The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-18-1979 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 18,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - J. Diann Goetten ATTENDANCE AppUcants 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.#2275 Ted and Myma Wolf 900 Willow Drive North Subdivision - Public Hearing 2.7:30 p.m.#2279 & #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Subdivision - Public Hearing ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. #2253 David Reinhold 3551 Livingston Avenue Variances - Public Hearing #2255 Rick Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue Variances - Public Hearing #2264 Janet C. Kieman 1491 Shoreline Drive Variances - Public Hearing #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkaview Lane Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing #2271 Chad Nilsson (postponed at request of applicant) 3210 Navarre Lane Variances - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, AUGUST 18,1997 - 7:00 P.M. 8.#2272 Wyatt Moe 1230 Spruce Place Vacation, Lot Line Rearrangement and Variances - Public Hearing 9. #2274 Bryce and Mar>' Pat Peterson 2829 Casco Point Road Variance - Public Hearing 10. #2276 Brent and Julie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue Variances - Public Hearing 11. #2278 Patrick Middleton 720 Tonkawa Road Variances - Public Hearing 12. #2281 Hennepin County West of Townline Road to East of Orchard Park Road Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 13. Tree Preservation Ordinance 14. Home Occupations >■ PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 15. Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of July 28,1997 and August 11, 1997 16. Other issues for discussion. 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the July 21,1997 meeting. 18. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of August 25, 1997 and September 8, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Public Attendance Meeting D ate □ □□ COXJNCIL Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OLH CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I.”1 V—vv/X/'vc-vN 2. hc^: ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^g Cc< </A 0 t\p/L ^ 4. Kuou) Gm s. VveuLtriVi^^ I jUllm lOli/'liLfftc/ 12 tc U.//Ka>> flee T o.iKA/O stl —T 1:_______________________ i *s 7., 8. 9.I— d C‘/v /} f' ei /S t H^c Tu.rJi^. /U 10.. 11. //; SzKcy 12. hj^ 13. _ 14. _ 15. _ Q9U95.4 -^s~ -T>13 0w_ Q£l^ ^/| (?A\ .v..| it I .g 6 0 .-; •X »WtmcGnni >1 || iMiyi TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Conimission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren. City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:August 8, 1997 SUBJECT: #2275 Ted and Myma Wolf 900 Willow Drive North Class II Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:11.76 total acres (6.73 drv' buildable) Application:Applicants propose to divide an existing lot into two lots, (front and back) with an access lot. The applicants previously presented a sketch plan for a three lot subdivision (#2203 in January 1997). Applicants were directed to determine the e.xtent of the glencoe wetland. Applicants were also instructed that if three lots were proposed, the private road outlet must be platted to connect to the extension of Outlet B in the Shadowood plat. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, Definitions of Backlot Section 10.03, Subd. 27, Special Standards for Backlots Section 10.56, Shoreland Management Section 11.03, Subd. 2, Definitions Definitions Backlot. A lot typically separated from a public or private road by anotlier lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "backlot" when the corridor is platted as an outlot. A separated lot is considered to be a "flag lot" when the corridor is platted as part of the lot. When the corriodor is merely an easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". # 2275 TedandSfyrna Wolf 900 Willow Avenue North 8/18/97 page—l 1.The proposed subdivision creates one front lot and one backlot. The proposed outlot "A" is platted as a separate corridor. ANALYSIS RRl-B Zoning Standards for Front Lots Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for the zoning district. Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard adjacent to street Rear Yard 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet 50 feet Loti Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard adjacent to street Rear Yard 4.01 acres 287 feet 70+feet 40' from north property line 150' adjacent to outlot A 490' Lot 1 meets the requirements for a front lot. Special Standards for Back Lots Created After January 1,1994 A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1. Lot Area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. 2. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore backlot, or at the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for £iny back lot will be a # 2275 Ted and Kty rna Wolf 900 Willow Avenue North 8/18/97 page—2 3. yard starting where the narrow access outlet corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore backlots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district from yard requirement. 4. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. RRl-B Zoning Standards for Back Lois (150% requirement) Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to street Rear Yard 3 acres 200 feet 75 ft.45 ft.75 ft.75 ft. Lot 2 Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to street Rear Yard Lot 2 3.4 acres 287 ft.90+ proposed 50’ from south property line Not applicable 230 ’+ to wetland The proposed Lot 2 meets the minimum 150% requirement for backlots. Access Requirements 1. Access outlots shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroachment on neighboring properties. The proposed outlot is 30 ’ in width and will not cause encroachment onto adjacent properties. # 2275 Ted and Sfyrna Wolf 900 Willow Avenue North 8/18/97 page—3 2. The City is to consider requiring both the front and back lot to share a driveway access within the access lot if the Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Lot 1 currently has an existing house with a circular driveway. The curb cut for outlot A is proposed to be located at least 120' from the southern entrance to the circular driveway. 3. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10' from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. The proposed driveway for Lot 2 will be able to be located at least 10' from the side and rear yard of Lot 1 and the adjacent property to the south. 4. No more than two residences may be ser\ ed by a driveway located within an access outlot. . Only one residence will be served by outlot A. 5. No access lot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. The proposed outlot A is not located next to an access outlot. Screening Requirements 1. 2. Driveways constructed in access outlets shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. The applicants have not submitted a landscaping plan for the outlot. The Planning Commission shall direct the applicant to screen the driveway in the outlot. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. The applicants have not submitted a plan indicating how the street yard of the back lot shall be screened. The Planning Commissio shall direct the applicant to screen the street yard of the back lot. U 2275 Ted and Sfyrna Wolf 900 Willow Avenue North 8/18/97 page —4 SfiPtk Septic tests confirm that soils are suitable to support a five bedroom mound system on Lot 2. The septic system location will meet all necessary setbacks from property lines, structures and wells. PrainageAVetlands The land generally slope downward towards Dickeys Lake. Approximately .4 acres of wetland has been delineated to the west of the lake. The dry buildable area of Lot 2 is sufficient to build a residence at least 26' from the wetland. Park Dedication The City Assessor is reviewing the proposal to determine the value. The Park Commission will require the 8% dedication fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval following the Planning Commission's directions to the applicant regarding: Screening along the outlot and along the rear property line of Lot 1 which is the front yard for Lot 2. 2. Retention of the loop driveway on Lot 1. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Preliminary Plat Topo Map Septic Report Assessor's Findings (to be inserted when received) Minutes from Sketch Plan Resolution #2880 re: Outlot through Shadowood U2275 TedandMyrna Wolf 900 Willow Avenue North 8/18/97 page—5 0« fXM'’ WIb “it.SEE MAP 40 , .I V. U ^*tA / ^ i 0^ V/V4/ • ^^OO ui.ilow DfivK Mo^K a .. -i : I iJL w A ® \Application if _____ Date Received n y Amount Paid -^^00 ■ __ /V 1 cm' OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address _____^OO ' AJ ' >-N UL)lZ.UfvO 0<^\\AC ^ OR c TAO P~? \\^> S3 OCQ*f~~Property Identification Number (PID) _ Please check one - Property ____abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. applicant Name 1 glP A Address ^ Q KjJLv\fO Q<V.— City (Qg4V\& _______Phone (home) 4n3-*lW3O Zip.^S'arg hone (work) _______ nt than applicant). CiJvvtAcT Name AA\\<e l4l \ WJ::bl>tk Address City O fi.tryvo \/V\ ^ _______Phone (home) ^ f> 7 ZipSS'BsWPhone (work) 4 7 fa - S' 3 3 5 (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) / H-7(0 Present Zoning District I?63 . R ^13 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (nd new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites / _ Existing Units _ New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 7 Units per//J^\cres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land yC Residential ________Other (specify) _________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners w ithin 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3aW. 3P7/ 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persor.s you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature___________^___________________________Date_____________________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature_______________________________________Date_____________ $ • I. APPLICATION Ft FS (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base i fes: _____ Sketch Plan Rcvv (Class I, II & III) S250.00 ______ Subdivision of a ^ot Line Rearrangement S350.00 ______ Subdivision Application (Class I & 11) S350.00 ^ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) ______ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ______ Legal Review and Filing; _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals 1 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ^ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminar> Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; , lin. ft. X .50 = $, lin. ft. X .50 = $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00 per lot x / new lots ^ C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fe _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ______ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit % The applicant hereby agrees to provide aR information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commissi?>n^andl^un^il'Jl^c^s^' to process this application and further agrees to ^ay aU additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature A \\ \ Date II ad Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Cominission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Comnrussion 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. 1 1 [••••••••a• •••••••a ►*• •*«"•*•*■*# ■ • #a • • a a a• II • a a « a • A a a a a a • a a a a a « a ■ a a a a a a a a a a • a a a a • A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a • • a a a a a a a,**va a ^ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A a a a a a a a a a a^ a a a a a a ■ • a a a a a a a a a a • a a a a a a a • a a a a • « a a a a a a a • a a a a a a a a c a a a a a a a a a a a « « _ a»r»^ a a • • a «a»»aaaa«a aaaaa'iaaaaaaaaaaaaaa«a«« aaaaa«a#a• aaaaaaaa• aaa««aaa • ava^aaaa■ aaaaaaaa a a a a a^a^«^a^a aaaaaaa* aa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa vT*?7rVTrV.V7a«aa«*alaaaa a«aaa«»>»aaaAaaaa«a<aaaa aaaaa aaaa aaaiaaaRaaa A a * • a • a a a aa*««**aa4 . . a » a a aaaaaai aaaa aaa*» laaa aaaa«4aaaa a a ax’x'xfv:-:-'!v!*Xv.*X*.• aaaa W • a a •% « a a aaaa aaa« «raaaaa » a a a a • ■ a a a a aa a a a a a a { a a a a a 1Jh)/ / / / 7*--------- • 4 f ;• # PREUMINARY PUT FOR TED WOLF !N THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 27-118-23 ' HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA • I : I /,I IJ •m* * « f ' *% I.V*' X.A D 0 vV/b;C!^ • EXhibl-f C •••••• 1•*7 i \/\K i V"'* / / /rNv . r\- • P#* «W««t *•*/»# laULMOM ,Wtfl* M IMIt laHamak P/091 »• a •••# OBAMift Lir.l > iy;v> >■». > f.~ »i f« ■l^*2 fjiiur.Kk A\nuu* • 1*'P^ Lilu*. M\ 6i:«73im E m CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITY of ORONO Municipal Ofllccs PQSt(XnctBox66 Costal Bajr, MInncwU S5323-0066 • LOCATION: Willow Dr. N. OWNER:Ted Wolf Jt^ressr dsFiy^J GENERAL CONTRACTOR: SITE EVALUATOR:_s,,^Te5^ The City of Orono has SEPTIC CONTRACTOR: .REPORT DATE: July 23, 1997 Approved (approved-disapproved) witli the following comments: your on-site system design as of (date) enclosed. Inspeclor (473-73«L^Suor tepKUoTw ““ P"°' ®f *' in place until final sii^dfu^'A^v^lo pou^J fooUnss w'u '"'‘'i h "* "»•*' "main haa verified that primary and al.ern“^cq2y pr“ '"“P«"P “ NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OP ANY KIND rrn » l nciy completion and or limiting the long teim use of the property. A site copy will be available at the City Offices for the septic contractor. CITY OF ORONO --------------- Stepheh We^lOTan, On-site Syst^ Manager telephone -473-7357 • FAX-47M510 •;•I • i i s S-P TESTING, INC.Steven B. Schirmers • MPCA Cert.No. 627 951 Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 FAX(612)-497-5011 State License #394 I May 19, 1997 Ted Wolff 900 Willow Drive North Lot 2 Orono, Henn. Co., MN jUL 2 3 cnv Of ORONO This on-site sewage treatment system is designed for a Type 1, five bedroom home, in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. The soils on this site are SCS soils mapped - LTB - LeSueur loam. The seasonally saturated soils were located at 12" to 26" (mottled soil). Due to the seasonally saturated soils, a Pressurized Mound System will need to be installed to treat septic effluent. The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of 12" have a percolation rate averaging 12.7 mpi. A pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the 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. The manifold and supply line pipe must have back drainage to the pumping chamber. The distribution pipes shall have their ends capped. Be sure the rock and sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mounded area must be turned over, just break up the sod, be sure not to over work. All neighboring wells are located greater than 100’ away from the proposed treatment area. 1 -//J -A % • S S P^PO^ treatment area before and after ^strwaion. The ^atment area should be marked off before construction This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated H faii..re J. !. proposed for Onsite Sewage «’« ‘fan gray water (laundry, showers, etc.) human waste & toilet tissue should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Garbage disposals are not recommendad more solids & fine solids passing through to the system Excessive ti^^t wtte IS;t'^/Sd"t® "’ay till the bacteria needed to recommended. Recommend to pumo & dean pumper to sTup a sr^X°'® ® ^ y®®!*' ^heck with your Steven B. Schirmers fyh I ^ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: August 14, 1997 Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fee for Ted & Myma Wolf, 900 Willow Avenue North The City Assessor called today and has stated that they are valuing the proposed lot at $95,000. The 8% park dedication fee is $7,600. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON iANU.\PvY 21, 1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Improvement - Continued) Smith asked what impact the filling of wetlands would have on the wild life in the area. Settles said the reports indicate there will be no impact noting the land is only a long, narrow strip. Smith inquired if there would be any detours or rerouting of traffic. She was informed that the construction would be staged such as half the road would be built at a time allowing for on-going two-lane traffic by use of one lane and the shoulder. McMillan questioned the surcharging. Guy Knowlan said the surcharging will make use of a select granular sand, which over an approximate 6 month period of time will compress the air and water out of the material to allow Class 6 and bituminous to be laid over it. The north side would be affected 1.2 meters and driveways will be left lower to accommodate the surcharging. There were no public comments. Gaffiron informed Lindquist that the Council is considering a ponding agreement but does not wish to delay the project. Polaczyk noted the construction cooperative agreement between Hennepin County and Orono states such language listing the responsibilities regarding maintenance and funding participation between the County and City. He explained the costs regarding right-of-way and construction as well ?ls the City contribution of the Ferndale Cutoff for mitigation. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of the CUP and variances for alteration of e.xisling wetlands in conjunction with the reconstruction of County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road to the eastern border of the City with the recommendation that the Council pursue alternate mitigation sites. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWS (#8) #2203 TED WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED CLASS EH SUBDIVISION The applicant was represented by Mark Gronberg and Mike Hilbelink. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1997 (#8 - U2203 Ted Wolf - Continued) Mabusth reported that the applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of the 8.3 acre property located in the RR-IB Zoning District. The property is subject to the Shoreland Regulations as it is located within 1000 feet of Dickey Lake, an natural environmental lake. Structures and septic drainfields are not allowed within 150’ of OH^\X at 985.5'. The existing residence within the property currently has access ofif of Willow Drive. Outlot B of the Shadowoods plat to the immediate north was created to provide a future loop road to Willow Drive. The applicant proposes a single driveway is proposed to be installed within the Shadowoods outlot to eliminate impact on vegetation. The subdivision. Shadow ood Farms, is served by a cul-de-sac road 1300 ft in length. This driveway would increase that access from the 1300 ft. to 1600 ft. The code would allow a 1000' length. It was the City's plan to plat and install a future loop road. Mabusth reported that the dry buildable has not yet been determined and will be a factor in whether there is a two or three lot division. Mark Gronberg indicated a wetland delineation occurred about six w'eeks ago using aerial and field checks. Mabusth noted that the wetland consists of 2 types, PA and glencoe, adding that the soils of the glencoe need to be determined. Gronberg will get the results of the testing to Mabusth. McMillan noted for the Planning Commission that winter testing is not guaranteed and will require further confirmation. If a 3-lot subdivision were to occur, Staff must ask for a future corridor connecting Cox Farm Road with private road in subdivision. If a 2-lot subdivision is proposed, the City may not ask for a platted extension at this time. Mabusth noted that a letter signed by the Sanford's, 945 Cox Farm Road, along with 10 other property owners of Shadowood, asked for elimination of Outlot B extension road. Lindquist read the letter into the record voicing concern over access from Outlot B. The residents feel two lots are not an extensive development and the City's right to outlot B does not exist citing safety and environmental impact with the number of maple trees existing in Outlot B. The residents voiced concern over impact to the wetlands and Dickey Lake and prefer an access from the subject property. Gronberg noted the possibility of a loop road. He did not feel they would have to use the driveway and do not wish to connect all the way through for the two lots. He asked for consideration of the 30' outlot for two lots from Willow Drive with Lot 1 using the existing access. Lindquist asked if two curb cuts were possible. Gronberg said there were no sight line problems. Mabusth said this would require input from Greg Gappa, the Director of Public Services. It was noted that the Ringerswood plat does not have a connecting corridor to north lot line or subject property. I i I i\lhHl lNCiKELDON JANUARY21, 1997 (#8 - #2203 Ted Wolf - Continued) Schrocder asked if the reason for a loop road was for safety purposes. Mabusth said the concern was for safety and this pattern for development is recorded in the Comprehensive Plan. Schrocder asked if the outlot could be developed with a temporary cul-de-sac. Hilbelink said the applicant prefers the way the property access is currently laid out and does not propose to extend the cul-de-sac. Schrocder asked if an outlot could serve as a driveway. Mabusth said a 3-lol plat would require a private road. Mabusth questioned the loop drive that serv'es proposed Lot 1 and the requirement to maintain its use. Lindquist said ideally he would see all access off of the fiiture road outlot. McMillan noted the difiScuIty of installing the connectmg road outlots once development takes place. The roads should be installed prior to development or placed closer to the boundary of the developed site. Mabusth informed Schrocder that there were no standards for driveways. She informed him the access serving three units would have to be a private road. Lindquist noted the 50’ outlot would still be platted. Schrocder questioned whether there was enough land. Gronberg said there was 3.05 acres to the wetland area. He noted there would be a need for an "S" shape to hook up to the outlot. It was felt there would be adequate land. During public comments, Matthew Sanford, 945 Cox Farm Road, informed the Commission that the property owners of Shadowood were unanimously opposed to the use of Outlot B. He noted that one reason for the purchase of his property was because of the stunning maples located there. Schroeder informed him that it was not the intent of the Commission to have to cut down those trees. The Commission discussed the options for access. McMillan noted the need to have the additional information regardmg the wetland on Lot 3 in solving access from Willow Drive. Mabusth advised that the final resolution of the access issue is dependent on the number of residential units. Lindquist noted the need for assurance that there is enough dry buildable land for three lots. Applicant's representatives were informed that if there was a 3-lot subdivision, the 50' outlot must be a private road designed to connect with Outlot B of Shadowoods. The private road could be construaed with a temporary cul-de- sac. Mabusth inquired about septic testing. Gronberg informed her that the testing has been completed and all three lots have acceptable sites for septic systems. Schroeder said he would be inclined to plat a road outlot with a 30' corridor with a driveway. Concern was voiced that it would be difficult in the future to divide if the outlot was not plaited at 50'. A suggestion w'as made for a driveway installed within Outlot B that W'as specifically created as a connection corridor. Sariford asked that Outlot B be stipulated that no dri veway would be constructed off of it. His concerns were noted. J mCStyol RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO___2380 A RssoLunoa apspjotibg tes 'piat oy SSiDWfOOD JARM 5TL2 SO. 1532 SBSSIZAS^ tho City of Orono £4 a ntiDie^TJs' r|«.t«4 a.