acceptable from an engineering standpoint, noting that the hydraulics and hydrology are consistent with the routing calculations and drainage patterns currently being prepared as part of Orono's Storm Water Management Plan. His letter of March 14 makes a number of specific comments which are incorporated into the following staff recommendation, ^ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: a. Storm sewer lines should be extended to the normal water level of the wetlands or ponds. b. Thei j may be a need for a drainage culvert along the north side of Co. Rd. 6 to direct drainage past the tunnel entrance. c. Existing roadway culverts near the site should be field surv'eyed and if damaged or deteriorated, should be replaced (Staff note: since applicants' plan does not require upsizing of culverts, their replacement would normally be done at City expense). 2. Wetlands (Also see March 13 staff memo). An adjacent Orono property owner, Dick Krueger, has expressed concern that the proposed impoundment of Wetland #17 in Medina will act to reduce the long-term elevation of, i.e. dry up, the immediately downstream wetland on his property (the large wetland between Willovvbrook Drive and Wyndmere #2209 4-18-97 Page 5 Readjust north of Co. Rd. 6). Applicant’s consulting engineer has addressed this concern to the satisfaction of Mr. Krueger. The soulution appears to be a proposed sectional weir which can be raised or lowered incrementally. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve wetland variances and mitigation subject to the recommendations in item III-B above. 3. Water Quality . The City Engineer has reviewed the water quality assumptions used in applicants report, and has preliminarily indicated some concern with the total reliance on NURP ponds for water quality management. The concern is that nutrients in golf course runoff are soluble and may tend to not little out but be discharged. One way to reduce this concern is through increased use of managed vegetative buffer strips. The Engineer also requested additional information regarding the types of turf grasses to be used, since this impacts the nutrient budget. He has been provided this information as well as a proposed turf management program to reduce the amount of e.\cess nutrients leaving the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Withhold approval of the water quality plans pending recommendations from the City Engineer. Approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will also be required. 4. Hardcover Calculations. Applicants have provided hardcover calculations for the site(included in February 18 supplemental information) showing that the proposal will comply w'ith City hardcover ordinances: Zons.Existing Proposed Allowed 0-75 ’0%0%0% 75-250’0%4.6%25% 250-500 ’1.5%2.9%30% 500-1000 ’6.5%12%35% STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the hardcover proposal as conforming with City ordinances. F. Septic System The existing conference center septic system should be more than adequate to serve the clubhouse. No site evaluation or design information has been submitted for the maintenance facility septic system due to ground conditions, but applicants have indicated this work is now underway. Preliminary indications are that the 100' x 120’ drainileld area i 1 #2209 4-18-97 Page 6 -designated on the site plan is suitable for a single mound system, but a secondary site must be located somewhere outside that designated a^ea. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Condition approval of the Maintenance Facility site plan on submittal and approval of a satisfactory site evaluation and system design. G. Groundwater Usage/Impacts Water supply is not anticipated to be a problem at this site. The existing 10" well is 178' '^eep, cased down to 143' (was drilled to 429', apparently caved in so that it only has open hole from 143' to 178'), approximately 100 ’ lower than the surface elevation of Long Lake, terminating in a coarse sand layer. Static level per the 1984 State well record is 99', with a 20' drawdown at a pumping rate of 750 gpm. r A resident of Hollander Road, Paul Bruer, has requested that the applicant be required to perform groundwater modeling studies to predict the impact of the golf course's irrigation water appropriations on the local water supply (see attachment'd.' of May 14 memo). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Applicant should provide an analysis of possible groundwater impacts. H. Storage of Fuels and Agricultural Chemicals An above-ground fuel storage system will be installed at the site meeting all pertinent code requirements. Applicants have indicated chemical storage will be as follows: The chemical andfertilizer 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 secured 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of fuel and chemical storage facilities as described and as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A of March 13 memo) subject to the appropriate permits and pertinent code requirements, and subject to appropriate screening as discussed in the March 13 staff memo. i #2209 4-18-97 Page 7 IV. INFRASTRUCTURE/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING A. Maintenance Facility Access Location The most recent set of plans indicate the access location moved northward tQ jtbe crest of the road to enhance sight distance. This appears to be the safest location for an access to serve the maintenance facility at this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised location of the access to the maintenance facility. B. Clubhouse Access Location (See Moorse/Gappa memo of 3-31-97, City Engineer letter of April 16, and Hennepin County letter of March 19) Staff and the City Engineer have concluded that the most appropriate access location is on Spring Hill Road as proposed, and Hennepin County public Works concurs. This is consistent with City codes and policies limiting direct access onto arterial roadways whenever possible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve new driveway access onto Spring Hill Road for clubhouse, subj^V to "closure and removal of §U current field entrances and driveways abutting the site on County Road 6. C. Spring Hill Road Condition (See letter of April 16 from City Engineer) The Engineer has indicated that the condition of Spring Hill Road and East Long Lake Road warrant more than normal maintenance. He is recommending that Spring Hill Road be overlayed at Spring Hill's expense, based on tlie increased intensity of use associated with the golf course use. The overlay would be expected to last 10 years, estimated cost for the overlay is $131,732. STAFF RECOMMENDAI ION: Per City Engineer's recommendation dated 4-16-97. D. Intersection Upgrades The City Engineer has indicated that Hennepin County should determine whether intersection upgrades, including turn lanes, are needed at the 6/Tamarack and 6/Hunter intersections as a result of this development. If so, the Engineer recommends those upgrades be assessed to this development. Staff is meeting with Hennepin County on April 18 to review this. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending #2209 4-18-97(Revised 4-21-97) Page 8 E. Trail System Medina has conditioned their approval on a trail easement along Tamarack coinciding with . Orono's trail. Orono's adopted trail plan does not include a trail heading north on Tamarack Drive. It does, however, indicate a trailj^imi^^up E«^t Long Lake Road and continuing • westward on Spring Hill Road, ^v^pli^t mis IncfiMed he will cooperate to the extent possible in establishing trails on or adjacent to the perimeter of the site. Neither staff nor Park Commission have investigated the specific trail needs or routing as of this writing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending F. Utility Needs Municipal sewer and water are not available for this property. The property can be developed as proposed without the need for municipal utilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None G. Tunnel Under Co. Rd. 6 See Hennepin County March 19 letter. A number of issues regarding the pedestrian/vehicle culvert under County Road 6 were raised by the County. This will require additional discussion between the City and the County. However, staff conceptually has no problem with the tunnel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pending V. IMPACT OF FOREGOING ALTERNATIVE SITE USES The alternative permitted uses for the site include continuation as a conference center; redevelopment 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. The potential financial impact on the City due to development of this property as a golf course rather than for single family housing is defined below in terms of foregone potential tax revenues and park fees. A. Potential Residential Development Analysis The potential number of 2-acre residential lots possible in Orono within the property is approximated as follows: #2209 4-18-97(Revised4-21-97) Page 9 Gross Orono Acreage Less Orono Wetlands Net Developable Acreage 147 ac. 10 ac. 137 ac. Average Lot Size in 2 ac. zone inch interio*" .oads = 2.5 ac. Number of Lots Possible = 137 / 2.5 = 55 lots B. Tax Base Implications Annual Taxes on 55 homes of average valuation of $600,000 each = 55 X $13,500 = $742,500 City Portion of Same = 0.11 x $742,500 = $ 81,675 Annual Taxes on Golf Course: Example: Woodhill CC -120 acres in Orono Taxable Market Value: Land $835,200 Bldgs $ 189,900 Total $ 1,025,100 Taxes $ 59,300 City Portion $6,500 Example: Wayzata CC -150 acres in Orono Taxable Market Value: Land $ 1,255,100 Bldgs $1,326,000 Total $2,581,100 Taxes $ 144,600 City Portion $15,900 C. Park Fee Implications (No park fee is charged because this is not a subdivision) 1997 Tax Book Land Valuation of Orono Parcels: $ 1,620.000 Total Acreage in Orono: Valuation per Acre: 147 ac. $ 11,000/ac. Applicants Stated Property Costs (incl bldgs) Per acre costs ($5,500,000/195 ac.) $ 5,500,000 $ 28,200/ac. Cost of Land if Intended for SFR is higher, say Cost per Acre for Housing ($6,000,000/195) $ 6,000,000 $ 30,800/ac. 8% Orono Park Fee based on Sale Price (147 ac. X $30,800 x .08) $ 362,000 Park Fee Per Acre ($362,000/147)$ 2,460/ac. Park Fee Per Lot = $362,000/55 = $6,600. (This is not out of line with park fees charged in other subdivisions m Orono since 1990.) 1 #2209 4-18-97(Revised 4-21-97) Page 10 VI. OTHER IMPACTS A. Archaeoligical/historical sites (Information added 4-21-97) T’lis topic is addressed at length in the HAW. The Phase I Cultural Resources Survey conducted for Spring Hill by Bear Creek Archaeology, Inc. identified t^o-aceas of potential archaeological importance. The first is a historic habitation site located beUveen Co. Rd. 6 and Spring Hill Road near the west end of the property. The second is also a historic habitation site including a stone and mortar foundation, located just north of Spring Hill Road near the feast end of the property. Both sites were deemed to have potential for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Because of this potential, both sites will undergo a Phase II investigation this spring. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None, pending outcome of additional investigation. B. Aesthetic impacts 1. Architectural Compatibility With Surroimding Neighborhood. The proposed clubhouse is intended to be a remodeling of the existing conference center buildings which are already somewhat residential in character. The steeply pitched gable roof, dormers and 1 -2 story nature of the structure make it relatively compatible with its rural residential setting. Also, the clubhouse will be located such that its visibility from off-site is limited. The proposed maintenance building is not architecturally compatible with the neighboring residential area, hence the City ’s concern as part of the Oversize Accessory Structure review is to make sure that building is adequately screened as viewed from off-site> STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept architectural style of clubhouse as presented, require screening of maintenance building. 2. Lighting. Applicants have indicated they intend only minimal lighting of the site as necessar)' for safety and function. Prior to building permit approval, a lighting plan will be required. City codes require that all lighting be "difffused or directed away from 'R' Districts and public streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Applicants to provide a lighting plan prior to issuance of building permit for staff approval, the intent being compatibility with the residential nature of the area, compliance with City codes and shielding so that the sources of light are not visible from ofT-site. 1 1 #2209 April 18, 1997 (Revised 4-21-97) Page 11 3. Preservation of Open Space Character. Maintaining Natural Rural Vista*;, and Tree Removal and Replacement. Applicant has provided a depiction of existing areas where trees will be removed (Plan Sheets 6,7 & 8), as well as a conceptual plan showing the in a general way the areas of the site wh'ch are proposed to be vegetated (colored map). Additionally provided is a letter from Ostvig Tree noting that 600-800 existing trees on the site can be relocated, which must be done during May-June to enhance survivability. Applicant proposes transplanting many trees into areas that are now open, specifically in the east half of the site. To date, no detailed plan specifically defining the areas proposed for tree planting has been submitted. Use of the property as a golf course inherently will tend to preserv e open space and rural vistas to a great extent, as compared to a residential housing development of the type common to Orono. However, preservation of views not only encompasses preservation of open spaces but should include keeping those views 'available'. One way to accomplish this is by limiting the occurrence of screen'ngicnces-or-berms-which, while providing a barrier for the benefit of the property owmer, can result in passersby experiencing 'tunnel vision' similar to an urban freeway. This being said, applicants propose no such barriers; but approval should be conditioned on limits being placed on the future use of such barriers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.Approval should be conditioned on City acceptance of a final detailed tree replacement plan. 2.Grading plan must avoid the use of berms which block vista-type views of the site from the adjacent roadways. s• * 3.Perimeter fencing of the site, if proposed, shall be of a low opaqueness, such as a split-rail or similar fencing. C. Site Activity Impacts 1. Maintenance Activity Impacts. The potential impacts on the immediate neighborhood of the maintenance building may include noise, vibration, odors, lights and activity involving vehicles and equipment at early and late hours not generally associated with a residential neighborhood. There are only one or two nearby residences in 'close' proximity to the maintenance facility, the nearest being approximately 200 feet to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval iliould be subject to applicant complying with the City's ordinances with regard to noise, vibration, odors, lighting, etc. »2209 April 18, 1997 (Revised 4-21-97) Page 12 2. Clubhouse Area Activity. The proposed golf course use is not inherently ' incompatible with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. Based on Orono’s Comprehensive Pl'n, the City's rural residential zoning districts are appropriate locations for golf courses and similar recreational uses. The activities proposed to be associated with the Clubhouse at the level of use proposed (golf shop, instruction, club/cart rental, lunch kitchen and dining room, and overnight guest rooms) wilt generally not make the golf course a 'bad neighbor'. However, ai a level of use that might bring crowds of onlookers (for instance, a large tournament or special event), the golf course could bring a significant degree of activity to the area. Likewise, conversion of the golf course to a higher level of use than that proposed (addition of members, conversion to public course, etc.) could result in unanticipated activity levels which should be subject to further City review and approval prior to their being allowed. STAI F RECOMMENDATION: Approval should be conditioned on the requirement of a new CUP for futuj-e changes in the level of activity at the site (the initial proposed level of use must first be defined in temis of number cf mcmbeis, types of activity allowed, etc.) or for conversion to a public couire. 3. Impact of Seasonal Use. The seasonal nature of the golf course use is not expected to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Applicants should define what level of activity will occur in the winter (lunches? pro shop open? x-c skiing?) and if none, define any security measures intended. D.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 approximately 125 stalls will be provided per the most recent parking plan revision. A rest station with toilets and a concession stands is proposed to be located north of the Co. Rd. 6 tunnel. 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? STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission should identify any issues they have with the above noted amenities. #2209 April 18,1997 (Revised 4-21-97) Page 13 E. Land Alteration CUP The project includes significant movement of earth in order to create fairways, tees and greens . The total cubic yardage of excavation/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 a\oid transporting materials on or across area roadways. The result should be a reduction in the consUuction impacts to the roads and the neighborhood. The City is generally 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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 existing condition of Spring Hill Road, it would be reasonable and prudent for the City to limit construction traffic to the existing Co. Rd. 6 access. 4. The developer shall maintain local roads in a clean condition. 5.