-.d .xlstlnc unJr th, lav, of (S«o and V/, r“” *1- tt; a\°lsafe devclopaeat of land within the City; and -conoauc ane .ppUcatlorf\Vr,'»b5i\*l,5o“^of'.°”p"lat^f''!J l«rb/*,^*lt.Aol .operties Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, the subdivliv; and WETOEAS, the subdivision has been foond to meet all th^^each lot^t rural residential toning district finding ust arr«inoii%f£4*, *i»* *nd configuration that will allow it! the ne.5 of LV J«l.Ve.V;*“S''" Oev.lop.d wlthouo Of th. Pl.SiSrrV,»?a*tI*o“„^‘oVti'. C*l'yr?ooru'dU^" r,-4ulr»,at, f m «*- oS all the requireaeats of Resolution t282S subdivision? 9ranted preliminary approval of the 13 lot JLowa"'Vi'’S ?"b “v„^•C.SeA.He NOe6 fiiid WlHov Drive* 3o Dedication easeaents. r* on the plat of drainage and utility 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage easeaents. ind private roads shown on the plat as Out lots B end c;x ?a.:n Road. « Shndovood Drive Page 1 of 4 r« City of OS^Or^Om,RESOLUTION 05 THE CITY COUNCIL NO. M-nt».n and pay th. cost oj nalntannnco ,'or said EisaSe« VrVv "dlno f«providing Ter Y&lill/Te:cn t>.» use of wetlaadsp installltlon”o”^ Artal^^ «9reeoent providing for subdivision approInproveoents as a condition ,,.of ootlots for the following approved . « • .'.r* .• i ® Thi,*^?;!!*; extension.to’ / constructed at this .*^?**^''*y i* not to ' beC^road use. *>ut la set aside for future • • a fiJil^laJ ijppjjjff/®*** ontlots to be constructed upon 10 ^ i«etta«rorT°otL?d?v°*?;,“^'‘‘v <=°* ««»llng with along west bo-de- o€^nll% } 5-^^:*°““"®^ °- Willow Drive unused portion o*^ «nd possible vacation of upgrade^ of Wi vTo^«te™inetlon of final stindards on a^s\^u\“ rr^J'ttf ‘’“"= «=* 9rantlng'«sraatVto\'eV'\V‘lo-’bNr'”-»-“"'’’ ^®''«l0P«rthe 10* drainace •.Zdi ^®‘ b-xe wra_l purpeses over prooe—V 0-, a-va.^* u-ility easeaents that bord*®- ‘•heP.ope..y on the north and west sides of the subdivision". Page 2 of 4 I «*r r>^mw -V; - ThST:' 3s SS^35^K^& •'i-.': .it' iT. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Senior Planning Coordinator August 14, 1997 SUBJECT: #2279/2280 Marc and Tracy ^Tiitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary’ Subdivision/Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unseweved. Application: Four lot subdivision to create three new 2 acre residential lots. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner's List D - Survey/Site Phui Package: 1. Boundary and Topographic Surv ey (Oversize) 2. Preliminary Plat (Oversize) 3. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan E - Notice of Planning Commission Action 6/18/97 Re: Sketch Plan F - Hydrology Narrative Excerpts G - Sketch Plan Review Excerpts H - 1990 Septic Review Excerpts I. Proposed Vacation Applicants propose the vacation of a 20’x409' dedicated right-of-way adjacent to the Luce Line trail. This right-of-way is a lane which was never developed for road or driveway purposes, and the City is currently unaware of any utility making use of this right-of-way. The utility companies have been notified of this request, and no responses have been received to date. The City has no defined need fci this right-of-way, and given its topography would appear to serve no drainage, access or other purpose. There is a 36" culvert leading from the west end of this right-of-way northward under the Luce Line. This culvert would appear to fall within the standard 10’ drainage and utility easement that w'ould be required around the perimeter as part of the plat approval. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval of the vacation as proposed, subject to the standard drainage and utility easements required at the time of plat approval. II. Proposed Subdivision This item was the subject of a sketch plan review at Planning Commission's June meeting. Direction given to the applicant regarding relocation of the driveway outlot, delineation of Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 2 wetlands, and that staff would assist the applicant by defining ilie variances inherent in the proposal. Staff met with the applicant and applicant proceeded to make revisions to the site layout. It was also confirmed that wetland areas were creditable acreage for the third acre for a 'back' lot. A revised proposal has been submitted as a formal subdivision application. Following is a summary' of lot information: Existing area (2 ta.\ parcels plus lane to be vacated): Dry buildable (including non-Orono wetlands): Orono protected wetlands 8.79 ac. Proposed Lot Areas: Lot 1 with existing house Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Outlet A (existing road) Outlet B (proposed road) ^ac. 11.11 ac Ocv W?t Total 2.11 ac.1.53 ac.3.64 ac. 2.00 ac.0.25 ac.225 ac. 2.00 ac.0.41 ac. 2.41 ac. 2.01 ac.0.13 ac.2.14 ac. 0.27 ac.—0.27 ac. 0,40 ac.—iL4Qac. 8.79 ac.2.32 ac.ll.llac. RR-IB District Required Structure Setbacks: Front 50' Rear 50' Side 30' Wetland 26' The preliminaiy plat drawing shows proposed setbacks correctly located for the revised layout. Note that in proposed Lot 1, the south side setback has been shown at 50' where only 30' is required, to provide a buffer to the existing house on the adjacent property. Wetlands: The property is quite hilly and contains 5 wetland basins, 3 of which are Orono protected wetlands, the remaining 2 being minor Type 1 wetlands which per past City practice are not deducted from the dry buildable area. Access: Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to be accessed via Outlet B, a proposed segment of private road and cul de-sac approximately 250' in length extending north from Lyman Avenue. The existing private road segment of Lyman Avenue which extends through the southeast comer of the property, is proposed to be continued as private roadway platted as Outlot A. I Zoning File #2279 August 14,1997 Page 3 Access to Lot 3 with the existing ’"luse is proposed to continue via the existing driveway which is partially located on an easement on the adjacent neighboring property to the east. An option for access to Lot 3 would be relocation of the driveway to extend along the east from Outlot A. as shown on the grading plan. Lot 3 has 79' of frontage on Outlot A. The applicant would prefer not to change the location of the driveway. Lot 4 could be accessed via Outlot A. via existing Lyman Avenue, or via Outlot B, depending upon orientation of the house, and limited by septic system needs and steep topography. The grading plan proposes a narrow driveway exiting to Outlot A just north of the curve. This driveway access location begs the question of upgrading Lyman Avenue to handle the additional traffic created bv this subdivision. m Lot Width: Based on the proposed layout, all 4 Lots abut a private or public road. As measured per code requirements at the 50' front setback: Lot 1 has a defined lot width of approximately 160' Lot 2 has a defined lot width of approximately 130' Lot 3 has a defined lot w idth of approximately 140' Lot 4 has a defined lot width in excess of the required 200' Lots 1,2 and 3 require a lot width variance. On-Site Sewage Treatment. Septic system site evaluation was provided in 1990 for a 4-lot proposal which never went forward. The currently proposed subdivision shov\3 2 proposed drainfield sites in each of Lots 1 and 2. a replacement site for the existing conforming mound system in Lot 3, and only one proposed drainfield site in Lot 4. Revised site evaluation information has not been provided to coincide with the significantly revised orientation and shape of the proposed drainfield sites in each of the properties, as compared to the 1990 testing. This application must be considered as incomplete until new updated testing information has been provided that coincides with the proposed sites, or until the plans have been revised per the existing testing. Applicant has confirmed that no alternate drainfield site exists for Lot 4, and is requesting City consideration for platting Lot 4 subject to a co\ enant restricting its use as a building site until/unless it is ser\ ed by sewer at some time in the future. Comment 14 of the applicants' "general notes" o i the preliminary plat drawings, suggests anticipation that public sanitary sewer will ab-i Lot 4 on Lyman Avenue around 1999. Although staff has discussed the potential for sewer in this area and the recent MUSA amendment to include properties to the south and southwest within the MUSA, it remains the City's policy not to extend municipal sewer to provide for new development in the rural area. This lot would not qualify for one of the 50 "floating" connections available to the City, because it does not meet the three criteria for sewering outside the MUSA, i.e. adjacency to municipal sewer; an existing failing system; and no alternatives for replacing that system. Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 4 Road Issues: The piimar>’ reason for proposed Outlot B as a road rather than a dri\’eway Outlot, is to avoid the back lot 150% area requirement which could not be met by Lot 2 if Outlot B was merely a 30' dri\ eway corridor. A secondary reason is that the 150% setback requirements for a back lot v\ould ha\ e a major impact on Lots 1 and 2. The result, however, is that Outlot B not only destroys a potential drainfield site for Lot 4 (which would likely have been eliminated with a narrower Outlot regardless) but also places a major road and cul- de-sac very near the existing house to the southwest which exists on a substandard lot. If Outlot B ser\ es Lots 1, 2 and 4. under City codes and consistent practice it is required to be platted as a road rather than a driveway. The concern about access safety for L\ man Avenue in general would be somewhat decreased by having all new lots access from Outlot B. The paved portion of Lyman Avenue stops just west of Outlot A. and from there eastward this private road ser\es WTiitehead's existing residence and 4 other existing homes, plus 1 po ential buildable vacant lot. The City Engineer during the sketch plan review noted that the Lyman Avenue pavement is significantly narrower than the minimum 24' pavec width standard for a private road, and recommended that the developer be responsible for upgrading Lyman Avenue to private street standards from Smith Avenue to the driveway location of Lot 3, where he suggested construction of a cul-de-sac. The difficulty with that is that applicants do not own the property at that location. Stormwater/Wetlands : Applicant has provided a hydrology narrative indicating that there will be no change in flow pattern for the site. Basin E, which is a pond excavated at a low^ point in the topograph}, is proposed to be enlarged to become a NURP pond to treat runoff from the proposed Outlot B cul-de-sac. The hydrology information has been submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment. A summary wetlands delineation report has been attached to the boundary and topographic surv ey, but the full report has not been submitted, and is required. Proposed Lot Nuances: Lot 1 - Nearly half of the total area of Lot 1 is wetland basin A located at the base of a 15-20' high slope. This provides a location for a walkout residence which would meet the required setbacks. A 50' side setback is proposed at the south end to provide extra buffer to the neighbor. The drainfield sites shown on the preliminary plat are very close to wetland Basin C which is a temporarily flooded Type 1 forest wetland of minor consequence. The applicants request a setback variance for both primary and alternate drainfield sites for this lot. The septic sites as drawn do not match the site evaluator's report. Lot 2 • Lot 2 will require a driveway of approximately 400' in length past the end of the cul- f i Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 5 de-sac. Enough area has been left to the west of wetland Basin E to accommodate the driveway and a 26 ’ setback from that basin for the driveway. The driveway would have to be looped near the proposed residence in order to accommodate emergency vehicle ingress/'egress. This lot has two drainfield sites proposed between the house and the wetland basin, again requiring a \ ariance for setback of the drainfield from the wetland, and again as drawn not matching the site evaluation report. This variance is more difficult to justify than the V ariance for Lot 1, because Basin E is an open w ater basin, of substantial area, proposed to be a NURP pond, and clearly drains directly towards Basin E. Applicants note it is not possible to locate the drainfields in Lot 2 any further from Basin E without encroaching the proposed house pad. Lot 3 - Lot 3 contains the e.xisting house which is served by an existing septic system to the south of it, with alternate drainfield site directly west. This alternate site again does not meet the 75' setback from Basin E. and does not match the site evaluators report. Lot 3 is currently served by an existing loop driv eway that extends to Lyman Avenue east of the applicants' property. This driveway exists on an easement. The applicants have shown on the grading plan an optional driveway within the property and parallel the east lot line, with a new access point abutting Outlot A. Lot 3 abuts Basin D, and there arc no expected impacts or encroachments on Basin D. Lot 4 - Lot 4 can be characterized as a knob located about 30' above Lyman Avenue, with especially steep slopes to the north. The proposed house site is at the northeast quadrant of the lot, and the grading plan indicates a proposed narrow driveway in the easterly comer of the property. The drivewav as shown is only 6' wide, and does not relate to the actual septic site per tlie site evaluators report. Staff also questions whether the location as proposed in the grading plan has satisfactory site distance given the sharp curve to the south. While a vehicle leaving Lot 4's driveway would not be crossing traffic, the narrowness of the road suggests that any vehicles coming eastward around the curve could have a conflict with any car leaving Lot 4. Also, the lack of a secondary drainfield site, and the uncertainty of sewer being provided to this property, suggests that Lot 4 simply is not a buildable lot and should not be approved. Outlot A - WTiile Outlot A follows the existing location of the private road/driveway system knowTi as Lyman Avenue, it does not purport to make any changes or improvements to that road, other than to provide a portion of roadway corridor for its continued existence. Outlot B - Outlot B is proposed to contain a paved private road and cul-de-sac, with a retaining wall uphill to the east and down hill to the west. The retaining wall will accommodate the necessar>' drainage swales to allow drainage to the NURP pond adjacent to Basin E. The retaining wall will limit access to Lot 4 from Outlot B. This proposed road is very near an adjacent neighboring residence, and at the 24'paved width standard plus an Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 6 80’ paved cul-de-sac, could have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. Summary of Required Variances 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 Lot width for Lot 1. Lot width for Lot 2. Lot width for Lot 3. Drainfield setback from Basin C for primar>' and alternate sites in Lot 1. Drainfield setback from Basin E for alternate site on Lot 2. Drainfield setback from Basin E for alternate site on Lot 3. Lack of alternate drainfield site for Lot 4. Wetland setback variance for excavation to create NURP pond adjacent to Basin E. Additional Information Necessary for Application to be Considered Complete 1.Septic testing reports showing the viability of the drainfield sites as oriented and shaped as showTi on the provided plat and grading and drainage plans, OR re\ ise the plat to match the information in the reports already on file. 2.Complete wetland delineation report (the information provided on the boundary and topographic survey appears to be excerpts from such a report). Issues for Consideration Will the City grant the necessary lot width variances for Lots 1,2 and 3? Will the City inspector grant the necessary variances for proposed drainfield sites in Lots 1, 2 and 3? This determination relies on having accurate and complete septic information... Given that there is no precedent to support the request for platting of Lot 4 absent an alternate drainfield site, should the City even consider this as a legitimate proposed subdivision? Given that the drainfield sites as presented on the preliminary plat do not match the shape or orientation of sites in the septic testing reports on file, and given that applicants' site evaluator has confirmed that the sites as presented in a number of eases will not work, how can the City continue its review without that infomiation? Given the potential impacts on the adjacent house to the southwest, is there any justification to allow Outlot B to become merely a narrow driveway corridor, and grant variances for lot area for Lot 2, which cannot meet 150% of the lot area requirement due to a lack of total i Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 7 acreage? To what extent is it appropriate that applicants be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue east of Outlot B, given the proposed driveway for Lot 4 extending to the east boundary of the plat? Is the existing driveway serving Lot 3 acceptable, or should the applicants be required to relocate that drivewav to exit Lot 3 at Outlot A? Staff Recommendation Given that the septic sites shown on the preliminary plat are not consistent with the septic testing reports on file, it is impossible for staff to conclude whether the proposed drainfield sites and lot lines are feasible. Planning Commission is advised, therefore, to consider this review as a sketch plan. This revised plan does address some of the issues indicated by staff and Planning Commission in the June review, but it also raises a significant number of new questions. Perhaps the most vexing question is whether the City should consider Lot 4 without a sccondaiy drainfield site, or whether the review should be discontinued until a viable proposal is submitted. It would be helpful to the applicants for the Planning Commission to, as a minimum, address the following questions for the applicants: 1. 2. WTiether Lot 4 should be eliminated from the plat. Whether a back lot area variance would be granted for Lot 2 if Outlot B is converted to a driveway corridor rather than a road, and whether bad lot setback variance might be granted. 