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 Urban Areas. Applicants have included erosion and sedimentation control measures on their grading plan which will be reviewed by the City Engineer. \ • Tamarack Investments, Inc. April 21.1997 Mayor, City of Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 Medina. MN 55340 pcCEWEO &PR 2 1 W97 CfiV OF OBONO Mayor, City of Orono City Hall PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Gentlemen: I have been following the permitting process for the proposed Spring Hill Golf Club on property in Medina and Orono in which I have an interest. I am the general partner of Spring Hill Land Company Limited Partnership, the entity ov»/ning the property formerly utilized as the Spring Hill Conference Center. I am also the owner, personally, of all of the property proposed for use as a golf course and located in the City of Medina. I understand that concerns have been raised regarding environmental aspects of the proposed golf course. Given my ownership interests in the properties, it is appropriate that you be aware of my views. The former Spring Hill Conference Center property has been on the market for several years. If for whatever reason the golf course project does not go fonrvard, that property will either be placed back on the market or developed by the present owners, in each case probably for residential development. My property in Medina was not on the market at the time I was approached to have it Incorporated Into the golf course. I chose to sell it for golf course purposes because I believe that the use of that property in conjunction with the former conference center property is one of the most environmentally favorable uses available for the entire tract of land. Further, I know the people involved in the golf club and believe they will be sensitive to environmental matters in planning the course. Similar to the conference center property, if the golf course does not go forward, I expect that my Medina property would either be sold for residential development or developed by me for that purpose. 445 East Lake Street • Wayzata, MN 55391-1665 • Phone (612) 473-3332 • FAX (612) 473-0152 • I FT - T 4 ...........................................-V • i ' kle ' ■ f L I" Mayor, City of Medina Mayor. City of Orono April 21.1997 Page 2 of 2 I understand that the potential grant of a conservation easement over portions of property north of County Road 6 or the outright gift of that property to the DNR are being discussed. I am not of a mind to consider either alternative. I believe that the golf course on that property is, in most ways, more environmentally sensitive than would be residential development. In fact, I am somewhat surprised at all the activity generated and some of the studies ..roposed for my Medina property given the fact that I have not been consulted on any of it. My residence in New York State makes it difficult to appear personally to discuss these issues with you. I do appreciate generally the concerns I understand your cities are directing towards environmental matters. C'.Sincerely, Duncan N. Dayton _____ cc: Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. 04-21-1997 eg:58 6i2 8^ 5212 UM FCREST RESCXJRCES P.02 U niversity of Minnesota CalUgtefNctiiNUfmumet April 21.1997 USOmnMan ISiOthnkCkvtimiAymm Stf^MNSSmim USX ffat. M4tS-32n TimJdKioii Project Mnagv Spring liDG^ Chib 700 Spring Ifillltotd Wnynti.MN 53)91 Dear Mr. Johmoo: Thii Ifttar it in ngard to the foTMttttht Spring Mil Project rite. At roqueitod by you, I hevo thoroughly tmmintd thi (bftti trtt canopy during two recent viiitt. Myconelutlonittliat the forett on your project rite it not prinaiy (or *virgiB') fbrett that compriied the ‘Dig Woodt* prior to tetdtnMRt. In conlratt. the ntvby WolriUd Woodt airi Wood RiH ScIwtUk and Natural AreM are priatary fertttt. At noted below. I betteua iny conclutiont are conriitent eeth DNR County Bioiogical Survey (CBS) field notet. A large mthwity of the Ibretted area U tecond'growth fiirett claarified at the maplt> baiiwood^pe. ‘nitrearealtoaftwacretofatpanfii^thetoGcurnearthecdgiofthemaple- baitwood Ibfett and alto at an indurion within it The tree tpadet in the maple-battwood fbrett. litttd In order flrom moat dominant to leaat dotninant, era auger maple, red oak. buawood, green atk, blade riterry and white oik. Core tamplat fiom the treat and my obiervationa indicate that the canopy it monly occupied ty treat 60-100 yean old. with diamttert of 1-24 inchea. Theta tract have tound wood andthelrgrowihlbfinindicatetthiygrewupinalbnttenvironineBt.Scaiteredoldeftrtet(lOO- 150 yean) are pretent. The growth fbm of theta older treat indicatet that they were in an open environment when thay were younger. At the preaent time they have many branch mubt ftirly low on the tnMk. and virtually all of thrir trunkt are hollow or teriouriy rotten 1 conclude from thia evidence that the current (breat wat an open area with tcattered treat. probably a paiture. wMeh wat dbandeoad aad refbretted with natural regeneration about 10 yean ago. The tree Corel alto ihow tome evidence ofminor canopy ditturbance from a windtlorm or selective cuttiiB of treat about 60 yean beflm pretent. Scattered ttumpt indicate that very light lelactive cutting huoccurrad in the laat 20 yaart. The underttory treet at thlt time ere lugar maples baitwood. ironwood. green ath, aad red oik taplingi 1-4 inches in diameter. The ttumpt and pasture fNturei were noted in the CBS field visit on May 31. 1995. The CBS field notat alto mmition that the ground flora it very low In diverrity and in abundance. The ground flora spadat are thoie uiuaQy ftmnd in areu that were formerly heavily gazed by cattle and/or daflmated. Thi Spring Mil maple-baitwood forait it for lower in natural- area quality than two other nearby tUei^Woltfold woods and Wood KiU. ThtK two nearby rites 04-21-1907 09:56 612 625 5212 UM FOREST RESOURCES P.03 inprimiryfbftil,wdOiriyv«yftwlifnw«tcv«rcutdoi«ttenvim TimiISO-: dd whh Mod fciwl^ifoini torn taficiit thii IN hivt bi» Ibwwd fer • vry to A fcw tfo«t ptiticulw^jr« Wood IdU, «• probiWy dOCH jw old, itawiUi old M U» <Bitwooda* kMlf: lUiMith Aiiodili ond Ml Miobv of tht Onduatt Ftcul^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 17, 1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan Charles Schroeder and Elizabeth Hawn were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Members Goetten and Flint were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS i»l) 7:00 P.M. - #2218 A LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC, 1185 HUNTER DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, CLASS 111 - 7:00-7:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a preliminary subdivision of four lots within 2 acre rural residential zone involving a road outlot. The 21.57 acre property is located in the RR-1 B Zoning District and meets all requirements. Information provided include wetland delineation, drainage easements, septic determinations, and covenants and maintenance regarding the road and drainage. Van Zomeren indicated that the Park Commission will review the application at their April 7 meeting. Staff recommended approval with conditions as noted in the Staff memo. Mark Gronberg indicated the size of lot 2 has increased due to a change in the septic location. He noted the property contains two Orono wetlands and two other wetlands of type 1 and 2 protected by covenants. During public comments, John McKay, 1505 Hunter Drive, questioned whether there v/ere different requirements in acreage for mound or traditional septic. Lindquist informed him that the property meets the 2-acre requirements. He explained the City requires two sites, and the type of septic system depends on the test results. Bruce Steiner, 144 Edgewood, Wayzata, reported owning the adjoining property to the west. He questioned the number of septic sites required. Gaffron explained the use of the primary and secondary, or alternate, sites. Stoddard inquired if Gronberg was satisfied with the Staff recommendations. Gronberg said he was. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#1 - #2218 Jyland Development - Continued) Lindquist noted Gronberg met with the neighbors. Gronberg referred to Bob Carlson of Jyland, the builder and developer. Carlson said he has been available to speak with neighbors but has not met any of tliem. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2218 for preliminary subdivision with Staff conditions 1-7. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Agenda Items #2 and 3 follow Items #5 and 6.) (#5) #2213 JLM ZIMMERMAN, 2745 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:08-7:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a conditional use permit for a permanent boat dock on Lake Minnetonka. The property is located northwest of the Narrows in a lagoon area. The dock would be located adjacent to the boat house on the south side. The boat house has an 8* garage door. A 6' dock section would be added to the existing dock section. The dock would total 32' in length located adjacent to the shore A 4 ’ section would extend toward the shoreline on each side resulting in an inverted u-shape configuration. The CUP is required due to the use of pilings which make the dock permanent. The LMCD has been advised. The DNR has a blanket general permit which includes such use The LMCD has questioned whether the dock meets the general permit requirements since the single linear criteria may not be met due to the two 4' sections leading back to the shore. If the dock does not meet the criteria, the DNR would need to issue a separate permit. Gaffion said the construction of the dock is a logical solution. Staff recommended approval subject to the necessary permits, noting no foreseen impacts. The applicant reported he has spoken with the LMCD, who voiced satisfaction with the dock. Smith inquired if there was previously a dock in that location. Zimmerman said he did not know but the pilings were in place. He indicated there is presently no way to pull a boat up to the boat house. He reported understanding the City’s viewpoint regarding boat houses (and their elimination). Zimmerman indicated his boat house is in good repair. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17. 