3.Whether applicants should be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue if Lot 4 accesses any where other than Outlot B. 4.^^Tlether a requirement of the plat will be relocation of the driveway serving Lot 3 to an access point on Outlet A. 5.Whether the location of the house on Lot 37 to the southwest has an impact on Planning Commission's view ’ of the variances, given that one legitimate criteria for granting variances is w’hether or not granting them has a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. 6. Whether Planning Commission has any concerns about the proposed lane vacation. I Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 8 Options for Action 1. 4. Provide additional direction to applicants, and table for further information and potential revisions. Recommend approval, with appropriate conditions. 3. Recommend denial, slating reasons. Other. TRACY AND MARC WHITEHEAD 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata,MN 55391 473-8278 August 14, 1997 'DECEIVED AUG 1 5 1997 wii • Ur ORONO To the Members of the Planning Commission Lots 20-36; Orono Orchards Enclosed with your packet today is a Subdivision Application for the property we have owned and lived on for almost 30 years Marc accepted a position in Chicago and it is with very mixed emotions that we leave our friends and community. This is not something we had expected at this stage of our lives. But with the demise of the law firm of which he was a member for 33 years, we had no choice. In revising the subdivision plan, we tried to listen and heed the thoughts that many of you expressed at your last meeting We heard that you were concerned about the lack of a cul-de-sac, that you worried about loading additional traffic after the curve on Lyman, that you wondered about widening Lyman sometime in the future, that you wanted a wetland delineation to verify all wetlands on the site, and that you weren’t sure if the third acre for back lots niust be dry buildable or not. I also met with Mike GafFron a number of times as I went through the process with our septic system, surveying, engineering, and wetland experts. He went over the variances that would be required for our first proposal, patiently explained ail of the setback requirements, clarified Orono’s wetland map, and even helped me figure out which were the front, rear, and side lotlines for the different lots. We also discussed the fact that public sewer serv ice w ill be installed on Smith and part of Lyman, probably within the next two years I’m sure it is not easy for staff to deal with a novice developer, but Mike took it in stride. None of my questions were “too dumb.” In addition, I reviewed the staff recommendations of the proposal we submitted in 1991, as Mike felt that some of them were still relevant today. I also met with two staff members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to review their requirements. With all of this in mind, our team spent many days and hours trying to develop a proposal that would meet Orono’s codes, address your comments, and keep the spirit of our land and neighborhood intact. Planning Commissioners/August 14, 1997/p.2 Both times we have come before the Planning Commission (1991 and now), Ljmtan Avenue seems to be to major point of concern. Feelings range from “slightly uncomfortable to highly hostile” to the road we all call home With that in mind, we tried to do what we could, w ithin our property limits to alleviate some of the concerns We moved the drive into the property (Outlot B) to the west side of the property, w hich allows most of the new traffic to have direct access to the public right-of-way on Lyman and not onto the private road The outlot includes a cul-de-sac w hich both staff and Planning Commission Members wanted for ease of tum-around for fire trucks and plowing equipment Another cul-de-sac could be created at the end of Lyman when the Department of Transportation takes one of the houses at the end for the Highway 12 upgrade. Three quarters of the land needed for that cul-de-sac at the end of Lyman has already been dedicated To comply with your concerns about the width of Lyman, we are dedicating a portion of our property (Outlot A) to allow space to widen Lyman Avenue, and without a need to place any additional fill to the southeast side of the road This will allow some flattening of the famous curve and improve sight lines Bonestroo, Rosene, .Anderlik & Associates stated in their report on the subdivision (June 11, 1997) that “a 20-foot paved surface may be an acceptable access ” Widening Lyman will take away concerns about the access to and from Lot 4 The sewer project will allow an opportunity to both build the sewer and upgrade Lyman from Smith (now 12-15 feet wide in the public part of the road) and then assess the benefiting property owners. Unfortunately, complying with your request to provide a cul-de-sac within the property and load new traffic on the public part of Lyman (Outlot B) eliminates the second septic system site for lot 4. The site that meets Orono’s septic system design requirements is under the cul-de-sac. We are hoping that you will take into consideration the fact that we are trying to do those things that will alleviate your concerns for safety on Lyman and that you will grant us Lot 4 as a buildable lot with only one septic site, knowing that public sewer will abut that lot within one or two years and be available for hookup should the primary system fail. Someone raised the question about our current house being served by a driveway not entirely on our property. We do have a formal easement across the property we do not own for the existing driveway, signed and registered with Hennepin County, as Document #1203061, which was filed on December 15, 1976. Although the driveway could be moved onto our property and we have shown this design on the proposal, it will necessitate the removal of a large number of large trees. It has existed for 30 years in its current spot without any traffic incidents at its egress. The vacated driveway would be a large scar in the landscape for many years to come. I hope some of you will have the chance to look at the two locations and then decide the best approach I Planning Commissioners/August 14, 1997/p.3 Wc realize that this proposal will have minimal impact on most of our neighbors. None of the houses will be seen by existing L>Tnan Avenue property owners because we have carefully placed the building pads on the lots for the privacy of everyone However, the road and cul-de-sac will have an impact on Margret and Brano Stankovsky ’s lot. Their property is surrounded on two sides by our property and they are on a substandard lot of approximately one acre The new road and cul-de-sac will be on their eastern lot line, on a previously vacated street We have tried to maximize their privacy from the house that will be built on Lot 1 by voluntarily increasing the required setback from their back property line from 30 feet to 50 feet, and the area in between, except for their drainfield, is wooded. We spent a considerable amount of time try ing to treat lots 1 and 2 as back lots so that a shared driveway could be used at the Stankovsky ’s property line instead of the road and cul-de-sac. It would have had less visual impact than the road. But we could not meet the set-back or lot size requirements and we were told that the Commission has never granted a variance for area requirement As with many sites in Orono, septic systems control most of what can be done to a given piece of land .. and that w as certainly true in our case. In addition, the shared driveway would not have given you the cul-de-sac you requested. Our intentions, in the design of the subdivision, were to keep the feel of the neighborhood. All of us chose to live on Lyman because we like what it is—quiet, wooded, home to wildlife and wildflowers. We’ll miss it. Please call or stop by over the weekend if you would like to eyeball our proposal in person or to talk to us about it. We welcome your thoughts. Sincerely, 0 Tracy Whitehead IsJuJxh&d P.S. Yesterday afternoon when / went to City Hail to deliver this letter, Mike pointed out a discrepancy involving our septic .w stem layouts that frankly was a surprise to me. The septic systems on each lot were niH In he same area as on the 1991 Preliminary Plat, but each had been slightly reci..ft^ u^ed or repositioned to meet a change in lot lines. Mike was concerned that they might not work with the changes and therrfore wrote the staff report to reflect that Last evening, / talked at length with our septic system engineer who believes that it can be easily resolved. My surveying company is now in the process of verifying his suggestions. If it is resolved, / will bring you a copy over the weekend so you will have a chance to study it before the meeting. I sincerely apologize to all of you for this last minute problem. It was certainly unintentional. h Application ff A- Date Received Amount Paid ^3CO-^ C.rY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND U«?E APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^2^^^ A/ _________________________ T>pe Application to be Filed Propert>’ Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ APP’ ICANT Phone (home) V73 ^27^ 'I^C V 5 Phone (work) /^a^r^Ji _________ _______________________City________________Zip___________Address OWNER (if different th^ applicant) Name(/ f}]f^£C ^ DzClt jlj $ Address _________________ I Phone (home) ^ ^ Jpg Cy Phone (work) City________________Zip______ Date Pro I (do) .^UUj{l] 196 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/Indusirial 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 —A A 7T-'y i#- ••• % * ‘-.t PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee fvl OTHER APPLICATIONS $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) y $300.00 Vacation ____$200.00 Easement Vacation ____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______________ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify ) 2L A Jo 0 f\ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UNNAMED LANE TO BE VACATFD That part of the unnamed vacated lane adjoining Lot 33, ORONO ORCHARD, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Westerly of vacated Spencer Avenue and which lies easterly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 33. Application # *7^ Date Received «r/^ 7 Amount Paid 2.J1 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICAT|0|? PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 1220 Lyman Ave. Property Identific?tionNumber (PID) 35-118-23-34-0003 & 0004 Please check one - Property X abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name Marc and Tracy Whitehead Address 1220 Lyman Ave, Citv Phone (home) 473-8278 Wavzata. MN Zip 55391 Phone (work) 5 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parce's Development Size 8.79 2.32 11.11 Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. • ' 1 Other (specify)___ Present Zoning District RR-IB PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Reairangement Only (no new buildling sites) X____ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 0.36 87191 Units per 1 Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ RUN DATE 05/23/97BATCH 507 PROP ADOR OHICR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 58 02-117-23 12 0001 00200 HOOOHILL RO * HOOOHIU COUNTRY CLUB HOOOHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 HOOOHILL RO HAYZATA MN 55391 HEr-NCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 02-117-23 21 0001 01290 LYMAN AVE MARGARET S FOX MARGARET S FOX 1290 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI935AQ1 PAGE 31 38 02-117-23 21 0002 00090 SMITH AVE T E A J H HITCH THOMAS E k JOANNE H HITCH 90 SMITH AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 21 0003 00060 SMITH AVE VIOLET M GLAMPE TRUSTEE VIOLET M GLAMPE 60 SMITH AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0006 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK k R H PESEK C PAUL k RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S HAYZATA MN 55351 38 35-118-23 33 0010 00030 ORONO ORCHARD RO N J L MURPHY k S S SMITH JAMES MURPHY k SANDRA SMITH 50 ORONO ORCHARD RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0009 01220 LYMAN AVE G MARC HHITEHEAO ETAL G MARC HHITEHEAO 1220 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0011 01200 ORONO OAKS OR J TOMHAVE k B K TOMHAVE JONATHAN k BEVERLY TOMHAVE 1200 ORONO OAKS OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 02-117-23 21 0009 00080 SMITH AVE F 0 VOIGT ETAL GLADYS VOIGT 80 SMITH AVE HAYZATA MN 55391' 38 02-117-23 21 0026 00110 ailTH AVE J A FISK k J K FISK JAMES A k JENNIFER K FISK 110 SMITH AVE HAYZATA MIT 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE OF MINN STATE OF MIIM (DNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 35-118-23 39 0005 00090 ORONO ORCHARD RD N D k B STRUYK D A k BARBARA A STRUYK 90 ORONO ORCHARD RO N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0012 01225 ORONO OAKS OR J DANIELS k J LYNCH-DANIELS J DANIELS k J LYNCH-DANIELS 1225 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 02-117-23 21 0005 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK k R H PESEK C PAUL k RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0027 01275 LYMAN AVE H I k E T MCMILLAN HOHARD k ELIZABETH MCMILLAN 1275 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO G MARC HHITEHEAO ETAL G MARC HHITEHEAO 1220 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0010 01230 ORONO OAKS DR DAT 6AR0ELLA DAVID T k TRESA GAROELLA 1230 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 35-118-23 39 0013 01335 ORONO OAKS DR J HENNINGER k 0 HENNINGER J HENNINGER k D HENNINGER 1335 ORONO OAKS DR LC»T6 LAKE MN 55356 l\ j r> RUN DATE 05/23/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QMNEnS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 32BATCH 507PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 35-118-23 43 000400038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN fDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 35-118-23 43 002201190 LYMAN AVE D E PALWR A J M PALWR BRIAN E A JULIA M PALMER 1190 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 43 002401200 LYMAN AVE R S A N N CORNNALL RICHARD S CORNNALL 1200 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR TOTAL BATCH 507 00021 ■r I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AF© TRUE REPRESENTATIW 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. DAT W?., trie -t., t-- 4.V ST. -T? 1 \ SEn; em I- I™ n[iisau BE! 1 ...~--.r.r.........:>5\ ^ *•... ................................... ■*•. ............................................................... ..........................• // *^*\ .. ........................... ................. ................................................ ••. •’/ ‘’V ....................... .................. 's.................... .................................................... ...................... • * ! >♦ s ft t; • • ». s t t •• • •• • • * f • \ \ L^r •■;:*• *'* ‘ y y •'•'yy•* y •' jy^’' ^ .** y .* •■■■■'//.■■///.■■.■■.yy/ . • • • / • / • y/ • / / • / / . / r m i >!i Hi i n:i!f t MI ■ n i I!sl5s -""if? 5 8 Is ■“ ^ ii 11 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2251 NOTICE OF PLANTVING COMNOSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 18, 1997 TO:Marc & Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 06/16/97 VOTE: - FOR AGAINST Planning Commissiun recommends the following: No action required. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission made the following general comments regarding the proposed division: 1. Applicant should consider relocating the driveway outlot. 2. Wetland delineation will be required to verify all wetlands on the site. 3.Staff to define for the applicant what variances are needed for this project as proposed. Regarding the issue of whetlier the third acre for the back lots must be dry buildable, this has been an issue in only one subdivision since that ordinance w^as adopted. In that subdivision (Old Crystal Bay Road Addition), a back lot was platted with 2.6 acres dry and 0.8 acres wetland for a total of 3.4 acres. Planning Commission and Council concluded that since the intent of the back lot ordinance was to create buffers, that the wetland could be credited toward the third acre without creating a variance situation. No variance was required. You should proceed with your subdivision on the basis that the third acre may include wetlands. Remember, though, that per Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (A) (3 & 4), the required yards (i.e setbacks) must also meet 150% of the standard (50' front/rear becomes 75'; 30' side becomes 45 ’). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review’ and approval by the Planning Commission. Formal preliminary plat application and attachments must be submitted by Noon on Friday, June 27, 1997 to be placed on the July 21 Planning Commission agenda. 1 Hydrology Narrative for Whitehead Addition The proposed Whitehead Addition has five wetland basins lying within or partially within its site. The wetland basins were delineated by Peterson Environmental Consulting. The existing and proposed flow patterns for the site will remain the same. Basin E is proposed to be enlarged with a NURP pond replacing a historical fill area in the basin. The proposed NURP pond will treat nmoff from the proposed new cul-de-sac. Basin A drains to the north under the Luce Line Trail through a 36 inch culvert. Its normal water level appears to be 954.4, although the invert of the culvert is 952.9. Basins C and E drain north and east overland to Basin B. Basin B drains through a ditch along the Luce Line Trail to Wetland D. Wetland D has a normal water level of approximately 961 .1, although it outlets through a 36 inch culvert under the Luce Line Trail at an elevation of 953.4. The tributary drainage areas for the basins are as follows; Basin A Basin B Basin C Basin D Basin E 11.07ac. 4.97 ac. 0.46 ac. 11.95 ac. 2.96 ac. (Includes drainage from Basins C & E) (Includes drainage from Basins B, C & E) Rate control from Basin E will be maintained by the proposed 12 inch CMP under the driveway for Lot 2. A baffled weir wall skim floatables prior to leaving the basin. .V. is 54^ ./ u 7 i ti f An riii - To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 Subject:#2251 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Proposed Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Lut of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Drawing C - Sketch Plan D - Preliminary Plat Drawings E - Letter from City Engineer - June 11,1997 F - National Wetland Inventory Map G - 'Back Lot' Performance Standards (Subdivision Code Section 11.31, Subd. 5C) H - Map of Potential Highway 12 Impacts on Area I - Staff Memos and Selected Exhibits: Sketch Plan Review Memo - January 16, 1991 Planning Commission Action Notice - January 25, 1991 Preliminary Subdivision Memo - February 14, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1991 Staff sketches (1991):- Slopes > 18% - Drainfield Site Locations; 275' Radius Alignment - Possible cul-de-sac location within plat - Possible cul-de-sac loaction outside plat - Possible cul-de-sac at end of Lyman Avenue - Staff Conceptual 3-lot plat^^^ ^ Summaiy of Proposal Applicants propose a subdivision to create 3 new buildable lots adjacent to their existing residence. This application was reviewed as a sketch plan in January 1991 and as a preliminary plat in February 1991. Applicants did not proceed with the subdivision at that time, and no approvals were ever granted. The current proposal is identical to that reviewed in 1991. The property is characterized by steeply sloped wooded hills and interspersed wetlands. A small (1/3 acre) pond on the property appears to be man-made but is for all intents considered as a wetland for regulatory purposes. The property is difficult to develop because the slopes and wetlands severely limit the feasible locations for septic systems. Applicants' formerly failing trench septic system has been replaced with a new mound since the 1991 review. #2251 - Whitehead Sketch Plan June 12,1997 Page 2 Access to the site is via Lyman Avenue, a long, narrow dead-end road connecting with Smith Avenue and Orono Orchard Road. The westerly paved portion of Lyman is City-maintained dedicated right-of-way; the unpaved easterly portion serving applicants home and 4 others, consists merely of unplatted driveway easements, and is privately maintained. Proposed lot area data is as follows: Diy Wetland*Total Loti 2.0 ac 1.9 ac 3.9 ac Lot 2 2.0 ac 0.3 ac 2.3 ac Lot 3 (w/house)2.3 ac 0.3 ac 2.6 ac Lot 4 2.0 ac -2.0 ac Outlot A 0.22 ac -0.22 ac Outlot B 0.33 ac -0.33 ac 8.85 ac 2.5 ac 11.35ac ♦There appear to be additional non-Orono-protected wetlands on the property which have not been delineated but which appear on the National Wetland Inventory Map Because this subdivision is extensively discussed in the attached 1991 staff memos eind Planning Commission minutes, please refer to those memos (especially the staff memo of February 14,1991) for detailed discussion of the following issues: A) Upgrade of Lyman Avenue B) Access to proposed lots C) Septic issues D) Lot standards Code and Regulatory Changes Since 1991 There are a number of City Code changes as well as State and Federal regulations changes since 1991 which will impact this subdivision: 'Back Lot' performance standards adopted in 1993 will require that Lots 1 and 2 meet 150% of the 2-acre lot area requirement, and 150% of the yard depth requirements. Will the City grant a variance for the extra acre to be wetland rather than dry buildable? The wetlands on the property are now regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act as well as City regulations. At least one additional wetland not on City maps is shown on the National Wetland Inventory map and will have to be delineated. TTie location of this wetland will h n impact on Lot 2's proposed house location. This . Ill—-.r li. _rrr ^ #2251 - Whitehead Sketch Plan June 12,1997 Page 3 subdivision is subject to review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Stormwater facilities will be required as part of the subdivision, and these will have an impact on available developable area. Staff has concluded that staffs concerns raised in 1991 regarding the need to have all 4 proposed lots served by a new 'interior road', is probably not applicable to this subdivision because it doesn’t abut or directly access a major road. Individual driveways onto Lyman Avenue are not a problem. However, this does not 'legate concerns about the condition of Lyman Avenue. Staff Recommendation Please carefully review the memos and minutes from 1991 . Most if not all of the staff comments and recommendations from the February 14,1991 memo are still valid. Also review the City Engineer’s comments in his letter of June 11, 1997. Provide applicant with direction regarding the various issues noted above including lot standards and layout, access and necessary road upgrades, septic concerns, ar d any o*.!;<*r issues of concern. T*rri gT^TM i 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects Boneitroo. Roiene AnderUk jmd AiioctMei Inc ts jm AfftrmjH'ye Action BgiuH Ooporturvty Empio' v- Ott'^ G Bonestroo PI • Joseph c AnOeriifc PE • Varvm L Sofv.<ia PE • Richard E Turner PE • Gfenn R Coo* PE • RoPert G Schunicht PE • Je^^ry A Bourdon. P£ • CoOert W Rosene. P£ and Susan M Eberi n. C PA , Senior Consultants AfsociAte PnnctpAli Howard A Sanforo. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfetferie. PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Losirota PE • Robert C RusseK A I A • Marn A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautrrar'n. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson PE • Mark R Rolfs PE • Sidney P 'A'tiiiarrson PE . R S • Robert F Kotsmith Olficei Si Paul Rochester Wilimar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee June 11,1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: V.Tiitehead Subdivision File No. 139-1619 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the preliminary plat and sketch plan for the proposed Whitehead subdivision. The property is generally located south of the Luce Line, north of Lyman Avenue and east of Smith Avenue in the southwest quarter of Section 35, and the northwest quarter of Section 2. There are seveial significant issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Streets: Ljonan Avenue presently exists as a 12-foot to 15-foot wide paved access from Smith Avenue to approximately 900 feet east. From approximately 900 feet to 1800 feet east of Sinith Avenue, Lyman Avenue exists as a 12-foot wide gravel access. There is no existing turnaround or cul-de-sac on Lyman Avenue. Five homes are presently served by the gravel portion and an additional three homes are served by the paved portion of the road, i he present access is not acceptable from an engineering standpoint ano would limit the ability to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. 11 the proposed development is to proceed, we would recommend that the developer be responsible for the upgrade of Lymiin Avenue to private street standards, from Smith Avenue to the driveway location of Lot 3. A cul-de-sac should be constructed at this location, requiring that the existing 8-inch culvert be replaced. Widening of Lyman Drive should be to the north of the existing alignment due to trees and existing topography. The access point for Ouilot B onto Lyman Avenue has poor site distance and should be reviewed. The City code specifies a maximum length of 1000 feet and ten units on a cul-de-sac. All streets require a 30-MPH design speed and a 275-foot centerline radius. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. All streets require 50 feet ot rghi-of-way. Due to the existing house locations and topography on the site it would be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. A shorter centerline radius could be mitigated by placing curve ahead warning signs at both ends of the curve. A 20-foot paved surface may be an acceptable access if a variance is granted by the City. Public safety issue will need to be addressed. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. 2.Grading: Constructing the proposed mound systems, houses, and driveways will require nearly complete clearing and grading of the property. Due to the length of the driveway on Ouilot B it should be constructed to a 20-foot width to provide access for fire trucks. The grading for this driveway will likely require an 8-foot tall retaining wall. The wall should be designed by a registered engineer. The driveway 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ F 'x; 612-636-1311 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono Page -2- June II, 1997 to Lot 4 from Lyman Avenue wMl likely exceed acceptable grades even Aith a “tuck under" garage. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad elevations, driveway locations, and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Plans should be prepared for ihe street construction. 3. Drainage: Approximately one third of the property drains directly to the manmade pond at the center of the subdivision. It is likely that this pond would be classified as a wetland and protected under the current State and Federal laws. The property may have as many as five separate wetland areas, none of which are regulated by the DNR. A wetland investigation and delineation should be conducted on the property to determine the wetland limits. It appears that the development of Lot 2 will impact a portion of one of the wetland areas. Existing drainage ways along the west and north lines of Lot 2 should be defined and improved. A culvert will be required under the driveway to Lot 2. The plans shor'- ' be submitted to the Minnehaha Creel Watershed District for their review. The development will likely need to provide some type of storm water pond to meet the MCWD rules. If the manmade pond is determined to be exempt from the wetland regulations, it would be ideal for this purpose. An outlet structure should be constructed to control the pond levels and outflow s. 4. Easements: The platting should include a dedicated right-of-way for Lyman Drive and the cul-de-dac. The cul-de-sac will require a lot split/combination, or easement from the adjacent property. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of-ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 5. Financial Guarantee: VVT.en the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono :s K ( •X Q' \ Wi ? ! I HI « >.15i bOU.'tvs**♦'M ^ J4*** ■y.v«i i t -<o9 eg t^ovAu«»evK^ Lt>\*»d ~) . 0^ l/g - c,fi /. / <__________________________ L.«»-r SPeroototion Tests XSoil Borings ® Bench Mark Note: This system is to be constructed to meet the Mnnesoto Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance Note : Check all underground utilities r . *1, 1 Vnr!1 Vf « 4.1b r«#-rw<w c ra: •I .< ' y ‘it' .<».A < 1C J -<1D1^Vf^t-'MOVJl ■t«,v>\‘. ec> «<.^d ^ *.<=r- ^g- e-c- -<uc b^yn- 4:...! Vw - ■*<' -------- • CT\ ■ «»1<>1 ». 1 -r*__________________________ ®Percolotion Tests XSoil Borings ® Bench MorK Scale:Ui' PROPERTY OF: \.a^ <Ok^m\Q V ( C^AsrX n\-__\J. •Tttwr.*<u? V»'r>P ^»y^ ^9 . Note: This system is to be constructed to meet the Minnesolo Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 6 Local Ordinance Note : Check all underground utilities S-P Designed By*«^ 0ole:J>/^/:L(, b 3 TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 14,1997 SUBJECT: #2253 David Reinhold, 3551 Livingston Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing Note; This item was tabled at your July meeting at applicant's request. Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre sewered. Application: Request for lot areaiot width varia.ices to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner's List D - Surv ey E - Hardcover Zone Review Summary of Request This property currently contains an existing 720 s.f. house and 40 s.f. shed. The lot is 50'xl34.5’ or 0.15 acre. The LR-IC standards are 100’ width and 0.5 acre. Applicant requests area and width variances to allow replacement of the existing house with a new residence, and he indicates he may sell the lot rather than build on it himself. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Lot area required = 21,780 s.f.; existing = 6,725 s.f Required lot width = 100'; existing = 50' Required setbacks: 30' front and rear, 10' side. 2. 3. Sections 10.22/10.56: Hardcover in 500-1,000' zone is allowed at 35%. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Allowance for lot coverage by structures is 15% of total lot area or 1,500 s.f, whichever is greater. Zoning File #2253 July 14, 1997 Page 2 Discussion The existing house on the property is small and in poor condition, and has not been lived in for a few years. Applicant proposes to remove the existing house and either rebuild himself or sell the lot as a building site. A third option he is considering is sale to neighboring propertv owners for additional yard area. Applicant has not provided plans for a proposed house for the site. It may be reasonable to grant the variances requested to replace the existing house without knowing the parameters of a new house, only if all setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements are intended to be adhered to. Given the 35% hardcover limit, the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage allowance, and the required front, rear, side yard setback requirements, a modest residence with two car attached garage could be developed on this property without variances other than the requested lot area/w idth variances. A conforming residence might include the following: A. 28 ’x36' house + 24'x20' attached garage = 1,488 s.f. 16'x30’ driveway = 480 s.f 3‘x32’ sidew-alk = 96 s.f 10‘x^8’ deck = 180 s.f lO'xlO' shed = 100 s.f Total hardcover = 2,344 s.f or 34.9% Total lot coverage = 1,488 s.f B. C. D. E. This home could be two stories in height to gain square footage, but would have to be set at the 30' street setback line in order to meet hardcover requirements. Further, the attached garage would have to face the street. This combination of limitations leaves little flexibility in design, but may also yield an opportunity for creativity. Hardship Both adjacent properties contain existing homes, hence no additional land is available to make the lot larger. Further, of 73 homes in the neighborhood bounded by Shady wood Road on the east and Blaine Avenue on the west, including Livin; ston Avenue, Lyric Avenue and Crystal Place, 41 are on single 50' lois, 23 are on double 100' lots, and 9 are on triple 150' or larger lots. Construction of a new residence on this property would not be out of characier with the neighborhood, even though it would be significantly smaller than the zoning district standards. Also, it can be argued that a property containing a residence which meets the lot coverage, setback and hardcover standards should not be considered as "over built". Additionally, allowing the replacement of the existing deteriorated structure with a modest residence will help the City meet its goal of maintaining affordable housing in the City. 1 Zoning File #2253 July 14, 1997 Page 3 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission determines that this lot should be considered buildable, staff would recommend the follow ing conditions of approval: 1. Granting only the requested lot area and lot width variances. 2. Development of the property shall not exceed the 35% hardcover limit. 3. Development of the property shall not e.xceed the 1,500 s.f. "lot coverage by structures" allowance. At the time the existing house is removed, the existing shed shall also be removed. 5.Existing house to be removed within 90 days of variance approval (to avoid City proceeding with hazardous building action). 6. Applicant is advised as part of this approval that it is City's intent to grant no other variances for this property. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval per staffs recommendation, Recommend approval with other conditions, Table for further information (specify), Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. 'k*. y -• •—J cm^ OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2253 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 29, 1997 TO: David Reinhold 5333 Forest Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the folloviing: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled at applicant's request. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, August 18,1997; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available f. jm the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. V CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE Prior notice was given that the Orono Planning Commission will review application #2253, David Reinhold, 3551 Livingston Avenue, request for lot area and width variances to construct a new residence on said property, on Monday July 21,1997 at 7:00 p.m. This is to advise you that at the request of the applicant due to a schedule conflict, this item will nol be considered at the July 21 meeting. It has been rescheduled for the August 18,1997 Planning Commission Meeting to be held at the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, beginning at 7:00 p.m. All p**rfons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend this meeting. Written comments are soliciicd. Plans are available in the City Offices for review, by appointment. For an appointment call 473-7357. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Application 4 Date Received 7 Amount Paid o< CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.^^ ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address icz > A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_^ ' -V 8 § ( 4 i R a 8 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProjaettyAcquired u /1 q t?_______________ I (do) n^^also own the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property: residential Zoning District: other (specify)___________ ___________ ' 1' > /vvc Hi; A f*/? OC)^t:)zr APPLICANT Name Address: si'z r-w,-cf ig<j? Phone (home) 9oo-qz.j;->_______ _____ Phone (work) i-Soo • vllz.o^ City: iji xe, _____Zip: z c ' ~i i" OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in ‘detail: f L^py^ rr't t y)r iC-cy T7-P O'r'f-!J ' j=^ ^X/ZT7/f^^. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED V Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Ex'.sl-.., -Ic h/. iL ru -t-Qy I ih ___________ v3 J f 7 (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 4 © 4. 0 (3 8. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Ali..Qf thg following information must be submitted bv the apolicatinn Hi^adline datP in order for vour application to be considered complete: __ 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, Com 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'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 BYz" x 11" for reproduction. __ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘A" x 11"). — List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). — As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The^ Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour varjance appligation 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 tees (staff time not cov’ered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owTier 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 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third iMonday 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 hav'e an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE 12/20/96 BATCH 006 PROP ADOR ONNtR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PftOP ADDR aMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUrfTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST SB 17-117-2S 63 0060 03556 LIVINGSTON AVE COIN LONG CHRISTIAN D I NAtCY LONG 3556 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA m SS391 38 17-117-25 63 0065 03533 LIVINGSTON AVE S B SANDLER AKA SANDLER STEVEN B A KATHRYN A SANDLER 3553 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0060 03559 LIVINGSTON AVE D LEFEBVRE A L S CARNES DOMINIC LEFEBVRE 3559 LIVir46STON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0055 03556 LYRIC AVE R 0 BARTELL A K K BARTELL ROLAND D/KIMBERLY K BARTELL 3556 LYRIC AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0058 03500 LYRIC AVE RONALD THOMAS HILL RONALD THOMAS HILL 3508 LfRIC AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0153 03596 LYRIC AVE MICHAEL E A LAURA J MICHAEL E A LAURA J 3596 LYRIC AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 SHANSON SHANSON REPORT NO. P1635601 PAGE 16 38 17-117-23 63 0061 03520 LIVINGSTON AVE ROBERT EUGENE EBERT ROBERT EBERT 3520 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0066 03561 LIVINGSTON AVE JOANN M HOLSBECK JOMi M H0LS3ECK 3561 LIViraGSTON AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0069 03577 LIVINGSTON AVE ELIZABETH J BALTER ELIZABETH J BALTER 3577 LIVINGSTON NAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0056 03536 LYRIC AVE RICHARD R GILMORE CHARLES LEWIS HENKE 3536 LYRIC AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0168 03556 LIVINGSTON AVE R E & J M THOMPSON RICHARD E/JEAf4NE M THOMPSON 3556 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0066 03525 LIVINGSTON AVE S PUGH A T SOBERG SUSAN PUGH A TERRENCE SOBERG 3525 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0067 03551 LIVINGSTON AVE DAVID N REINHOLD DAVID N REINHOLD 3551 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0050 03585 LIVINGSTON AVE MICHAEL G MOSIMAN MICHAEL G MOSIMAN 3585 LIVINGSTONE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0057 03520 LYRIC AVE J A V NEGLEY JAMES A VICKY NEGLEY 3520 LYRIC AVE N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 63 0150 03572 LIVINGSTON AVE MARK H A KAREN L CUFF MARK H A KAREN L CUFF 3572 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MT4 55391 TOTAL BATCH 006 00016 aJ %I: CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVID REINHOLD LOT 6, BLOCK 4, NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA «n*o LIVINGSTON AVENUE 5-4S8 S 89 “59' E 50.00—. oin •7/ ooo <•9.2-^ rrm7.4 EXISTING i HOUSE LjaiI HLf iiiitii 19.9 -----> lO O) po (/) EXBTNG SHED*"''»*»"4. at \Q ■?v 15^ 49.92 meas 50.0* S 89*51'44" W M-.V.m: 1• %^NAL M RR TC ^fCTAfMO WAU » LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ! LOT 6. BLOCK 4. NAVARRE HEIGHTS o : denotes iron marker * : denotes distance as shown on the plat of NAVARRE HEIGHTS Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house and shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. lOn Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. I liiti.f >if, /‘i.m/iii. 4''^ l.mur.hk Nxi’itui’ • li*r\i;Liki \1\ I horcbv certify Ihiil this survey was prepared by me or under my dire» t super vision, and that I am a duly registered C i\ il Engineer and l and Surveyor under the laws (»l the Slate of Minnesota. r>i: 4’V4NI Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 DATi: h3-97 |"r 20* loHNo 96-450 i)i^ y (36) Ul7) S ^^HOLLOa (48] ^^?ig9*4a‘\rr I K)lt. 'I!’^ (^>•(33) (U) ( I3>- ooc •« 4rr2«s srnsrspr. sa I) 30) r.'s ^iO 2 d'tea Sim tW ■ar ail^?i£ lU Naa'M'C *«r^ ,1 5^11) S Mir#: («/1 V(45/ 10 rc N “lfib-iM'91-------- J3 5 n?l 1*2 B.ljSILW»™S'® ^ f, «v-^7>J->yT?5)i '* y/T<^-..(69/.. V % rt » LYRIC . 30 50 'rT Wi HHHtmIB i n l§- •! tf<S& SO 99 SO ?4- 25 I n ib2) asg '90 90 I- »8 ’ t9“ 20*^:iiS >!• i!j t «• 1 * ............... 230 •............ • »“ ^\0> *34 2 4M< NW ruto.«j 1 a»_ ^ ”***'~N (1^4) ^ laQ T* 33 33 (») 40 N (28)' ? i % w ^ ‘rfTn^'fl*T (IIC5A))— ■ NO 5j^y|^ C 5412642 1^..... t29***-»C OOC HO ««4Si€5-^ ■:^^P* fA •> •/•n;* R T5) 315.32 ^ , (34) .-. 500 n89*3« 2V* - - ^<V)» . (59) 3 (30) ^ 4T l-L^-a<60)s ?S 6 Vp/ '764 ^ ^ OUTLOT a ^(55) ■%, '«»i /3<fi 7T®' § /^3g) f 229.42 N62‘35'iytfh. Ia ^\A mffsffi^ 's susDivism of 0 0%00 0 ntn^F % TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Li Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator July 14,1997 #2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:22,324 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.512 acres) Application: The applicants propose building a wrap-around deck on an existing residence. The proposed deck extends into a required rear and side yard setback from Lydiard Avenue. The existing residence encroaches 5 ’ into the required 35' side yard adjacent to Lydiard Avenue. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) - LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District ^2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft.35 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard 22,324 sq. ft.150 ft.150+ ft.30' on west side The subject prop>erty does not meet the lot area or side yard adjacent to a street requirements. The proposed deck would encroach into required rear and side yards. The deck would encroach into the side yard an additional 6' from the kitchen which would reduce the required side yard to 21' at the point closest to the property line. The proposed deck would reduce the required rear yard to 23' where 30' is required. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75' 75'-250' 250 ’-500'22,324 sq. ft.3,766 sq. ft. (16.9%) 6,697.2 sq. ft. (30%) 4,415.7 sq. ft. (19.8%) None 500'-1,000' Hardcover is below the allowed amount for the 250-500' setback. U2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Page! Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The variance is for a deck. The residence can continue to be used as a residence without a deck. However, the proposed location is off of the kitchen area and would possibly have a view of Lake Minnetonka. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing kitchen was constructed at 30' from Lydiard Avenue instead of the required 35'. A deck that met the rear and side yard setbacks could only be constructed behind the residence or in the side yard next to the garage. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The purpose of a 35' side yard adjacent to a street is to maintain the same setback as the fix)nt yards along Lydiard Avenue. (See survey of adjacent property.) 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Decks are permitted in residential districts. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporaty use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. U225S Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly /Ivenue 7/21/97 Page 3 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 10. This is a comer zoning lot that essentially has two 35' setbacks from Kelly and Lydiard Avenues. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or stmctures in the district in which said land is located. Other comer lots in the LR-IB zoning district are required to meet a 35’ setback from the front property line and side yard adjacent to streets to maintain the same setback for properties that front on the adjacent street. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has indicated the reasons for the proposed deck. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance will be a convenience for the applicants to have a deck as proposed. However, the proposed deck is located off of the family room and kitchen. If the deck was located elsew'here on the lot, it would be next to bedrooms, the garage or in the front yard which is le'"' desirable. Issues 1.The lot does not meet the minimum lot area requirements. The existing residence is 30' from the west (Lydiard Ave.) side of the property line. 2.The topography of the zoning lot slopes approximately 8-10' from the front yard to the rear yard. The property immediately to the north has an elevation 6-8'; above the subject property. U2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/21/97 Page 4 3.The adjacent street, Lydiard Avenue, is platted at 50', however, the paved area is less than 50* in width, so that the yard area between the paved area and the existing residence is greater than 35'. 4. The permit history indicates that an addition was constructed in 1988. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To consider the size of the proposed deck, the desired view to the lake, the existing house layout and setback from Lydiard Avenue, the topography of the lot, and the tree cover and shrubbery between the subject property and the adjacent property. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat M£^) Hardcover Calculations Deck Calculations Adjacent Property Survey Subject Property Survey Permit History Topo Map Hardship Statement U2255 Rick and Deborah Rice 2700 Kelly Avenue 7/71/97 Pages I ii ) ’. ► • • 2 • i i- I . I . f • il .! • f » LOcArioK) MAf0 SEE MAP 61 -p K*<tZ'lOO 1 f ^ It f .*- ■# J % cr #22- c io 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-ccnfonning structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . . . , Site Address D D A> Application # Date Received 9 7 Amount Paid i) ?rr/Kvj ^ - / j U /4jrA A C#v Property Identification Number (P.I.D./_______________ Attach legal description to application if not included oi required survey. Date Property Acquired_______I ^'^'7_________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also o^^•n the^jacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _^^sidential ,___pother, (specify) Zoning District: i ( APPLIC Name AddressSl 7 DO /Zr //^ A- /y/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) / O ^ _____ Phone (work ) > V 6^? 7 City: • Zip:SlTJ?f/ Phone (home). Phone (work) City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUl^T Estimated Construction Cost $ *? ” O o Inscribe request in detail: %^;/J ‘UAA-ji ^ n DA l^/>r7 Sine ,-,r- f/»x.ly (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Hardcover Lot Coverage L^d(\/%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: ___________ ^^_____ f s-ryhi. /Cl y ____^ /^7ce ''yyy ^^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. X X 3. 4.N J 5. 6.y “*—^ 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property OvNTiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert)'. 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 exper ^gs incmTed-~m->,revie\v of this application, and certifies that the information suppl i ed i^true^iH:^ ecJ w the best -^f hi.s/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatu Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property__byCity staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpo^^ ^j^^^ga^nand^ of this request. ^ ^ Owner’s Signature /C /7 /C ,D^e _ ______ 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 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250' c 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE LO LO 05 05 r- A.House X =S.F. Length Wi<Jth X S3 S.F. X ss S.F. X S.F. B.Garage X « S.F. C.Driveway X S.F. X 3S S.F. D.Sidewalk X S3 S.F. X 8 S.F. E.Patio/Deck X S S.F. X 8 S.F. F.Landscape X 8 S.F. Underlain X 8 S.F. By Plastic X 8 S.F. G.Other X 8 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 8 S.F. TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE •S.F. A -r B X 100 8 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X as S.F. Length Width X 8 S.F. X 8 S.F. X 8 S.F. B.Garage X 8 S.F. C.Driveway X S.F. X 8 S.F. D.Sidewalk X S.F. X 8 S.F. E.Patio/Deck X 8 S.F. X 8 S.F. F.Landscape X 8 S.F. Underlain X 8 S.F. By Plastic X 8 S.F. G.Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE HHisn S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ ,,-S.F. A iwjr.i ••B X 100 =----\^i t -% A B A B # W . /• X /? H / t \ X • K** ' s5i ? ■»v« • • :l.- *.V lA i . \ s t... A.'s S 00*18* 46" E -189.81-* -189.81 • N 00*18' 48" W 5 YDIARD AVEN Is a. 1 i -1 # j \ ' *cAuet I" -lo" 3 DCN oTCS XexMJ MO»l. ^s*t) »t>e*oore& xe«M mom. co^;tft AReP. 3316 s.F. <riA.9v,)e‘.5.T T 6,e.«(k 5 22.3Z4 ^.P. k^.V.».,.V, r*ii.T. + T.op.SSCs ■TS : L-Of t* l_tfCA-rgO BETtMSeKJ z^»0'5.00 FfeBT PE.OKA lake MIMMETOO ^7^^- /<5>^ LEGAL DESCRIPTIOW pt «, VBRN - MAft MANOR Hennepin County, Minnesota MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS. SIT£ PLANNERS ^0l*79rS A«t«N. • C fS • Srcvtljm Ptrl, MIimcmI* SM2S (tiz^ 533-7StS OtU Sook-RB9« PtU No^ e)U^UD^^3G Pf\0 7{ 'Jl Wt KwfSv Pirtlfy Sitl tfili li • Imt cermt rvpmfitatlwi tf • wnir •! At toMfidtrlM «f At iSevt tftttHM Itntf tnd •! At ImUm tf tl btfUInn. It my. Ania \ mS a« tlMMi tfiwMAintfiu If Miy, frtni tr M mW l«iA LgleiaK- *T a S^/^/T ||£2. »U™v. Ra*. M./i££y ^w.-afl»it.g» ^ <5? 7^ Hdif PERMIT RECORD Permit No. /77 Date /^-/<7-XV ^ Type of Permit -7-7-6/7or-//'/9 -/.</■ 3//S 6/7. /7^^2r:te^cfO 7-^-73 (UQ ^ Hs-b li - lo IS" Jsn /J> o7^-i?'W 6vdU^ HARD SHIP REASONS TO GRANT DECK VARIANCE • THE BUILDING PAD HAS LIMITED SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL DECK ON WEST SIDE OF HOUSE. EAST SIDE OF HOUSE IS DAUGHTER’S BED ROOM. • THE EXISTING HOUSE FLOOR PLAN MAKES THE LOCATION OF THE REQUESTED DECK THE LOGICAL PLACE. I.E. FROM THE KITCHEN TO THE FAMILY ROOM. ALSO, THIS GROUND AREA CURRENTLY USED FOR ENTERTAINING IS SLANTED, DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND ON AND CONDUCIVE TO TURNING ANKLES. • SET BACK IS ALREADY ENCROACHED ON BY THE EXISTING BUILDING. ORIGINAL IDEA / PLAN ALWAYS CALLED FOR A DECK OFF OF THE FAMILY ROOM AND KITCHEN. • THE SIDE STREET SET BACK (35’) IS GREATER THAN A REGULAR SIDE YARD SET BACK (10’). • LYDIARD AVE. WHEN BUILT, WAS OFF SET TO PRESERVE LARGE MAPLE TREES ON EAST SIDE OF STREET. THUS GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF VERY LARGE SIDE YARD. WITH THIS DECK THERE WILL STILL BE PLENTY OF SPACE / LAWN WEST OF THE HOUSE. THESE ARE THE VERY SAME MAPLE TREES THAT PROVIDE SHADE FOR PROPOSED DECK. • OTHER EXISTING HOUSES ALONG LYDIARD AVE. ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN PROPOSED DECK. • PROPERTY OWNER HAS HANDICAP THAT MAKES GETTING AROUND ON THE GROUND VERY DIFFICULT AND THUS UNABLE TO ENJOY THE GREAT OUTDOORS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. • PROPOSED DECK WOULD ALLOW ENJOYABLE VIEW OF LAKE MINNETONKA. SET BACK VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 2700 KELLY AVE. LOT 8. VERN MAR MANOR J. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE:August 15, 1997 SUBJECT: #2264 Janet C. Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2 acres, sewer installation in progress. Application: Revised side setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances to construct additions to the existing residence. List of Exhibits: A - Plan A Site Plan and Elevations B - Plan B Site Plan and Elevations C - 1996 Approved Site Plan and Elevations D - Letter from Adjacent Property Owner E - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/31/97 F - Memo and Exhibits of 7/17/97 Note: This item was tabled at your July meeting pending additional review by the applicant for further review of the foundation and existing structure reuse possibilities. Absent the ability to reuse a substantial portion of the foundation and existing house, applicant would need lot area and width variances for what would be essentiallv new construction. Discussion Applicant has submitted two revised plans, both of which make use of substantial portions of the existing foundation and a number of walls of the existing house. Applicant has also now removed the side and ’ ':e setback encroachments which were not originally approved a year ago. However, after the Jul> meeting, during a meeting with the applicant, staff realized that the currently proposed plan has additional bulk of structure lakeward of the average lakeshore setback as compared to the original proposal which also requires further Planning Commission review. Plan A is the plan for which you reviewed the footprint in June, revised to exclude the cantilevered window that encroached the 75' setback and removing the three season porch which encroached on the 30 ’ side setback. Not brought to your attention in July was the fact that Plan A includes a much higher house than was approved a year ago, with additional bulk of structure encroaching the average setback line. Zoning File #2264 Augiist 15, 1997 Page 2 Plan B is a revised plan that still incorporates the existing house but proposes a slightly lower addition than Plan A, and extends the footprint area further to the north. This results in a slight change to the bulk of structure encroaching the average setback. Applicant’s uphill neignbor who would be most affected by the average setback encroachments has provided a letter indicating he approves of plans for the two story house and has no problem with the encroachments of the average setback line, noting that the additions will not impact his lakeshore views. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. When comparing the criginally approved plan with the currently proposed Plans A and B, does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the encroachment of this structure into the average setback? Given that applicant has r i' erted back to a proposal that will make use of the existing foundation and a significant portion of the existing h* luse. does Planning Commission concur with staff that no area oi w idth variances are i.ecessaiy , and that the 1996 provisions for 0-75' hardcover removals in exchange for reconstructing the terrace in the 0-75' zone, is still acceptable? Are both Plans A and B acceptable to Planning Commission? Applicant submitted both plans to avoid a further delay should Planning Commission conclude that the bulk of structure encroaching average setback in one or the other is too extensive ... Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is provided with site plans and elevation views for the originally approved house; for Plan A which has been niodified since > our July review; and Plan B which is a new plan. For all three plans, applicant has indicated that substantial amounts of the existing foundation and existing residence will be saved and incorporated into the building, thus avoiding the need for lot area and width variances. Applicants intent is to avoid the need to move the residence to a completely conforming location, thereb> allowing the reconstruction of a serni-circular terrace in the 0-75' in exchange for significant 0-75' removals, resulting in a hardcover reduction in that zone. If Planning Commission concludes that there is sufficient hardship to justify granting the average lakeshore setback encroachments of Plan A and Plan B, and concludes that the findings of Resolution #3761 regarding hardcover on the site still apply, then a recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate. 1 2 Zoning File #2264 August 15, 1997 Page 3 Options for Action 1. 5. Recommend approval of Plan A and/or Plan B subject to the findings and conditions of Resolution #3761. 2. Recommend approval with revisions or other conditions. 3. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. -V \/ % / fr-H# i? '• •*’^-;. \'lvl; -I. ■ I». 1 • . r \y. -y “ ■ ■ V. \* •*. t \ • 5 . . ‘ V. • ’ mm w ' *’'*‘'i* j • : •• . *’• ,• ’ *• . i “• ■ . •• '■.•'■‘'ri' •• • ' V V I / / / r* ■t I; V* • s . . I• . V'. , V I y* •r A ¥ \\il .1..V. \;s.Vs\:\ •>>:••••..■:' 'fill?m u\ V >. r- V' i ;\: IIIH r\l\) -?• = -•w L^' V • • •• 1 .t:. •;.* » a / « *% * * * • » s '• • • « • • t • . . }•. *‘•^ #1 •• * V' * . .. - \ • *• /• .. ' , w •••...* •. ^ • .' -V/ • !‘'> . -t • . » . ^ . ?. •**• t • ' 1L■ :^v'' . ■ )/^' -''n j / / ••' ^ f / »'.>.•* * • •0 • I / . / — ^ V.*is:r i \ ^ \ w . •'Va* I-»• •«* .• •: . n . - t .t:. -;.y . • •? .* 41 ‘ v: -V •V • ;* . • '* r */• i-.l. <. *- ’N. - .v!: ♦* ! •• • *. • r « ..• < .* *••• * I ' *• .1 ./:■■ r •••' •.• . *• . ' . • * • •_ ... .;| . a* # / • .* •, .«v. •*• • / / * ' •■ ■‘Vr, • •! • • * • ♦* •^ , • . * • • >V > I •*.« « 4 f J rici^uaop} ?Hp f^ioon r fuooh i f^i^vamorl 6cAte.; j^*t=.i .£S A V ■• . ..: • PZAAJ A Vl^ui piZjO*^ lAt^ 1 ^ • » 9 . ' J ■ mi ■•'. *Sl MTU- ftno £>fiU7b ^ ■J J ' .• '9- %9 I •T i •V.; 1 ' . .• ?MW A soun{\ V^: ■ • .‘A# • • 4 rlu^y€>dt.\ j) ^ ui»j^ (U. ^kfit4\ rooff\ P4AAJ A IaJ^^T" \ fiJmp u}cq> L • ^ _ # -oprr hi ^UeVATlorl 1 • • . • ?LAhi A 'Ti]£ m\ 6tla^euH6p(»)i oftotoi rlri >. r^\9<!in ..;* «, * • 0 •. • \ • • • W . ** ; If* -'.' 1 * ^ * J • :'»•***.-> .1 » •••.?."; •. i'.l . * •V'/*'*' •*1 • i* • *.*• *A<; *.*•• ■• .,V‘ . • 9 / '■! V v.:i{Vpw I. • I • ’n • jI*,!. t</im -•* • •* ••T: ■:V ■■■:■• ^ • - HI ipafU] y^. • .-.;v . .*• ./••• ti'^ira •0. I ; r.- • '>•»I r;/ t I •«.•:-... •»-jV.r.tt' •;•. i%‘l% • w* , kt.i' ‘ i *’.• 4 • ‘V irf) «*4..Vsi ^:v Vvl;^ .. _ ii!:' '■I hi\)•’»•< .‘/M: V, V.- 4 I ••• '.'* f-yi*-'»' I-<1 •• •.'. : .* -f; •?* <.-' : • , #** * • ,r •*.V;.,>^.. vvi •»•**./; I V •» . *• . r-; • '• ; . * 1-2 .; • • : >f V. y ^ -iV . « ./• § *. -.r’ ■'•'• * ® ■ , • ..•«^ f ■ *# *^* I • * * \ * ** / ^ ■ ‘ .• *• • 'i*'**' * '* ■» ‘V ^ *• ’’• ” * "' / •■ ' f ^ * yv •***•• i ' ^ *•*V *} ‘___laJ* .; k* .•^ -v?v^v^,^:4^vv^ •. • • • ’ * \'. * irA .v •• s"' *.• ■‘■y<r v'iV'yX —fv;-^ 4. \ I* A ^ k . I . . ,i •**' V :• *|g7fik • ^.4.'-.. <1 AuS4» • * ’• * *,• *v!* *••'•• ••****'* • • •* • *;l : ** fci'rf**<•,; •' -■ A . . <1. M /ft .• I • v-rrt ‘v.\* •.'• . •••-,1, ,• ? ■ ' \ • • » . p . . . .“*—-7-..^.,.______ *** * • «•••». . ,, n\rxts Sh 11 S' iiPi ^.!ttlt*v r mMm /.!' r^§<i 4;;ttv 1 f h iJ^.rM.ul'r B: ■?'4 . -5:s ■'^*pprwT:>z?6dh V *% n 'l' -V-f /. '• . I _Oi::-;« ! ♦ ■.'••- 7 ''f ',‘.'- iCi -1 f [iirstjMiyiiii(' '^# .1^/ TT ,|MIMM(| l#» , L:^^T> i iWMr M II** . L ' ' . J 4 . J • \ '! j A. • •. f > ‘;v / V / tv,41 r:;)n ■ \ I ■•..'TJSp ## ;ii!dATi «• ;?vs*1 1 I - • y?-' ♦ Si § Z *• f i . ‘ % / tJ fkmKom * ||l|t/“ — |5^ iiBBHMW? C‘cn‘'S' ■ jlj ; l-'rr-'.' , P;uv<' r • »■ |fe I HP •f - ',r^,y i ..^v- ..... fiWj !•%' (W* ';I*S#** ^ TC. X V . •5a»" .i1ii,« ■ f«i BnP' I../T *\'jr ^ ir- ’ ifcllii UK 4 % ^ i: iffin ■ M^Akii U P t/;. -.,':m I'iiiviiIsli 'upw ym 7 " i. j5 < I ST rj. ? / » -♦ -N .y / / /; .•w- *• r:‘.'| |(V-...*.*i to) r. X August 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Gaffron, This is to inform the city of Orono that we have reviewed Janet Kieman’s plans for a two stoiy house at 1491 Shoreline Drive . We approve the placement of the house in front of the average set back line. It does not affect our lake view and improves the property considerably. We encourage you to support her plans. Sincerely, Eric & Susan Beringause 1489 Shoreline Drive *iO, MN. V> f CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2264 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 31,1997 TO: Janet C. Kieman 2209 Totem Trail Minnetonka, MN 55305 COPIES TO; TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled for further review of foundation re-use possibilities. Per our meeting of July 23rd, additional bulk of structure encroaching in the average setback and side setbacks has been identified when compared to the originally approved plans. Therefore, the current plans must be reviewed and variances approved even if you are successful in re-using the existing structure. Per our meeting, you will provide additional depictions to clarify the current encroachments and identify portions of the existing house to be saved. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the August 18th meeting is August 8th. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, August 18,1997; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. To;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Coffiniission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:July 17, 1997 Subject: #2264 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Sewered Application: Revised side setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence. Application also involves the need for lot area and width variances due to the change in scope of the project. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan Proposed with Building Permit Application F - Site Plan Approved with Variance Application #2166 G - Resolution No. 3761 Adopted September 9, 1996 Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.22, 10.55, 10.56: - 75' lakeshore setback required - no average setback encroachment allowed 2. 10.23 Subd. 6B: LR-IA lot standards: - 2 acre lot area, 200' lot width - 30' side yard setback Discussion Applicant was granted variances in September 1996 to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and revise the roof of the existing residence, portions of which were located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback as well as encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback. The original application was intended as a remodeling and addition project, which was based on the existing residence structure remaining substantially in place. At the time the building permit application was made, it became clear that applicant proposes F Zoning File #2264 July 17, 1997 Page 2 to remove the entire superstructure of the residence, and likely will be able to reuse only parts of the foundation. Additionally, it was determined that the plan submitted for the building permit had been revised from those used to gain variance approval in 1996. Specifically, while the bulk of structure has been slightly reduced, there is a new encroachment into the 0-75' setback, as well as an additional encroachment within the 30' side setback. The proposed complete removal of the existing residence not only triggers the need for a lot area and lot width variance, but also provides the City with an opportunity to have the new construction substantially meet the City's setback requirements if that is deemed feasible and appropriate. Applicant's new site plan includes some minor revisions to hardcover layout on the site, as well as reducing the proposed detached garage addition to only one additional stall, in order to meet the hardcover limitations as imposed by the prior approval, as well as meet the required street setback. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. Is the new minor encroachment into the 0-75' setback zone justified by any hardship, or should the house be further redesigned to eliminate that encroaclunent? (Compare Exhibits E & F) Is the proposed additional side setback encroachment appropriate and justified, or should that encroachment be eliminated? Given the nature of the property, including orientation and relationship to neighboring houses, the steep hill to the north, the septic system location in the hillside, tree locations, etc., is there justification to grant variances to allow reconstruction of the residence substantially within its existing non-conforming footprint, or should the City take this opportunity to require that the new home be constructed at a location meeting setback requirements? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission must take into account the site factors noted above in determining whether it would be appropriate to require redesign and/or a relocation of the residence. The existing house is currently sitting empty, and applicant had every intention of commencing construction in late June when the new variance concerns were discovered. 1 Zoning File #2264 July 17, 1997 Page 3 Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 5. Recommend approval of the revised plans with the two new setback encroachments, recommend approval of the technically required lot area and width variances (area = approximately 1.0 acre, width = approximately 187'), and allow reconstruction within the existing footprint. Recommend approval of lot area and width variances and new residence be moved or redesigned to meet side and lakeshore setback requirements. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. * .-4 J JUN-:2T-<>7 FFI mm BPEIUIMG mMP M330C. PC 3 14 r3 1 2«S?T •P . 02 Application it Date Received Amount Paid ^;7 ^*^** CITV*^ OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variaace) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r>e. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)rropClTy iat’nuucwitiuii -----------------——----—----------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pro perty Acquired_______—---------------------------------------------------,(montli/year) _ > ^ ^ 'E^v i ________ A 1 . A « A ^ .X. r-x. m f ^ % I dx . v-o) ^ ' Present use of propert>’: \r residential ___^oihcr (specify) Zoning Dis rict:__________________________________—- applicant ' , Phone (home ), .'TAvIg.T c:. k ____ Phone (work).INiimC If w- L—-------------------I-.T - ---- f A - J------' ---------------- ' Address:_^0‘7 _Z2 l ZE2L_22L_ C\ir--../VTA^Zip: -6 OWIVER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________- Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address:_ City:,Zip;. -------- (attach additional sheets if ncccssar>) C3// VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _____ hot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback;/ Front j/_ Side Rear Average Lakcshorc ,/ other (specify) 7Z> tet^e ,scribe undue hardship or praet.eal d,t. ul^or unusua, prui^ea,,^ amplianec aeath Zoning Code teqmremt • • JtM< (i ^ , T - V h^flAiiS-iL JUtl-rT-q? FPI 09';-43 AM DKE1LIHG wflD iOC . F C ?i4 rsi :;*5.'5'F- . O 3 : i ' 'Jit ^‘: REQUIRED SUBMITTA.es ^/nf " itL'if . « vA. ' i • * • t • « All of the following information muM be siibmincd bv the aDplicutiaiL_dl_At Hi»« dt*te ju nrJfr for vo»»' tipplication to be considered complete: I o 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Fonn Certified Pioptriy Owners List of owners within 150‘, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and ntap from Hennepin County Department ot Finance, A-603. Govt Center. 348-3271). Certificate of Surrey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S‘'i x 11 tor reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V;" X 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of fioor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'//' x U"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest tn the propetty. This would include name(s) of appUcam(s) if not current ourici(S) As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons you wish notified of tltis application. Additional items as may be requested by C'itv' stafl. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that application is not comnUtc if the above information haS HQt-b^enJllcIudfedi AFPUCAM ’S sicnatuke ^ k 7 Jht applicant liereby agrees to provide all infopnanon required or requesied by the Zoning Adiiiinistrator, agrees to pay additional fees ts.off liine noi covered by original paymeni . and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of tlu.v application, and ccrlitics a information supplied is true and correct to the best of his-lier knowledge Date U7/V 7 The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furtlier enUT onto Uic propetiv by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission membu.. members for pur^ioses of investigation and verification ot this request. OwTier’s Signatme ' —I'A^*■ L 't ' •>■* •,Date Annlicanl must ha^e all submittals into the Ciry offices 25 clays tetore the PUn.dng Conimissioi Mectint; Planning Conumssion Meetings arc held on die tlurd Monda> cl eadi ^ vith ADPlicants must bo present at all scheduled review meetings of the O.mnrissiou and Council. If an applicant it unable to attend a make aiTangemenis to have en authorized agtiu attend m your place and to aduse Bull - - . & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ( i3) ■353.72 \75.3< /v WT (18) ^ / kr'^(£y oy tav - ^ :ca \)xrw^ - .1""% ' (» :4 -t', •/ ^ / / .’?5 4 ^ 0(9) 'it) ^ ^ ^ ■'^’'^4@' •' .’.51/ 0 r. ^ ! L‘ £'-:.J^g '^ V 7 .\ ./?-,’ r ie7*>3'36*£ !3^?2 . 99. !9 'WmiMm i06. 94 N • V • • • l^o:.:;:;;v:;:;:;;/ “T* / i\ (n ^ / Af^ND0.'<£0 ROACA'Ar ' ScE DOC NO 2967725 TORRENS CASE NO I2J83 \ I *</ . (19) \ \ \ -r^ HM DATE 07/ZA/9&• ♦HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LISTBATCH 503 REPORT NO. PIA35A0X PA6fi AmOR ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 11-117-23 23 0002 / 01A75 SHORELINE DR 0 H A E A SCHNITT DOUQLAS R A ELLEN A SCHHITT 1475 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 SB 11-117-23 23 0008 01491 SHORELINE DR JANET C KIERNAN JANET C RIERNAN 1491 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 36 11-117-23 23 OOdO 01489 SHORELINE Dfl ERIC H BERINOAUSE ERIC H BERINGAUSE 1489 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA m 55391 PROP A1 OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 11-117-23 23 0010 01487 SHORELINE DR R L HAAOE AIL HAADE ROBERT L A IRIS L HAAOE 1487 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA HN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0011 01485 GREEN TREES RD 0 L A H H VERGEYLE DAVID A MARGARET VERGEYLE 1485 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA m 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0015 01510 GREEN TREES RD R H i.cNNY ASH LENNY RICHARD H LENNY 1510 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 11-117-23 23 OOU 01480 GREEN TREES RD CAS PUTOU CARL A SUSAN PUTOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CAS PUTOU CARL N A SUSAN PUTOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0018 00038 AmORESS UNASSIGNEO GREEN TREES HQMEOHNERS ASSOC GREEN TREES HOHEOItlERS ASSOC C/O JACK 0 YOST 1515 GREEN TREES RD NAYZATA MN 55391 I PROP ADOR OMNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR / . 38 11-117-23 32 0001 ‘ 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RD CORINNE GRIFFITH PILLSBURY CORINNE 6 PILLSBURY 4800 FIRST BANK PLACE MPLS MN 55402 38 11-117-23 32 0010 01265 BRACKETTS POINT RD MICHAEL E LYNN III A NIFE MICHAEL A JORJA LYNN III 1265 BRACKETTS POINT HAYZATA m 55391 38 11-117-23 32 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CORINNE GRIFFITH PILLSBURY CORINNE G PILLSBURY 4800 FIRST BANK PLACE MPLS m 55402 -r./ . PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 11-117-23 32 0018 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RD ELU P CROSBY ELU P CROSBY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 • ;V* TOTAL BATCH 503 00013 ^ I* % • c • • •. " / ■ »lw ‘.• • •% 1 •• * ,'•/ v !^. :-W ^ :• \ >' * *,•* *' \ *. • \ *•. . .* i .* ,!* • I . . •: < *. • •*- .1 r*. •v»^ 'I ■' ■............ I y^il BI irt| I ,.,, , I., 1., 1^ ^ t !■ ........................I r pl**» ^11 f' '■ * » •* J . . ..ii • rv ...''v, ‘. -——^. ' > .' -'K'V' 7; y: * f •• • • •. *. 1 V >; v y ^ \ r. ^ •' -• • ♦ •• • vjiv/*''*---' '/• fv.-.. VI. . . V . -v • ■> ; •-•*/‘v,:-- u:i r-jr ••: * ui ^ . .. . ... .f. ' •X . * *• .'. *. •.', * • . • • • • ». ‘s “ • . • ‘ ■ ^ * •» ’ t;' -4 *.-.•*.**•►• • *?*« i* * **•. • . ‘ ■ ,ji '__________'* ' —^ '4 f*fellt y iv'v. .1^ .*. y , ,*■. , .* . .**1 rf \ ***‘7.1 •:' •* • • •,.*• » ‘ '..N •*. »?:*. • V • • **' xz± $ • • * : f \ . ‘ --------‘ ••• .* s/.. ./ \ •■, u , » ... ^^r^i . . -. : . . -•.— ------------------ • ,, • „.* >■■.•.•; ...V,;--.. ■ . ^ .'.•*• .^‘•‘.*» ••:.*• • • • • M s :7 • / *. .. f •: < 40. 2 0' ■'■='•1 Q- :.'.§OT, \ I i 4‘'t> '••.(*.^‘ C?V-""' • •' ji‘ > t'• /'?.' ■•T'. ’■ • 7 >!?. ;•;.. \‘4,T-iyr■,flV..*.V. •* IH I. ?.i I; ‘'V ;•• • ./ I •'■•> ■lij.;.'•• •; /•; • . / ' V / * • *• / • *. »• .vtV» I • • /'.' V* ' j i* ’• ’.^1 f V •'• • . .*• * j»• . . I .* • •• .*•.*•; ^ .? / . -• '' / : > -r ;. ■• •I t Jiy»‘ tv.»; r/v. ‘t • V 7 /.* A : . •V • V. I 4i .1 ' wX. 7 S. ' \l V ,..y #! • # * . • • •• •/. X\.’•• *’*'* ''XX-v/ X l^v:-^•' • v.iivv,vv:;i:^$S4 VV.X-B V. nVX VO •*» * 7 ••••; /'^ X • »I *. v!:-;r*(>/v V A • n> 4« I . ‘. ‘.X •■•.. f . • '• ^ ‘ «i;.;y ;y4*;r|.' ; ; • A . • . 4 •''A •'•k'i.’SI if / - 7'r f / ' r i ’'UlV/'.4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 61 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO ML’NICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIOiNS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) & (L) FILE #2166 WHEREAS, Janet Kieman (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1491 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions I and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2166. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 'm CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 61 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 19, 1996, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances subject to the following conditions and based upon the following findings: A. The major proposed room addition to the existing house will be located behind the 75’ lakeshore setback line. Some proposed revisions to existing roof lines will encroach both the 75' lakeshore setback and the 30' required side setback, however none of these additions will increase the footprint of the encroaching portions of the house, nor will walls be moved closer to the respective lot lines. Therefore, the additional impact of the additions and roof line revisions on neighboring properties is minimal. B. C. D. E. The existing house encroaches approximately 26' past the average lakeshore setback line, and the room additions to the north of the existing house will cause an additional average setback encroachment of a lesser magnitude. No neighboring property views of the lake are encroached upon by either the existing house or the proposed additions, hence there is no impact on neighboring properties by granting the average lakeshore setback variance. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to be reduced from 6.0% to 3.9% by removing certain existing hardcover items and replacing them with a terrace area at a reduced level of hardcover. Hardcover in the 75- 250' zone is proposed to increase from 27.5% to 27.6%, and the impact of this minor increase is minimal. The location of the existing house with its existing encroachments into the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and side setback is a hardship to the property. The driveway relocation is a positive improvement to the property, and the 75-250 ’ hardcover variance is justified by the need to provide adequate off street parking for the residence since no parking is available in the County Road 15 right-of-way at this location. Page 2 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 61 ^ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. F.The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required 15‘ street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. to keep it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject to much stricter setback standards. The applicant has revised the proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback variance for construction of two additional garage stalls, and has provided plans showing the footprint of that garage to be less than 1,000 s.f. in order that the garage be a conforming structure. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocation and finds the driveway configuration feasible but indicates additional design work and/or agreements with the neighboring property owner are necessary and must be completed prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed improvements to the property. The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer on the property and has indicated that the proposed improvements will not hinder sewer development, but has indicated that certain sewer easements may be required. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 61____ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of i Jditions tD the existing residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover a*id structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 3.9% per the revised site plan and hardcover worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 27.6% as shown on E.xhibit B. The hardcover removals necessary to achieve these hardcover levels shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction, except that removals associated with driveway reconstruction may be delayed with the approval of the building inspector in order that construction traffic not be impeded. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre existing hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. 2.Applicant shall provide adequate grading and drainage plans for the proposed driveway relocation which must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions and site improvements. 3.Projierty owner is advised that the existing and proposed house at a 4-bedroom design shall not be increased to a 5-or-more bedroom design until such time that municipal sewer has been provided to the property. 4. The applicant and future City Councils are advised that the current City Council ( Page 4 of 8 m €lTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 fi 1_____ intends that no future additional structure in the 0-75' zone should be approved for this property. 5.The property o\Mier is advised that the City will likely require a municipal sewer easement along the ..est boundary of the property, such easement location to be defined at some future time. 6.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the i^plicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of thj date of Coimcil approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 9, 1997), 7.Violation of or non-compliance .vith 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. 8.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereb> 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 City Council on this 9th day of September, 1996. ATTEST: / L. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor j »perty Owner(s) Page 5 of 8 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL 8761NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of September, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. i Notary Public Page 6 of 8 1 TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:August 7, 1997 SUBJECT: #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkaview Lane Conditional Use Permit, Variances-Public Hearing Zoning Dutrict: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:46,938 square feet (1.08 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing the construction of a 26' by 38' (988 sq. ft.) detached garage and additional concrete driveway in front of the existing residence. The proposed height of the garage is 24 feet, where the height of the existing residence is 13 feet. Variances are needed for locating a garage in front of a principal structure and side yard setback. A conditional use permit is required for its location on a through lot. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03-General Provisions Section 10.03, Subd. 9 B-Height Restrictions Subd. 9 D-Location Subd. 9 E-Setbacks Subd. 10-CUP Through Lot 1^2270 Marcta and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkaview Lane S/18/97 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet (15 feet lor structures > 750 ..f.) 35 feet (abutting street) Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Ij>t Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard 1.08 acres 120 feet 110 feet to house 11 feet for propo.sed garage The subject property meets lot size requirements. The lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirement and the proposed location of the garage does not meet the 15' setback from the side yard. A variance to locate the proposed garage 11' from the property line is requested. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 46,938 s.f.1,702 s.f.-existing 2,690 s.f.-proposed 4%-existing 6%-proposed Structural coverage is not an issue with this application 02270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkaview Lane 8/18/97 Page! Hardcover Distance anoreline 250-500' 500-1,000' Total Area in Setback 22,000 s.f. 24,938 s.f. Existing Hardcover 38 s.f. (.17%) 4.845 s.f. (19.4%) Allowed Hardcover 6,600 s.f. (30%) 8,728.3 s.f. (35%) Proposed Hardcover 38 s.f. (.17%) 6,139 s.f. (25%) Variance Requested none none Hardcover is not an issue. The subject property with the proposed garage does not exceed hardcover limitations. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. It would be possible for the owners to obtain reasonable use of the property in its current state, however, currently there is not enclosed storage for vehicles on the lot.. Building the proposed structure would allow them greater enjoyment of their property. The garage would allow them to park their boat and camper out of view and protect them from the elements. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. There are topographical limitations on the property. The rear yard has significant slope, as well as the south side yard. The north side yard does not allow sufficient space for the construction of a garage. Due to chese limitations, the area in front of the principal structure is the only feasible location for a garage. 3. The variances, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality. The side yard and height variances are of the greatest concern. A height variance for an accessory structure that is two stories near the street will change the lot's appearance from Tonkaview Lane U2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkaview Lane S/18/9-^ Page 2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A detached garage on a through lot is a conditional use in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Due to significant topography and lot configuration, location of the desired garage elsewhere on the property would be difficult. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Many lots in the surrounding area have significant topography limiting where development may occur on the lots. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoymen* of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also refer to the statement of hardship. The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, jr in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. §2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkayfie^i Lane 8/l8^'97 Page^ The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance for locating the garage in front of the principal structure is necessary to alleviate hardship. The significant topography inhibits construction of the garage elsewhere on the lot. The variances for height and side yard setback would merely serve as conveniences to the applicant as the garage could easily be reconfigured and redesigned to meet these requirements. Issues Due to the lot width being 20 feet less than the zoning district minimum standard and the location of the house, it is not possible to build the garage on the relatively level north side yard. 2. 3, The rear and south side yards have significant downhill slopes away from the street. Some large trees have already been removed. It appears that Cottonwoods, which are not considered to be a desired species were removed. The rojirnce was constructed prior to 1960. In 1972 the property was connected to city sewer. In 1978 permits were issued for a well and for fire repairs. In 1989 permits were issued for reroofing the house, reroofing and residing a shed and a mechanical permit. A stop work order was placed on the reroofing of the house as work began prior to obtaining a permit. There have been no previous variances or conditional use permits granted. 