1997 (#5 - ^2213 Zimmerman - Continued) Stoddard asked if the applicant had considered a temporary dock. Zimmerman said the pilings were solid and other docks in the lagoon were permanent in nature. Stoddard noted movement of 4-6" has taken place on the south side of the boat house Applicant acknowledged the movement but was of the opinion that the boat house was structurally sound There were no public comments. Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application «2213 subject to receipt of LMCD and DNR permits prior to issuance of the building permit with the condition that no concurrent work take place on the boat house. \'ote ,\yes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2214 RlCttARD KOZlCIv\\ 2016 SHADVWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:15-7:41 P.M. The .Affidasit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w ere noted. The .Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for modifications to an existing residence and garage requiring variances for a% erage lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback areas, and structural coverage The property is located in the LRl-C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District .An encroachment into the required side yard occurs due to the 3' overhang ot the eaves The existing hardcover in the 0-75' is a result of the topography of the property and is proposed to remain It w as noted that the circular drivew ay allow s for access to a neighboring property to the north. The hardships listed include the topography, speeds on the County highway and curve on the road wav The proposal includes removing the existing garage, adding a new laundry room and garage, and remodeling the lakeside to add a family room and a new deck. The hardcover calculations in the 0-75’ setback require a 11.6® b variance and a 25 33% variance in the 75-250’ setback The lot does not meet the 1/2 acre requirement The district allows for 15'’o structural coverage which is proposed at 19.62° o Van Zomeren said Staff recommends less structural coverage and a reduction in the size ot the overhang from 3’ to To", which encroaches into the 10’ side setback WTien asked to address the issues. Kozicky said the overhang is proposed to follow the e.xisting overhang of the house to architecturally match what currently exists \ an Zomeren noted that a 1-1/2’ overhang is a non-encorachment in a side yard The applicant questioned how the a\ erage lakeshore setback line was drawn \ an Zomeren said Staff would reevaluate the line MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#6 - #2214 Richard Kozicky - Continued) Smith acknowledged the proposal addresses the hardships of access and safety but the significant amount of additional structural coverage is not a result of the hardships noted. Kozicky said he had been unaware of the increase of 258 s.f in hardcover and would be willing to reduce the driveway hardcover by that amount. He also noted the two entrances assist in maintaining safety. Smith said the existing residence is at 45.65%, where 25% is allowed She asked the applicant to consider reductions in the proposal to maintain the existing percentage. Lindquist inquired about the size of the proposed garage. Kozicky said the garage would be at a 24’ width with a new entry way and laundry room The proposed garage is deeper than the existing garage The current deck is being enlarged. Smith inquired if the applicant knew at the time of purchase that the lot was substandard and would have limitations in what improvements could be made. Kozicky said he did not. The applicant was informed of the view of the Commission regarding excess of structural and hardcover on substandard lots Kozicky said the patio has been reduced but he would be willing to remove the remaining 34 s.f landing in front of the deck. Lindquist informed the applicant that the Commissioners would like to maintain the structural coverage at the existing percentage and eliminate any further intensification of structure on the small lot. Kozicky said he had been unaware of the increase until he read the Staff letter. There were no public comments. Mrs. Kozicky asked if the overhang presented a problem. The Commission felt the overhang maintained the architectural integrity of the home. Stoddard asked the applicant; to speak with the building inspector regarding the overhang. Kozicky asked if the average lakeshore setback could be reevaluated. Van Zomeren said she would need to gather further information regarding the upper and lower deck on the neighboring property for recalculation. Lindquist said the intent of the Commission is to see the property as conforming as possible in regards to intensity of structure, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover. The applicant reiterated the Commission's recommendation to existing structural percentages. Stoddard suggested pulling the family room back behind the average lakeshore setback and reducing the size of the garage. The applicant questioned a reduction in the amount of driveway, but Stoddard noted the effect would be on hardcover and not structure. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#6 - #2214 Richard Kozicky - Continued) The applicant asked for a recommendation regarding the driveway configuration. Gappa said he would assist the applicant with making that determination. Lindquist asked the applicant to work with Staff regarding changes to the proposal from the input given at the meeting. Mrs Kozicky said she understood the Commission to recommend less structure as being more desirable than less hardcover. Commissioners agreed. McMillan suggested tradeofl's be considered. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2214 to the April meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) 7:30 P.M. - #2212 SIDNEY AND BARBARA REBERS, 2080/2190 WAYZATA BLVD. - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, CLASS III - 7:42-8:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is a request to convert Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable lot status to enable development of the property for commercial use. Outlots E and F were created when Sugar Woods was platted. The intention was to eliminate the need to detail the development of the primarily commercially zoned property until a future date. Outlot E is zoned B-1 (see rezoning. Agenda Item #3). The 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 included the future development of a frontage road between Brown Road and Willow Drive, paralleling Highway 12, to eliminate direct access to Hwy 12. Outlots f and F in the 1989 plat of Sugar Woods need to be converted for this to occur. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to the comprehensive plan by the creation of Outlot D, a short segmei,. of the future east/west frontage road corridor. This only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to the northwest comer of Outlot F. Outlot F would continue the corridor when developed. Outlot C of East Willow Woods was then created providing a corridor connecting the west side of Sugar Woods westward to Willow Drive. The corridor was platted and the City has an easement over it. The issue of converting the subject property to buUdable status relates to the access issue and is identified as follows: 1) Should Outlot E be allowed to develop with its only access directly to Highway 12? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney' and Barbara Rebcrs - Continued) 2) How do the 1995-96 safety improvements to Hwy 12 impact access to Outlot E? Is a shared access with adjacent Wear property necessary? Stoddard was informed that there would be no effect on the Wear property's gas pump access as there is a third access. However, this does not solve the access issue for the east boundary property as it would require making U-tums which is not deemed desirable by the City. 3) Will the expected future relocation of Hwy 12 in the next 5-10 years effectively reduce the amount of traffic on existing Hwy 12 to eliminate the need for a frontage road? 4) If the traffic levels are not reduced, should the conversion of Outlot E to buildable status be the trigger for construction of the frontage road? Gaffiron cited the potential traffic volume impacts of the Highway 12 relocation. It was noted that Mn/DOT projects through traffic will use the new bypass and the traffic on the current corridor will decline. The current Hwy 12 traffic through Long Lake is 23,000 cars per day. Under the "no build " option, the traffic would increase to 25,000 by 2015 with a three-fold increase on CoRd 6 Under the "Alternate 6 North" plan, Hwy 12 traffic is expected to decline to 14,600 cars by the year 2015. This traffic level is still significant considering a daily traffic volume above 10,000 cars generally requires a limited access 4- lane roadway with service roads. Hwy 12 is projected to rer'ain two lanes only. The Hwy 12 safety improvement plans included medians and turn lanes which preclude direct access to the applicant’s parcel by eastbound traffic unless through the easterly Orono Shopping Center access. The City feels it would not be appropnate to allow Outlot E's traffic to use that access An anticipated future curb cut for Outlot E would be a right-in/right-out access and would necessitate U-tums for eastbound traffic which the City deems inappropriate. Gaffron said the City does not believe modifications will be made to the median in the future to provide eastbound ingress/egress directly to Outlot E. Gaffron reported that the City's preference for a frontage road would reduce/eliminate direct access to Hwy 12 and bring the traffic to a semaphored intersection at either Brown Road or Willow Drive. The preliminary plat of Sugar Woods was conditioned on the frontage road being fully installed at the time of either the applicant's development of the commercial corridor or as a result of other conditions requiring the installation of the road prior to the development of the commercial corridor. The conditions of the Sugar Woods plat approval resolution indicate that installation of a road segment in Outlot D must be concurrent writh development of Outlot E. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Gafifron indicated that the City was granted road and utility easements over the East Willow Woods and Sugar Woods frontage road segments when platted but ownership of the outlots remains with the respective developers. The specific conditions of the easements allowing the City the right to build the road within Outlots C and D are limited. The Otten easement states that no road shall be constructed until the following occurs: 1) The owner of Outlot C, East Willow Woods, requests it to be built; or 2) Until an east/west frontage road is constructed from Willow Drive to Brown Road with southerly extensions from Sugar Woods to Hwy 12 and another lining up with Brimhall Lane; or 3) Upon rezoning of the tw o residential properties north of East Willow Woods to commercial; or 4) Upon development of Otten's easterly parcel as a separate entity from the currently developed westerly parcel, unless the City determines that no access is required for the easterly parcel A right*in access currently exists from Willow Drive to the Otten property. Gaffron further explained the limitations of the City's Sugar Woods easement in relation to occurrences on the outlots The development over Outlot E allows the construction of a 150' segment of frontage road adjacent to Outlot E. The easement over Otten's Outlot C precludes the segment of road until the entire frontage road is built from Brown to Willow. Gaffron questioned whether a 150' segment of frontage road would be desirable. The access impact on business development of Outlot E will likely determine how the buildings will oe oriented. As a result, the developer will need to know whether or not the frontage road will occur. If that is unknown, the buildings would likely be oriented to the south. It was noted that since a semaphore currently exists at Willow, it would be appropriate from a traffic flow standpoint to develop the service road westward from Outlot E to Willow Drive prior to the development on Outlot E to eliminate the U-tum problem. Gaffron indicated that additional items to consider include a trail corridor. The existing sidewalk pathway on the north side of Hwy 12 is not the trail that was envisioned for the area. To maintain 60' of roadway to allow a trail to be constiucted would require an additional triangle of right-of-way to be platted at this lime with road/utility/drainage easements granted. Gaffron noted the City En^neer has requester! drainage and utility easements be granted over Outlot D since this did not occur when Outlot D was platted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Gaffron informed the Planning Commissioners that Staff recommends approval of the conversion of Outlot E to buildable lot status under conditions 1-5 as noted in the Staff memo. The applicant's representative, Steve Pflam related the history behind the subject property as it relates to development of Sugar Woods and Highway 12. He indicated that the service road has been opposed to by the property owners. This opposition is indicated by the number of conditions placed upon the outlots and their future development. Pflam indicated the property owner, Mr. Sid Rebers, has a potential buyer of the property who would like to maintain the existing access. Rebers does not want to pay for the frontage road. Pflam said Rebers believes he has legal access to Hwy 12 which would not preclude the City from building the service road or eliminating access to either. Pflam said the issue is one of restricting property by the placement of conditions relating to a frontage road. He also believes the property owner should not be assessed for the frontage road as it would be a public road connecting to other public roads Pflam believes the purpose for the frontage road is eliminated by the relocation of 1 Iwy 12. Pflam does not believe the lot status should be tied to the frontaue road Pflam said the issue of the median can be addressed by addressing the triangular piece of land owned by Mn/DOT and allowing access from Brimhall Lane to Hwy 12 Lindquist inquired about the curb cut from Hv\y 12 into the property iaid the Hwy 12 improvement plan notes the 1979 curb cut but does not define Uie location of the curb cut. Mr. Rebers said the original curb cut included a cut to Outlot F, originally for access to a residential property owned by Hazel Meyers and was moved to Outlot E. He indicated there is still a curb cut to Brown Road but an increase to the size of the holding pond would restrict the curb cut. Rebers said he had planted a buffer of trees between the residential and commercial areas, and the frontage road would be forced to run along the yards of the homes in Sugar Woods. He reported having had many offers to purchase the property but has waited to sell until receiving an ofler from a compatible use like the bank to protect the sensitivity of the area. Rebers noted the service road by the Otten property nearly touches Dickey Lane to the north. Rebers indicated the highway department has said no more improvements would occur on Brown Road in regards to a stoplight and indicated U-turns are legal if no postings are made. Rebers said he does not wish access to enter his property from the Wear property. During public comments. Cliff Otten indicated he did not want a service road. He noted the service road was considered due to the future development of Hwy 12. He had requested the road be placed to the rear of his property but he feels this was a mistake as he subsequently lost 30' to the Hwy 12 safety improvements. Otter said he does not believe the need for the service road exists any longer. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Pfiam asked the City to wait for development of Outlet F to occur. He noted the ideal use of that property would be a single office building which is being considered. He said access for such a building could come from Brown Road with a cul-de-sac to the building. The easement would still exist if a future need was determined. Council Member Flint questioned where the trail would be placed if the road was not built. Otten did not see the need for the trail with the existing sidewalk Flint reiterated the sidewalk w as a temporary solution and did not have the required trail width. Pfiam was of the opinion that the trail could be built by Hwy 12. Stoddard asked what the City’s intention was for building the frontage road. Gaffron said the Comprehensive Plan called for the road as a parallel corridor to Hwy 12 in response to the increasing traffic load and to eliminate direct access onto Hwy 12. Gaffron said the traffic will continue to increase forcing U-turns to occur which is not desired by the City. He noted the existing problems w ith access on and off Hwy 12. Gaffron said it may be reasonable to construct the frontage road from Willow Drive to the outlot noting there will be financial and easement limitations. McMillan inquired if the applicant envisioned two accesses to Outlot F from Hwy 12 and Brown Road. Pllani said both accesses were possibilities and two separate legal accesses exist, one at 2160 Wayzata Blvd and one along Hwy 12. Lindquist read a letter into the minutes from the City Engineer indicating the need for roadway and utility easements. The City Engineer noted the existing plans for the east- west frontage road and indicated development should be tied into the plans. Rebers said he is concerned w ith the location of a service road near the residential lots and impacts on safety. Smith inquired if there was the ability to make additional changes to Hwy 12 as it exists today for a front access. Gaffron said no. He indicated the lack of a defined road corridor through Outlot F leaves the possibility to develop where desired and attempt to attract the type of buyers that would benefit the property. Gaffron said it is Mn/DOT's intention to create a right-in, right-out access for Outlot E with no changes to the medians or a service road. The question is whether development of Outlot E should occur prior to the service road being built. McMillan questioned whether there was a possibility for a spur road aligning with Brimhall Lane to Hwy 12 without a left turn lane Gaffron said the road was widened at that point which would allow the possibility of a left turn lane. McMillan was of the opinion that this would be a good alternative. She would like the service road to be platted in case use intensifies in the future. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Berg asked the size of Outlot F and its intended use. Rebers said the property was 6.6 acres. When questioned whether he w'ould focus on a use that would generate low traffic, Rebers said he envisions an additional perimeter buffer to save trees and impose a building setback larger than the 30* setback allowed His intent is not to maximize the use of the land. Stoddard was informed of the number of U-tum areas along Hwy 12. The Planning Commission discussed the number of options relating to right-in, right-out access, U-tums, access from Brown Road, and triggers for future development. Gaffion inquired if the development of Outlot E should be the trigger as noted in the conditions of Sugar Woods or if the Commission was satisfied with Outlot F being the trigger. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2212 with approval for a right-in, right-out curb cut subject to applicant being required to pay for any future road or bike trail on the north side of said lot. Lot 1 would be subject to utility and drainage easements continuing along Outlot D and subject to any future development between Willow Drive and Brown Road along the Hwy 12 corridor. The applicant would be bound by the City's requirements for road access. The right-in, right-out access would be eliminated when the frontage road is built. McMillan questioned whether the motion was too restrictive and if the option of aligning with Brimhall could be reviewed to allow for total crossing of Hwy 12, which would benefit safety. Stoddard did not recommend amending the motion but said applicant could discuss the possibility with Mn/DOT. Pflam said the applicant was negotiating with Mn/DOT regarding the pond and could consider the Brimhall option. Cliff Otten said he would offer his support of the Brimhall option. Smith inquired if a shared curb cut could occur with a bank and the Wear property. Gaffron said Wear would have to be consulted, and there were possible safety concerns. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) 7:45 P.M. - #2224 CITY OF ORONO, 2080/2160/2190 WAYZATA BLVD. - REZONING - 8:58-9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#3 - #2224 City of Orono - Continued) Gaffiron reported that the application is a City-initiated "housekeeping" rezoning of a 55' strip of land that is still zoned RR-IB, 2 acre residential, as a result of the creation of Sugar Woods in 1988 The Sugar Woods residential development was rezoned at that time from 2 acre single family to 1 acre single family. The southern boundary of the Sugar Woods residential did not abut the B-1 Staff is recommending rezoning of the majority of this strip to B-1 and a portion in the Sugar Woods residential buffer area converted to R- 1, 1 acre zoning. Outlot D is to be zoned 1 acre residential, with Outlot E (the Wear property) and Outlot F to B-1. McMillan questioned whether this rezoning would affect the issue previously discussed in the Reber application (agenda item #2) or the proposed frontage road. Gaffron inform^ her that this rezoning was to incorporate some pieces of land into the intended residential and commercial zones There were no public comments. Berg moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2224. Stoddard inquired if Mr. Wear was notified of this rezoning. Gaffron said he had spoken with Wear, who had no problem with the proposed rezoning. It was no surprise to him as it had previously been discussed. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed until 9.10 p m.) ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2209 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB, 700 SPRING HILL ROAD - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 9:10-9:45 P.M. The Applicant was present Gaffron reported that the Spring Hill Golf Club application was presented at the February meeting and was continued to this meeting. The application includes variances for an oversized accessory structure for the maintenance facility exceeding the allowed footprint, the filling and grading of wetlands, and bluff impact for the old gravel pit area where intensive vegetation will be cleared including 1-1/2 acres of trees. The CUP is for grading of the site in excess of 100 cubic yards and for the golf course use as a permitted use in the RR-IB Zoning District. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#4 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) The EAW process is under\K'ay at this time. The EAW was distributed on March 10. The 30 day comment period ends April 9. The EAW document was sent to approximately 20 State, local, and federal agencies for review and comment. The February 18 meeting did not inv olve any specific details of the application. The issues of the variances were included in a Staff memo dated March 18. Additional information has been gathered involving review of the site, architectural plans, wetland review, review of grading and mitigation, overlay of the bluff plan, the Park Commission meeting minutes relating to the trail, issues presented by the applicant, DNR comments involving impact on the Big Woods, a letter relating to ground water study, and a letter from the City Engineer. Due to the complexity of the application, Gaffron asked if the Commission wanted to review the application at this time or continue the application to allow for review of the materials recently received to allow each member a better understanding of all the issues involved. Tom Crosby, attorney for the golf club, introduced Tim Johnson, Jack Morrison and Marshal Braman He suggested a number of changes to the application in response to expressed concerns There will be additional screening of the maintenance facility. Significant trees will remain in the bluff area and w ill be mitigated through 3 tees The driveway w ill be constructed in a clearing of trees that presently exists on the property. Crosby said he did not feel there were substantial issues relating to the wetlands. Lindquist suggested the application be continued to a special Planning Commission meeting reserved for this application only to be held on a date tentatively scheduled for March 31, 1997 at 6 00 p m on site The meeting would then continue in the Council chambers All interested parties listed in the application and on record as attending meetings regarding the application will be notified An alternate date was set for April 10, During public comments, Tim Stoker reported his property is adjacent to the golf course, opposite the third hole on the east end He questioned what thought has been given to the use of the aquifer and what affect it w ill have on the wells in the area that are adjacent to the club. The aquifer was noted to run northwest to southeast. Gaffron said the issue was briefly addressed in the EAW and would require an appropriations permit. Marshal Braman said the well was already in place and was surllcial in that it was only 80’ deep in relation to other area wells that were found to be much deeper. 1 he well is a 10" well. Braman said the well was tested at 750 gallons per minute with a 10' draw down, which he felt was insignificant. Braman said he did not believe the well would be an issue as it is in a sandy formation. There will be a 4" well for domestic use at the maintenance facility. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#4 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Chuck Plante said the EAW document noted the well to be 178'. Braman said that the well is drilled down to that depth but was finished off at 80'. Gaf&on recommended the City Engineer review the issue. Stoddard inquired what the use would be of the well. Braman said it would pump 500- 600 gallons per minute to the irrigation pump and would come out of the pond at a higher rate. The reservoir would fluctuate with higher use in the evenings. It is unknown how often it will run; but Braman said during the first year of use for developing plant growth, it was expected to run 70-80% of the time. Dick Krueger, Willow Brook Drive, voiced concerns with the thoroughness of the EAW. He noted the response of the DNR regarding the Big Woods and concluded that they did not know where the golf course was going to be placed in relation to the Big Woods. He said he contacted the DNR, who he said were surprised by the location of the course. Krueger said he was concerned that Schoell and Madson did not bring the issue to the attention of the DNR Lindquist informed Krueger that such concerns were why the application process was going at a slow pace. Krueger said he contacted the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary of which he is a member. He was informed that the sanctuary was not linked to golf courses Krueger said the sanctuary is not part of the National Audubon Society. McMillan informed Krueger that the New York chapter of the Audubon Society, and not the national organization, set up the sanctuary program in order to minimize problems regarding pest control, water control, and impact on wildlife by assisting golf courses to become more environmentally friendly. She said the sanctuary w as a conservative bent of the Audubon Society, which has changed over the years from a bird watching organization to one concerned with environmental issues. Krueger said he did not believe the Audubon Society would approve of the destruction of the Big Woods. Krueger expressed concern regarding wetlands adjacent to the property not being addressed in the review. He questioned what effect the club would have on these wetlands. He is concerned that a dam would decrease the amount of water in the wetlands on his property. He said it was not addressed in the EAW. McMillan said she also would like to see an analysis of that issue regarding the tifecls the club will have on neighboring properties Braman said the drainage system study was a part of evaluation. Lindquist asked for a simplification of the study at the continuatl . • 'ueeang. Braman said he or the hydrologist would supply that information. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#4 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Krueger asked about the effect on the oak trees from the construction noting oak trees should not be impacted from mid-April to July due to the ease in spreading oak wilt. Crosby said this issue can be dealt with noting the number of oak trees was small and the majority of the trees are maple. Crosby also addressed the concern regarding the DNR's knowledge of the location of the Big Woods in terms of the project. The DNR did believe it ended at the Orono project. Crosby said they have treated both areas in Orono and Medina as being part of the Big Wood.*? Crosby said Braman had spoken with the DNR and gave them additional information dealing with the issue. Gaffron indicated the EAW included maps that related the location of the Big Woods and w hat impact the club would have on the Big Woods. Stoddard questioned whether there was any infomration in the EAW regarding any threat to endangered species. He inquired when the inspection of the property was made and any effects found. Braman said inspections were conducted in September, October, and November. He said he did not find spring blooming plants. He said the DNR informed him that the deer have eaten the plants due to the lack of shrub canopy. Braman s^d the density of the trees was such that there w as little under growth. Braman said the Big Woods does not house any endangered species. Braman said he looked at the overall value of the Big Woods as undisturbed land with wetlands as breaks Braman said he does not anticipate any further field work. Krueger commented that there were spring blooming plants found in the property. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to continue the application to the Planning Commission meeting of March 31. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Items #5 and 6 follow Item #1.) (#7) #2216 WINSTON AND BARBARA ADAMS, 3195 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:46-10:11 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present with contractor, Steve Boone. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#7 - #2216 Winston and Barbara Adams - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application is for variances to lot width, side yard setback, hardcover, structural coverage, and average lakeshore setback to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District. The property meets the lot area standards. The lot width is 90* where 100’ is required A 7.14% hardcover variance is requested in the 0-75* setback and a 18.58% variance in the 75-250' setback. The pool area, which includes the deck and patio, is 1507 s.f Since the pool is larger than 1000 s f, a 30* side setback is required The structural coverage is proposed to increase from 18.09*5'o to 23 02%. Van Zomeren noted that the driveway encroaches into the 10’ side yard setback and must be located at least 5’ from the property line. The garage will include side facing doors. Van Zomeren indicated that the building inspector has recommended the removal of the boat house. She also noted that the applicant will maintain a 60 ’ strip of land, a fire lane, adjacent to this property which consists of a treed grassy area. Steve Boone showed the layout of the property and the proposed improvements. He indicated the house and garage are within the code requirements. Boone said the driveway will be corrected to the S’ distance from the property line. He noted the patio and deck area of the pool are what result in an encroachment. A hard, mechanically engineered mtuntenance cover will be installed over the pool resulting in no need for fencing. He indicated the neighbors have no probleni with the location of the pool. Boone said he is willing to reconfigure the pool. Mr. Adams said the pool is required to treat his medical condition. He asked that his future maintenance of the fire lane be considered. Adams said the improvements will not change the existing grade of the properly. McMillan inquired about the mechanical pool cover. Adams said the code does not require a fence. Lindquist asked if the applicant was willing to remove the boat house. Adams said he would be willing to do so. Lindquist asked that the hardcover be reduced to the 36% percentage now existing through a reduction in hardcover and structure. Lindquist informed the applicant that the 60' wide public property cannot be taken into consideration and informed the applicant that he is not required to maintain that property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#7 - #2216 Winston and Barbara Adams - Continued) Adams expressed his concern with the limitations placed on the property in relation to the expense of the land itself Lindquist explained the code in relation to lot size and structural coverage. Stoddard explained that when existing residences are tom down, the property is viewed as a vacant lot subject to zoning requirements. Adams said he was unable to accept the limitations placed on the property regarding allowable structure. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #2216. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2217 JOHN TIMMESH, 1945 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:11-10:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported the property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District. The property is 0.39 acres and does not meet the 1/2 acre minimum. The applicant is proposing to add a 18'x31' storage addition to the existing garage. This proposal requires variances to hardcover, structural coverage, and rear yard. The structural coverage exists at 18.9®/o and would increase to 22 \% for a 7.15% variance. Van Zomeren noted that there are two separate parcels being considered and would require a combination for the credits shown to be given. N'an Zomeren said Staff suggests the shed be removed. The shed currently encroaches into the side and rear yard. The pool exceeds the 1000 s.f limitation but was installed prior to the 1986 requirement for a 30' side yard. Van Zomeren noted that the property files show that no permit was taken out for the porch addition and would affect the rear yard setback. Since the garage addition is for storage, no driveway is proposed. V'an Zomeren indicated that a future driveway would impact the hardcover amounts on the property. She also voiced concerned that a future owner may want to add stmcture over the proposed storage area. Smith noted that the City has allowed garages to be built without driveways in the past. She indicated that there was still an increase in the lot coverage and hardcover and questioned what would preclude the storage area from being used as a garage the future. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#8 - #2217 John Timmesh - Continued) The applicant, Mr. Timmesh, said the garage space was for parking his snowmobile, tractor, lawn equipment, and extra car, and would not be used on a daily basis for driving in and out. He would drive the extra car in and out when it was being stored. Tinunesh said the design does not lend itself to a second story at this time. He indicated that a second story would not affect the lake views of any neighboring properties. He said he would agree to restrictions placed on him regarding limitations to what he can do but would not want such restrictions placed on future owners. Smith inquired whether the calculations included the removal of the shed. Van Zomeren indicated that they did not. Timmesh said the 83 s.f shed was used fer storage of pool supplies. Van Zomeren noted the small percentage changes made by the removal of the shed. Timmesh was asked if he would consider combining the two parcels. Timmesh said he was concerned with the real estate taxes increasing as a result of the combination. The calculations require refiguring due to the parcels being separated. It was also difficult to calculate the percentages with and without the combination due to the road being located between the two parcels. Lindquist suggested the application be tabled to allow for recalculation. The Commissioners agreed that the hardcover and variance amounts need to be reduced and the shed removed even with th. parcels being combined. The ramifications of combining the tw o parcels in terms of real estate taxes will be determined. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2217. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2219 PENNY SAIKI, 2874 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:38-10:47 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present. i 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#9 - #2219 Penny Saiki - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Zoning District. The property is 0.337 acres, which is less than the required minimum. The location of the property and access was explained for the proposed relocation of the existing garage and reconfiguration of the driveway for two curb cuts to improve the ingress/egress. There wMl be a separation area between the house and garage. Van Zomeren said the 10’ separation will need to be verified. The proposal meets structural coverage and hardcover requirements The variance is lo allow the garage to be located torward of the principal stmcture and less than 30' from the front property line. There is also a safety issue as a result of the curve in the roadway at the property location. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval of the two curb cuts. McMillan inquired about the location of the utility pole. There were no public comments. Smith suggested the garage be moved back somewhat. The applicant explained the problems which would occur by such a change. McMillan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2219. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, (#!0) #2220 WILLIAM AND KAREN PETERS, 1950 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 10:47-10:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the property is currently vacant, and the applicant is proposing construction of a new residence, w hich will require a variance to the average lakeshore setback by the design of the proposed deck. The property is located in the LR-IC, 1/2 acre zoning district The proposal meets the lot area and yard standards. A height variance will be required to the 30' standard. The lot is unusual in that it has one front yard and two side yards. As a result, any change to the proposed garage location would affect the yard along Concordia Street which is a front yard for adjacent properties and is not recommended. The parking pad proposed at 20' is necessary for safety reasons. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#10 - #2220 William and Karen Peters - Continued) Peters said the angle of the home was developed to fit in with the lot. He is requesting the deck in order to enjoy views of the lake. The proposed residence is set back as far as possible without disturbing the parking pad area. Peters said he is also attempting to save a large bass" od tree by maintaining a 10' separation. He said while the average lakeshore setback will be encroached, it will have no affect on his neighbor's lake views. He verified the need for a height variance of r4" to allow the observatory. He indicated he reduced the height from 32*5" to 3 1’4" by changing the floor trusses and roof pitch. During public comments, John Timmesh reported that he was the neighboring property whose site line would be considered and voiced approval of the proposed construction. McMillan moved, Berg seconded, to reconimend approval of Application #2220 for average lakeshore setback and height variances to construct a new residence on the vacant lot. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2221 SVEN A. WASBERG AND ARLENE DECANDIA, 3115 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:58-11:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w ere noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren leported that the property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District requiring 1 acre, se. J. and 140' width. The property is substandard at 0.439 acres in area and at an 80* widr The property is adjacent to a lagoon resulting in the entire lot being within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback The unusual lot also affects the average lakeshore setback. In addition to lot area and lot width variances, the location results in the need for hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and side yard setback variances. A conditional use permit may also be required for excavation and fill in the 75' setback area. Van Zomeren indicated the flood plain protection elevation calls for 932.5'. The applicant stated that the proposal will decrease the existing hardcover. He indicated he also owns the property next door to the subject property across the lagoon. Wasberg said he would reduce the size of the driveway and patio area^. The new residence wall be smaller in size than the existing residence and within the same footpnnt. The garage will be built on existing hardcover. « The design of the new residence was displayed. During public comments, the neighbor to the cast strongly objected to a 2-story residence. She said the current home is a single-story rambler and ariy '’eviation from t..at design would affect her views. NIIN’JTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#11- #2221 Sven Wasberg and Arlene DeCandia - Continued) Lindquist reported that since the 2-story design was within the regulations of the code, the Planning Commission had no authority to require a single story structure. McMillan asked if the new residence could be pulled back behind the 75' setback line. The location of the lagoon and driveway would not allow this to occur. It was determined that the proposed location is the only possible location for a home on this particular lot. Detailed grading and elevations will be required to determine the need for a conditional use permit for excavating or filling in a flood plain area Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2221. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0, (#12) #2223 LAKE MINNETONKA BIG ISLAND VETERAN’S CAMP - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:12-11:16 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present Van Zomeren reported that the property is zoned Recreational Seasonal. The overnight camp is requesting an amendment to the CUP to allow a cabin to be relocated from the north side to the south side of the property. The approval will include the cabin location, the floor plan improvement, and verification that the placement of the cabin is outside of the 0-75' setback. Staff recommended approval. McMillan moved. Smith seconded, to approve .Application #2223 subject to the conditions that the applicant continue to meet all of the conditions of their permit and fi’rther, the applicant shall submit a certified surv'ey 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. V’ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#13) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 24, 1997 AND MARCH 10, 1997 Smith reported that the access issue for Saga Hill is a continuing issue Gafiron indicated that an application is being submitted regarding development of the Morgard property, northeast of the City park land parcels, which may affect the access issue. The application will also involve rezoning and MUSA line issues. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#13 - Planning Commission Report - Continued) Smith presented information distributed by Park Commissioner White regarding urban sprawl in the western U.S. (#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION An open house recognizing Jeanne Mabusth for her years of service to the City will be held on Friday, March 21, 1997 from 3:00-4:30 p.m. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 1997 MEETING McMillan moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEl ECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MARCH 24, 1997 AND APRIL 14, 1997 Berg will attend the March 24 Council Meeting, Lindquist will attend the April 14 Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, I i Jquist seconded, to adjourn at 11.28 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Dale Lindquist, Chair Person M«tropolitaa Council ^ V y Linking Local Plans oiufMeiim ’Regional Growth Strategy Four workshops for local officials and planning commissioners: Attend the one that interests you! Agenda for all sessions: 6:15 pm Registration and Coffee 6:30 Welcome and Openirc Remarks: Metropolitan Council member Visualizing the Regional Growth Straicgj)" An interactive multimedia presentation6:35 7:00 8:15 Local Initiatives: Highlights and Lesssons Learned from Throughout the Region [two presentations per session] Planning Assistance and Tools • Brief ovcivicw • “What are your planning needs?" Informal discussion, with time to visit display tables and give feedback 9:00 Adjourn For more information or directions, call Donna Mattson at 602-1493. s6ssiaw X 9CCS>I6CSS NH YXVZAVM XS XOi S8CT ONOVO AO XXI3 aaawaw ii3Hno3 Maxxaoo nnviq r T~'» uid ( 01 oe^9 i66I KPU»IZ‘5l>I^W A39IUIS qtMOJQ |vao{SaH «uu9ippm savM I*3<n uo s|vi3ij)o |rx>| joj sdoi|si|JO^ l»«d1S ICir »}|aua«i (nvd alsisod ‘sn 8C91-I01S5 NWln*d1S P«»S W! J 1S»H 0£Z aHIOQ SJ>9^ Ifoimoo To Lc ':al Officials •TBBi i________________ I invite you to participate in one of four planning workshops in May designed to support local units of government as we work together to make the new regional growth plan a reality. Adopted in December as an amendment to the Regional Blueprint, the new plan calls on local units of government to help plan Twin Cities-area growth in a way that makes better use of land and resources and maintains the region’s competitive edge. This is where the real work begins—turning plans into action. Over the next couple years, metro area cities, towns and counties will revise their comprehensive plans to reflect their own local vision for prosperity, as well as regional objec tives for a strong and vital economy. While some communities have already begun to revise their cob^ppla%s,'^others expect'to do so shdftly to have them completed by the end . f 1998. The Council is holding these workshops to highlight local initiatives already underway and review planning and local assistance available through the Council. There will also be an opportunity to meet with Council representatives and discuss planning issues. 1 welcome your involvement as we work as partners to ensure the success of the regional growth plan and continued economic prosperity in the Twin Cities region. Curt Johnson, Chair Metropolitan Council *rk! a.- 4>: '.V»