5.A non-conforming 12.30' by 12.47' shed exists near the street within the required front vard setback. U2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey 4640 Tonkaview Lane 8/18/97 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this application subject to several amendments. The issue of height is problematic as the existing residence is one story as viewed from the road, while Ihe proposed garage is two stories. This height discrepancy is exacerbated by the garage being nearer to the street than the existing residence. It is recommended the height of the garage be no greater than the existing residence to maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard variance of 4* to allow all' setback where 15 feet is required for accessory structures over 750 square feet. A garage with the proposed footprint of 36 ’ by 28' could be placed either 4 feet to the south or be aligned to face the street at the same angle as the house to eliminate a side setback variance. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for locating an accessory structure on a through lot and approval of the variance to allow the garage to be located in front of the principal structure. Due to the non conforming width of the lot and steep topography, it would be difficult to locate the structure elsewhere of the lot. Staff recommends as a condition of approval of the amended application that the non- conforming 12.3 ’ by 12.47 ’ shed near the street within the required front yard setback be removed prior to any new construction. The additional storage space should no longer be necessary if a garage with the proposed 26' by 38’ footprint is built. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Lot Setbacks Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Proposed Structure-Front View Proposed Structure-Side View Sketch of Principal Structure to measure height file 7^2 2 ?a MACO^hi P ^^CElVBo ^^ha'>7 CZ^>>^ceP^^^OFioi^Q 7^«f? y^cft 'i'h^ c(ye^ <z.hos*^ '/» /‘T^ ^ee-^3 ^ -^e '/^e^cci^use Te* /7^ ^ee-^3 t-* k^os'f /W/^^Z ~74^o S'f/'^tri' ot^, -3? it/} ~"H^<‘ 7 }' -- - - '>#^«f ^^UC i/OOn!*^ '/o C'C^*/^/^^^•7^ (^a'i- <5 y c/e/<^ T”"'' ' t/o^^d . tyO^ ^]^3>0 I S- // /*/ /«^ Lo/Z/ ^ ^ ^i7e4c^ '/"6 f)G*< p^€^ck^i» ~4"h c? f // A/Ze. €z.kD^<. *^e, f-o^lL d/k a<^/" V' i//e-o i/0^>^ '4j^ Cl - r» 7^4 J-5 7^/f^r^ «A^cc/e^ /^£>£cd /t^ulibo/S '4- AjiS 7*^ A/_r ^(Z £>boi/e. *7^^e I^o-n^ "Via u5e 7^« TO»^ vr/i sU‘<r. "T^^w/b ;i < •• * • <^ -^he. DU/ J5^ . /2' 3" • - • «» J Application # ‘ ReceiyedDate Receiyed lo -Q ~7 Amount Paid 5?so CIXY 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 $22 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFOR^TION SiteAddress Z-«/f__________ _______ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^7~//7"23 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ____________________________ I (do) (do nqt) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential o ther (specify)_________ Zoning District: L^- I f?________________ (month/year) APPLICAl^ Name i ct ^ rfe'^ Address: fo^i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________ Phone fheme^ ‘ _____ Phonefwork ^ ^ City: Zip: Phone (horneX Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Constmetion Cost $ •f ’4~o Ifu] 14 ► fZ ^ ^ ^ y 3g'y 10' Wu (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED • Lot Area Lot Width Setback: V* Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) 1-1^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing UO/TT;^ Tet^iric^Croydlj^^i at>i 1 Y* d U\ii ^ • -/~ <^1 -f _______ . .. • (attach ’additional sheets if necessary) 7 (43) 157.5 e.4 7^ 90 (19) / # ✓ 25 / / t44)In V I ^4) / /( i- (25)/ Jj PT OF eg -X •4'> .vl/'9 i" T0KKAVI (46) 7i <5^(27 / -fc ^C-'30/ Vo B l5*(37) o. 260.2 (29) .^v (28) Je \ %<;: \\' (36) <y .IN • • « • • • • • > •• • A V • I • •.*.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.*.-4.7 \ « 4 < • • %«• V • •«* >9\'y N83‘ /«c, I h ^lOT 79 (50) (27) '4^’ 142 ■>P\ .*4% ■- -»- .>4.4 • 4 • « • 'V- \ \ s PT OF mMM ^ (26)pL-, 6 V (63) /<•' ^ CF^?, 0'?- / ^ fi. 65*'0 l». / Ic » 26?: (25) ?4 3' i5B.2 F (25) S; OT 45^Yi / OJ p' <'\ /> l‘Xt (24)\ Zi37 f \ \ 'a' iVVA >4 26.2 M7 :...“ 250.05 />. V-- /'// f-; :.A. •.r 4 * (29) , / / V'^^' 'v/M. 'H 56)/v*•aTT (26) '0 s 7 7’;/■ *?( 54) 74 \& 7^r^(52) 'll A V (53)V - i"]?- ■35 “!(3 17Lt 4 ■/ )22. Z? / 'll # 5 (16) / / rP* 'f R-489.92 4. !5* ''.* (17) '■'"j 97.67 M " ^s\9 vAcr \ rj; >'J3 (34) \25i2- 21 (39) r\/-‘ * *• •* %(61) /*. 3 \ “'\ '9 \ 4 \4(7)§ <V I in ; ^“ ' ■ .^joU (38) li> r>>,'€>'120)\20 \ NOT TAfJCcNT (5)“oi I m I \ 1 lX<riwvA' GOVT LOT 2 COVT LOT 3 c ] e r*" • • /^^rcict S- //lokc^^21 lOVO f /» ^ tiling Cetl, II' ^ lo'-'T fra^' 3 -. /^ ^ fj>cr s^ff^fi" -■jj ^•-1 /\ tr V. i=t-27?o.//idfe<Jt S/Ve -y. ••>:■ % * rT^^K V-", 1: m € t(o' - -- -----------------------> 'O U-r. 7- /•?•'>■) { I 13 >,t, TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE;August 13,1997 SUBJECT:#2272/2277 Wyatt and Nancy Moe, 1220 Loma Linda/1230 Spruce Place: A. Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement B. Lot Area/Lot Width/Hardcover Variances C. Vacation of Dedicated Public Roads and Park Zoning District; LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Lbt of Exhibits A - Survey/Staff Sketch B - V^’cation Application C - Revised Variance Application D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/31/97 E - Hardcover Request Correction F - Memo and Exhibits of 7/16/97 Revisions to Original Application This item was tabled at the July meeting to allow applicant to revise and amend the application. Applicants have formally applied for the vacation of dedicated public right-of-way and park, and have revised their variance application to include lot area and width as well as hardcover for the proposed layout. Vacation of Road and Park Areas After reviewing the right-of-way issue. Public Works and Zoning staff concluded that the existing 40 ’ right-of-way for Spruce Place should not be vacated, but the dedicated roadway east of the park between its north and south extremities, could be vacated. This results in the City retaining its ability to relocate Spruce Place further north and off of the property to the south of the park, if that becomes necessary for some reason in the future. While there is no intent to move Spruce Place, the fact that it is partially encroaching on th'? property to the south suggests that the City should leave its options open. This reduces the size of the area to be vacated to approximately 9,000 s.f., which is still larger than the 7,000 s.f. portion of Lot 5 and vacated Portland Place to be dedicated back to the City. Zoning Files #2272/2277 August 13,1997 Page 2 Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement The proposed lot line rearrangement results in the northerly property becoming significantly smaller than its current acreage, and the southerly property becoming significantly larger. The north lot decreases from 39,000 s.f. to just over 30,000 s.f. (0.70 ac). The south lot increases from 10,300 s.f. to just over 21,000 s.f. (0.49 ac). These lot sizes are reasonably consistent with other lot sizes in the area (see variance discussion below). The lot line rearrangement incorporates the entire portion of park and right-of-way being vacated as part of the applicants' property. Dennis Hill at the Hennepin County Property Descriptions Department has indicated that since neither Loma Linda nor Spruce Place are being vacated, applicants' property is the only adjacent property to which the vacated park could be attached, and absent any specific claims to the park land from others, the County will in the normal course of events attach the vacated park area to the applicants' property. As part of the lot line rearrangement, applicants have agreed to quit claim deed to the City the southerly portion of Lot 5 w hich contains the actual traveled roadway of Spruce Place. Dedication of this land to the public w ill eliminate access issues for neighboring properties and formalize the City's ownership of the traveled roadway. Lot Area/Lot Width/Hardcovcr Variances The nature of the proposed lot line rearrangement and the intent to remove the existing cabin on the south jrly lot and replace it with a substantial residence, triggers the need for the granting of a lot area and ' idth variance for each of the P.vo lots. Both lots will have no change in their defined lot width (measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback). Staff finds no benefit to attempting to equalize the lot widths by adding 10' to the southerly lot at the expense of the northerly lot, given the location of the drainage culvert essentially parallel to the boundary line between the two properties, and given that the proposed house will meet required setbacks for the south lot. As noted above, due to the existing combination arrangement, the northerly lot currently contains greater area than the existing southerly lot. The proposal will result in the north and south lots being 0.70 acres and 0.49 acres respectively. A 1983 study of lot sizes in the LR-IB District found that of 47 total homes existing on Spruce Place and Loma Linda Avenue at that time, only 9 were larger than the 1 acre standard, and 2.3 were 0.40 acre or smaller in area. Applicants' two lots are each larger than half of the e.xisting developed lots in the neighborhood. Zoning Files #2272/2277 August 13, 1997 Page 3 The lot line relocations have not changed the magnitude of the 75-250’ zone hardcover variance request. However, a corrected hardcover proposal showing additional deck at the east end of the proposed house on the southerly lot increases the hardcover proposal to 37.7% where only 25% would normally be allowed. The proposal also results in 75-250’ hardcover in the northerly lot of approximately 19.4%, which currently would be conforming but which could potentially be the subject of a variance request should the existing house be remodeled or enlarged, or merely provided with a new driveway serving it directly from Loma Linda. The variances and area figures are summarized in the following table; North Lot South Lflt Existing Lot Area 39,000 s.f. ±10,300 s.f. ± Proposed Lot Area 30,330 s.f. +21,300 s.f. ± LR-IB Area Required 43,560 s.f. ±43,560 s.f. ± Variance 13,230 s.f. (30%)22,260 s.f. (51%) Existing/Proposed Width 78'58' LR-IB Required Width 140'140' Variance 62' (44%)82' (59%) Existing 75-250' Hardcover 10.9%14.8% Proposed 75-250' Hardcover 19.4%37.7% Allowed 75-250' Hardcover 25.0%25.0% V'ariance -12.7% Area to be vacated 9,000 s.f. ± Area to be dedicated for traveled road 7,000 s.f. + Given that the property in question has existed as two separate tax parcels, has two separate dwellings, two separate sewer connections assessed and in use, etc., it would be consistent to allow the continuation of the two properties as two separate residences. Utilities Both lots were fiilly assessed for sewer in the 1970 sewer project, and both have been connected to sewer. To-date, staff has not been provided with and has not been able to confirm easements for the City sewer within vacated Portland Place nor within Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. There is a sewer line extending from just north of the Spruce/Loma Linda intersection eastward through the southerly end of the park, to a manhole located within the portion of Lot 5 that will be part of the south lot. If such an easement is not ultimately confirmed, the City would require that such an easement be granted for the sewer lines within the portions of property remaining or becoming privately owned. Zoning Files Winmill August 13, 1997 Page 4 Affected utility companies were notified of this proposed vacation, and as of this writing staff has not heard firom them regarding their interests in the propert>’ to be vacated. Storm Water Facilities There are existing storm water systems on this property which serve it and the surrounding neighborhood. These include an existing 30" culvert leading from the center of the property to the shoreline. This culvert was a joint effort of the City and the applicants some years ago, and is the subject of an existing 10' easement. To the west of the culvert inlet near the driveway is a small ravine which is the recipient of runoff from a 12" culvert under Spruce Place as well as from the storm sewer system to the northwest. This would be the appropriate time for the City to obtain appropriate drainage easements of 15' in width (7.5' either side of the centerline) over the defined drainage ways on the property. There is a ver> small wetland, perhaps 20' in width and 50' in length located in the southerly portion of the park, just to the northeast of the intersection of Loma Linda and Spruce Place. This wetland does not show up on any of the pertinent wetlands inventory maps, but might be subject to Wetland Conservation Act regulation if it were proposed to be filled (it isn't). Given its small size, no wetland easement will be required. Driveway Access The existing driveway serving the northerly lot crosses the proposed southerly lot. While an easement for access over the existing driveway would definitely be necessary in the event that the applicants sold one of the properties, an option is to create a separate driveway to Loma Linda serving the northerly house. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. Have applicants presented sufficient justification for the granting of the requested hardcover variances? Is the magnitude of hardcover variance consistent with other hardcover variances granted for similarly sized lakeshore lots? When will the northerly lot be provided its own driveway access to Loma Linda? Does Planning Commission have any other specific concerns regarding the lot line rearrangement, vacation/dedication, or variance request? Zoning Files #2272/2277 August 13, 1997 Page 5 Staff Recommendation 1.Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the unused park and road right-of-way per the revised plan, in conjunction with a concurrent dedication of right-of-way over the portion of Lot 5 and vacated Spruce Place in which the traveled roadway is located. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement per the revised proposal, subject to the granting/retaining of any necessary sewer, drainage, utility or access easements over the remaining private land or over the public land to be vacated. The northerly lot should be provided with a new access to Loma Linda prior to it being sold by the applicants. This can become a condition of approval if Planning Commission so desires, but may require the filing of a covenant or other document to be enforceable at some future date. Options for Action 1. Approve per the staff recommendation, and with any additional conditions Planning Commission finds appropriate. 2. Table for further information. 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. 0 *^rowf,CO >o > I » t n if » •••» • ’*. f: • CD ' i * f • . 4**. « ^ t • • •• t • M •* • I I , . .1. • • ‘ i . • •32 • V' .... :. i ■ • • I i s' * ‘ * :' i .1 ’ ' ?. ■ ti * • i I • I ; : I •!•' >r ‘i i 'I- i * ^ . V* j ‘I.* I! n I • ' • : : ’ ‘ ’ -• i u . .- . I * • S % I’l I »u • I ! . • ' it ’ ' \ i ♦ ; .*J_L .1 j j % -i- -I 4 / ' -V I Itjsl X » / /; ■' -si* ir* . i t Kl H liir Iv ^' Mh I '" Isf------U--f- eri4 j'v ,, I^J t -**r ^ ''••* t•9» uauioi k: ODl (rot r iNi \-*Vjl i ¥ __________________ • i >Ji l.k.vJ w • j i W^^W A ••rj l\ I • Ls .s / r V I / « • /JofZx^ /{JOT^S • f 0V09I 3 eti .10.00 N I / so 3'-:‘“d Hijat' lii-j ^T^i.Ti^3T9 ii:OT i66T/ST/£0 C/)?r rysr u I 0 'a1a s9;o B B Daos. s9.o B ?r ntr W H Bera ro B ca 1 . I • . t • ;• • • *> (/) ?T f? B- B o "9 O CA a ro B C/5 PC & ? 2 oS. "o < A O CLr5- S B M ^ B 2 ^ St ^o* B O* 3 44- O fy TT /O i § Application # ^J?'7 H Date Received '7/-? s"/9 7 Amount Paid ^ac ^o -c-v 8-1’.''^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION ^3/So PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /3 30 5^/"^ C g. ^ ^ . ________________ Type of Application to be Filed LraraiL^r^ \^/^rriyp>e 01 Application lo oe riiea 7 4j/<fAr. Property Identification Number (P.I.l5^ // t/acaO S -//7-^^, APPLICANT Name ^ 7^ /9/a-^ Address .5 Phone (home ) V//- 7dZ- Z. ______ Phone (work) ~ . <~VA ^ City ^r/ryUs _______Zip.^-T3^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work) Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. a/'t tf ft7' FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVHTS - ^ / _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application a^ttu*c(L _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakesho '// fn PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee 'iew (+ consultant fees) \ OTHER APPLICATIONS ^$250.00 Comm' lal Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) s/ $300.00 Vacation f /7T7). _____$200.00 Easement Vacation 0 _____$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 PROPERTO Present Zoning District 'x_______ ^ Present Use of Property ______Residential v Other (specify). Application # jk. Date Receiyed U 1 Amount Paid /I 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) #90*7 9, l . 8 S' PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ . SiteAddress ’•Sprud, ’/uiLC^______ Prooerty Identification Number (PJ D.) 11 O— 8 Property Identification Number (P J D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pn»ent use of property: ___residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: _________________________________ u < Address: I l ^ Phone fhome ) ^'7 1"'? 0 _____ Phone (work ) City: _________Zip: ifferent than aOWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (nome). Phone (woik)_ Address:City:,Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional aheeta if neceaaaiy)^^^.^ VARI^CES REQUIRED / AbTt '7/^4r/9 7 ✓ Lot Width X Hardcover ___Lot CoverageLot Area Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difBculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____________________________________- (attach ’ audidonal sheets if necessary) CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Wyatt & Nancy Moe 1220 Loma Linda Ave. Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: ZONING FILE #2272 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 31,1997 DATE OF MEETING: 7/21/97 COPIES TO: Variance/ Subdivision VOTE: Jo Ellen Hurr 930 Partenvvood Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted belovvr. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to make a formal vacation application and amend the variance request to include lot area and lot width. Staff is reviewing the vacation proposal to determine the extent of right-of-way to be retained for Spruce Place, and will advise you as soon as a recommendation has been finalized. Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Plannin g Conunission Monday, August 18,1997; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available fix)m the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. To ^ T.-f-r, ^•g:^} y-3W -■W- ‘'Tr> > .%ij \ ^y / 4^C caa ^ <y y^t^fvK ^ ^ /u^^ cy /O ^ ^ ^ c^ —' ^ij^<.L£jy /^ x"2.y. ^ 3 ^ y^y" ..^2^ ^ C? /^ ><^/^ y/ Al.4 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator B July 16, 1997 Subject:#2272 Wyatt & Nancy Moe, 1220 Loma Linda/1230 Spruce Place - Lot Line Rearrangement and Hardcover Variance Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Summary of Application Applicants own two tax parcels on the west side of North Arm Bay, both abutting Spruce Place. The northerly of the two parcels is approximately 0.90 acre in area, is L-shaped, and includes an existing small house. The southerly parcel is approximately 0.23 acre in area, rectangular, and contains a small cabin. A. Lot Line Rearrangement Applicants propose to rearrange the lot lines to more equally balance the areas of the two parcels. Their ultimate goal is to construct a new residence on ihe southerly parcel, and be able to sell off the northerly parcel with access directly to Loma Linda Avenue rather than across the southerly parcel as is the current situation. B. Conceptual Road Vacation Additionally, although not requested or published as part of the current application, applicants suggest a park/road right-of-way vacation in exchange for a rededication or quit claim deed of portions of their property in which the travelled roadway of Spruce Place currently exists. (See Exhibits E & F.) C. Hardco ver Variance In order to accommodate the proposed new residence, applicants have also requested a hardcover variance for the rearranged southerly parcel. The existing 24' x 24' cabin would be replaced with a new house and attached two car garage comprising a footprint area of 2,238 sq. ft. Proposed 75-250' hardcover for the new house/drive way/walks is proposed at 35.7% where only 25% would normally be allowed. Also per the resulting proposed lot lines, 75-250' hardcover in the northerly lot would be approximately 19.4%. D. Lot Area/Width Variance Also Required Under the ultimate proposal (Sketch 4 of Exhibit F), lot area for the northerly lot would be approximately 0.69 acres, and area of the southerly lot would be approximately 0.55 acres. Applicants would be willing to adjust the boundary line between the two lots to balance these even further. At any rate, the southerly lot also would require a lot area and width variance, which also was neitlier requested nor published. Zoning File #2272 July 16,1997 Page 2 Staff would note that the survey work was not received for this application until approximately two weeks after the deadline, and the application submittals have been arriving somewhat piecemeal, hence staff has only come to a comprehensive understanding of this proposal as a result of the review process.. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey F - Staff Sketches 1-4 G - Hardcover Calculations H - Sewer System Layout I - Topography With and Without Plat Overlay J - Documentation from 1970 Similar Vacation Request by Applicants Discussion During the course of review, this application appears to have become essentially a four part request, including the lot line rearrangement, street and park vacation/rededication, lot area and width variance for southerly proposed building site, as well as a hardcover variance for the southerly proposed building site. Notice was published and mailed for only the applied-for hardcover variance- and lot line rearrangement, hence all facets of this application cannot be formally considered comprehensively at the July 21 meeting. Further, the extent of variances to be granted, specifically for lot area, will be numerically variable depending on how and whether the vacation/rededication is accomplished. The lot line rearrangement impacts the conformity of the existing house on the north lot in relation to not only its lot area but its current and proposed hardcover percentage. Its existing hardcover was not identified on the survey, hence staff has provided a hardcover analysis below. While hardcover for the north lot is not and would not become non-conforming as a result of the final lot lines as proposed, the future ability to expand or further develop the northerly lot will be reduced in exchange for granting greater buildability to the southerly lot. Zoning File #2272 July 16,1997 Page 3 Northerly Lot Existing A Protwsed Hardcover. Per Proposed Lot Lines i • Proposed 75-250' Lot Area: 78' x 175' = 13,650 s.f. -'V • Existing/Proposed 75-250' Hardcover: House: (45x27) + (8x16) Concrete Walks: (6x5) + (3x30) + (2.5x15) + (3.5x15) + (4x16) Wood Deck, N. Side: (6x10) Drive^^'ay & Parking Area: (30x18) + (10x15) Driveway on S. Lot per Gronberg: 290 = 1,343 s.f.-/•7- = 274 s.f. = 60 s.f. = 690 s.f. = 290 s.f. Southerly Lot Existing & Proposed Hardcover. Per Proposed Lot Lines Proposed 75-250’ Lot Area: 58' x 175' = 10,150 s.f Existing 75-250’ Hardcover: Cabin: (24.3x24.4) Driveway: 510 s.f Per Gronberg (Excl. 290 s.f that serves N. Lot) = 593 s.f = 510 s.f Total Existing 75-250'= 1,103 s.f / 10,150 = 10.9% Proposed 75-250' Hardcover: House & Attached Garage: 2238 s.f Driveway: 510 s.f + 800 s.f. Per Gronberg Sidewalk: (3x24) = 2.238 s.f = 1,310 s.f = 72 s.f Total Proposed 75-250'= 3,620 s.f / 10, 150 = 35.7% (Allowed = 25%) Total Existing/Proposed 75-250’ = 2,657 s.f / 13,650 = 19.4% - (Allowed = 25%) r Proposed Lot Coverage By Structure, South Lot 2:r. L. r ^ VOj ISO - in P i' Total Lot Area Proposed: 58' x 410' = 23,780 s.f. - 0.55 acre Proposed Structure: 2,238 s.f. Proposed Lot Coverage = 2,238 / 23,780 = 9.4% (15% allowed) A 1^ Zoning File #2272 July 16, 1997 Page 4 Issues for Consideration I. Is the conceptually proposed vacation appropriate? Under what parameters? Is the lot reconfiguaration conceptually appropriate, including the vacation of right-of- ways and park, and rededication of new right-of-way? 3.Will the northerly lot ultimately require a hardcover variance someday when it is expanded or rebuilt? If so, does that affect your view of this lot line reconfiguration? Should the two lots be more equal in area? 4.When will the northerly lot be provided its own driveway access to Loma Linda (it's alreadv addressed as 1220 Loma Linda); at the time it is sold? 5.Is Planning Commission comfortable with the magnitude of the hardcover variance proposed? Is there sufficient hardship shown? Is this consistent with other hardcover variances granted for similarly sized lakeshore lots? 6.Given that each lot has been separately assessed for sewer and each connected to it, and given the historical ure as two separate dwelling units, does Planning Commission have any concerns about the lot area and width variances? Will the resulting lots be consistent with others in the neighborhood? Staff Recommendation 1. The vacation of unused (and likely to remain unused) park and right-of-way, in conjunction with a concurrent rededication of right-of-way over used (and potentially to be used) private property', is conceptually a win-win situation for the City and the property owner, but should be subject to: a. Granting/retaining of any necessary sewer, drainage, utility or access easements over the remaining private land or over the public land to be vacated. The City retaining adequate existing dedicated right-of-way on the north side of Spruce Place (Comprehensive Plan indicates 50’ r.o.w. needed for local streets; Spruce r.o.w. at this location is 40' wide, actual traveled road is centered on the south boundary' of the r.o.w.; City Engineer and Public Works Department will be asked to determine r.o.w. needs). b. 2. Vacation of the park area :is conceptually proposed may result in certain questions of ownership, since property' owners to the west and south might have a legitimate claim to i i .t~r. • •• Zoning File #2272 July 16,1997 Page 5 portions of the park once it is vacated. At any rate, a formal vacation application will be required in order to fully address these issues. 3. The lot line rearrangement is conceptually appropriate if the resulting approximately 1.24 acres of private land is evenly split between the northerly and southerly lots, so that each is afforded a reasonably equivalent amount of hardcover and is subject to relatively equivalent variance needs. 4. In order to accomplish the lot line rearrangement, the northerly lot will have to be added to the survey and proposed boundaries reconfigured per City's final conclusions on this application. 5. The northerly lot should be provided with a new access to Loma Linda prior to it being sold by the applicants. 6. Planning Commission must first reach conclusions on the lot line rearrangement and vacation/rededication before accurate hardcover numbers can be achieved. The hardcover and lot area/width variance request is fimctionally merely a conceptual request at this point, and cannot be formally addressed until the final lot line locations are resolved. Options for Action 1.Recommend conceptual approval, subject to: a. Applicant to make formal application for vacation and lot area/width variances. b. Planning Commission to give applicant direction on lot line relocations, lot area apportionment, and hardcover variance. c. City Engineer/Public Works Dept, to analyze and advise applicants of right-of-way and easement needs. 2. Table for further information without giving conceptual direction. 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. i ( 1 ! Application it X. Date Receiyed U 'ba-<^ 7 Amount Paid ^-jq. CTTY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial AppUcation Fee $220.00 e ($50.00 per each'additional variance) f f ^ ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 -39* (no change from original application) is V. Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-die-Fact Fees (Double application fee)I* PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address prudJL ______ iber (T.I.D.) 11Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) U"%-^ ) 1 X ^ ^ —QO^ Or-_______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired,____I ^___________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; ___presidential ___pother (specify). 2k)ning District: _______________________________ APP Name Address: / > ^ Phone (home ) ^*7 1-'? 0 X'K _____ Phone fwoik ^ City: ________Zip: *5~*5r3:>6gt4 i^rent than aOWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address;City;.Zip;. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED . Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Setback; Front Side Rear Other fsoecifv') Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing rnmnlianrft with Zonine Code reouirements; • « . 1 ___«r*____________________________’ > V A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All Qf thg fQllowjpg infornmtipn mmt be submitted hv the applicatinn deadline dat> in order for vour application to be considercH romnlgte; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" 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 fioor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" 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 applkution is not complete if the above information has not heen 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) Md/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 Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. L?/>o{<=)nOwner's Signature i. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 1 Application # ~7 9^______ Date Received 6> l _ , Amount Paid ^^=^.00______J4. £'% - SUBDIVISION APPLICATlp^L^ „ - . / ^ /' i:V ^ Sa^ PROPERTY LOCATION /\ / / CITY OF ORONO LKl Y LUCAllUiV J\ Site address vi VVtJS- Propcrty Identification Number (PID)___________ Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. Ii APPLICAN=P= Name I.'»■ > 0 City 7)/U Address Phone (horned 4i :&±w4_JM^Phone (work) 3>33r=^ Vc-^'7 OWNER (if different Name applicant) Address City__Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Bu ii*;ng Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________N^'.v Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential _ Other (specify) MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to ’’application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________________ Date____________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ________________________________________Date____________________________________ z I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (X) those which apply) A. Application Base Fees; Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II «v: III) $250.0 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III Ss all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminar> Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) - _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit Totals The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to pro^jpss t(^ application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. -----Y Y L'Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature LV/iiiiauuii v/i try to prouss ttm application i Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. **EC6ivbo f 6 1997 TO: ORONO PtANNING COMMISSION rlT^,« CITYOFonoAlo FROM; WYATT AND NANCY MOE 471 -7022 We purch09C«J Ihe property el 1220 Lome Linde in 1964. Wyatt had rented the property for the summers since 1959. In the early 70'e the drainage way on the south side of the property was eroding and Oegan to threaten the cabin structure on the site. The gully was about »»3 inches from the cabin and It dropped approximately 12 feet down Our neighbors at the lime were an elderly brother and sister and they dirt not wish to participate in the construction of the culvert and rehabilitation of the two properties Wo decided to purchase the cabin at 1230 Spruce Place to enable us to build the drainage way and thus preserve both properties Both structures are connected to the municipal sewer, we were offered the option of another sewor connection for what we refer to as the 'back forty We chose not to buy a connection because the rear properly is port of the drainage way. It hot some cot tells and is often wet This drainage way serves many other properties in the area. Wo coordinated the culvert project with the fiCWD and the Tlty of Orono. who approved the engineering and the design, but the cost of the storm water management project was paid In total by us The easement for the culvert crosses both properties as shown on the f.urvey. Our request is to place a modest 1 story home with a walkout on the lake side. It will be very aimllar to the home to the south. It is olso our desire to do a lot line rearrangement and a future street vacation and land exchange with the City of Orono The city would gain the rood serving several homes, plus additional ROW for the undefined sewer lines we would gain some vacant land over which we would sugO^ 0 conservation and flowage easement to protect the necessary water retention areas. Eor,h of Iho lot. wo own would thon be long and ^ The lot to tho north would oloo hsvo acco.. to L®'"*/'® future it could be sold without an easement across the Spruce Place parcel. We would welcome your visiting the property over the weekend. SOd WHfr:8 wtST T0S8 Tir cT9 : ‘CM 3N0KJ ddnH : 07/15/1937 10:17 612471 .'416 MTt aB-IW hardcover calculation worksheet PA.9E 02 setback ZONCt (CmCLEONt) 0^ • • mmuic WAliDCQYtR IW IQfig 75.JS0-ISO*! W14IH X X X S. Cvaie 4 C. Drivew*y X X D. Skfewilk X X « .• E. Ptcio/Deck X X • • F. i.andscipe Umkrltin By PUsuc X X % G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ + B X 100 BBQPOSED IN Z( A. House • )wr Lrnfih Wi4ifi -• .art X X X m B. Girjfe Driveway JL X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X % m F. Lxndictpe UoderUln By Plutie X X X G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _♦ B X 100 s P f.p S.F S.P S.F $.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F __ S.F _ _ _ _$F S.F S.F. S.F S.F S.F S,F. S.F. S.F SF S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A D A B 07/15/1997 10:17 6124717416 hardcover calculation WORKSHECl' PA>5E 0 7 SCTBACK 20Nt! (CmCLC ONE) u • •• 7M50*iso-soo* 7--/ 7 soo-ieoo* EXWTIWfi M mamtt Hons*s.r. WM«H B K X S.F. §.p. S.F. P. Cmrtigm f.F. Driveway P, S(4ewiik ' E. Pati«/beek ^2 90 S.F ___________S F F. Landicape Underlain By Plastic X a B G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _/y 73 B yg. i.SC a too • /O. ** Sp Pttnpo^Fn HARivnvHa iv tmw A. House ____ ____ X LmgA A X X B. Garage C. ^Driveway X X JVo D. Sidewalk X X M±7Z E.. .Patlo/Dcck X a F. LaiKtscape Uodertaln By Plastic X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3C^O + B /a. ISO X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. 5.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F % A B S.F 5.P, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.4^cT^: 2 to tc.t S.F* ^C$i A- rj tjr J S.F. SF S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ft A B _ .. 1^ I—...ill iM • 07/1*5/1997 10:17 •• 912471741b MTJ^BCH HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75*75.MC ’ISO-SOO' P a «9E 04 7-/r-97 SOS-tOOQ* Hovfc L«At«S Wi4th X X X B. Car«f« C- Driv«wty X X D. SMcwalk X X E. ?itio/OecIc X X F. Lxndtcxpe UnderUin *8y PluUc X X X O.*-Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE O B SLPZ d X 100 - House UX|ih WMtf> X X X f • GarXge C. Driveway X X D. Si4ew«ik X X E. Pxiio/Deck X X F. Lxndscape Uodtrlain By Plastic X X X OtlMt TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE W B •sr. m S.F. m S.P. m • S.F m S.F. m S.F. ,S.F. m S.F. S.F. •S.F. . S-f. S.F. •S.F. •S.F. •C S.F. •S.F.- a % m S.F. s.r. S.F. s S.F. S.F. S.F. •ft S.F. S.F. ■. SP S.F. . «S.F. • ■I S.F. m _ S.F. iti S.F. S.F. •S.F. m S.F. X 100 w A B A B 1 'JSV.\‘M<.* IVi*' • A '^» ’ »■* *f *v •'*■>*74 ,■•-•*: i-1 ' ? r .1 •< 4 t sv-v»i .;-r'T‘.- ■' *-■Mi1*^( •X^.r ■4^ - «#1 .-Jw>;‘V V-, * /.-t-A 4^. •» •¥. Wy«tt Uo« • 1220 Loaa LindA Mound, Ulnnosota 33364 August 4, 1970 Vllla.je of Orono jteslph Martin, Village Clerk POBt office box 66 Cryetal Bay, Minnesota 33383 Oentleoant I. the uadoralaned, ask for the exchange of the property of Lot 5 In si Section 7, Saga Hill Revised, south of Spruce Place for the Park at the comer of Loma Linda and Spruce Place plus that portion of platted roadway between the park and Lots 3 and 4 (Block 2). This exchange would give ua a single parcel of land. Spmce Place at present traneeecta Lot 5 and precludes full usage of our property* Pleaee notify me oi* your action on this mattHr* Sincerely youra, llU\ yr, Wyatt Moe, M.D. ^ 1 I I a.si II 1 j: MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING .HELH AUGUST 17, 1970 Pr^o SThe letter of Dr. Nyatt *Ioo, 1220 Loma Linda Avenue, asking for a property exchange, was road. Since mo'noors could PROPERTY EXCHANGE 1220 Lena Linda Avonuo Hr. Wyatt Moo not tell whore property linos were on the site, nembors unaninously agreed that the Village Engineer shotild study the site to see what advantage or disadvantage there would be to make such an exchange. Russell moved, Dorn seconded, that the division of Dr. Leo Schacht, 2o5 Leaf Street, Lot 9, Aud. Snb. 203, Parcel 900, dividing his property into two lots, bo approved since it mot all the needs of the R-IC tone. Motion, Ayos (S) - Nays (0). DIVISION 26S Leaf Street After the motion passed, Russoll stated ho believed divisions such as this, that meet all tne requirements of the zoning code, should bo made at an administrative level and the Planning Commission should not bo involved at all. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.AWOURhnENT Respectfully submitted. Mike Schc^ler Secretary a« • i «% -Six MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD AITGUST 10, 1970 Pnga 2 Scarlos noved, McCarthy seconded, that tho request of tho Jehovah Witnesses for a conditional use pomit at 367S To?»o Road, bo Given preliminary approval as prosontod, subject to allowing a IS* street casement along tho front of tho property, ‘lotion. Ayes (5) - Nays (0), Franzel moved, Scarles seconded, to advertise for bids for a bookkeeping machine for tho office, be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Butterfield abstained. McCarthy moved, Soarlos seconded, that tho appointment of tho Village Administrator to negotiate with all Village employees, cnployoo-'gro’jps and Unions for 1971 salaries, bo* approved. Motion, Ayes (S) <• Nays (0). McCarthy moved, Scarlos seconded, to pay time and onc*half rate to St root and Sewer Department employees for work ovor eight hours in any 24-hour period. Motion, Ayos (5) - Nays (0). Scarlos moved, McCarthy seconded, that the request of Dr. Wyatt Moo, 1220 Loma Linda Avenue, for a property exchange with tho Village, be referred to tho Planning Cotn-nission. Motion, Ayos (S) - Nays (0). Sc:rles moved.McCarthy seconded, that Resolution 1356, A Resolution Appointing Election Judges For The Primary Election To Be Hold Septonber 15, 1970, And Tho State And Village Election To Bo Hold ‘lovcnbor 3, 1970, be adopted. Motion, Ayos (5) - Nays (0). icCarthy novcil, Franzel seconded, that !!’-oJiition «3r»7, A Resolution Endorsing 'T,*ndmciit No. 1 On Tax-Exempt Property, adopted. Motion, Ayos (4) - Nays (0). ■■'.r tor fie 1(1 abstained. ('aitiiv nove-l, Franzel seconded, that the f r.w f or* *5 Ps t’.mato »l, Willow Prive, !• ir Ixcavafing, be paid. Motion, (',) - Navs (0). CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT Preliminary Approval 567S Togo Road ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Bookkeoping Machine EMPLOYEE SALARIES OVBRTI^fE SALARIES Street B Sewor Departments PROPERTY EXCHANGE 1220 Loma Linda Avonuo Dr. Wyatt Moo RESOLUTION 1356 RESOLUTION »3S7 CONTRACTOR’S ESTIMATE #1 Bill Wear Excavating V- wr-iV-- y* ■ f*»* Sa f?*.' ■ >-■'! . k t-i, ■ . 5.'. iv *** Kv-..- Uv, • f--''' r<‘, •• 0"N"' r^r- * •'* % ‘ I •I*':. •I* it. f- trik- • “..V. ^* “T V ‘ • » f. • - J Lfc. • * ^ *!*• T I Jjl I ■ ■ c/. . TO:Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Inspector August 10, 1970 Property Exchange - Dr. Wyatt Moe,1220 Loma Linda Dr. Wyatt Moe has asked for a property exchange with the Village involving Lot S, Block 2, and the park adjacent to his property. He wishes to give Lot S, Block 2 in exchange for the area marked"Park" on the plat map. The plat map does not show streets exactly as they lie. According to Dr. Moe, Spruce Place actually dissects Lot 5 leaving them with part of their property on one side and part on the other. In order for them to acquire the area called ’’Park*'* there would have to be a street vacation of the street between, I believe this should be submitted to the Village Engineer for study. RDiARKSi The Village Engineer has this under study and the planning commission wonts a report from him before they would take any action on the matter. Ralph H. Martin 8/21/70 • ^ - N .r>,v. X e. N V TO;Chair Lindqmst and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator I FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:August 7,1997 SUBJECT: #2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2829 Casco Point Road Variance(s)"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:15,582 square feet (.355 acres) Application:The applicants are proposing to add a 10'9" by 4' bay window (structural hardcover) over existing rock (non-siructural hardcover). Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Section 10.25, LRl-C, One Fa.Tiilv Lakeshore Residential District ^2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August !8, 1997 page—I ■) 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LRl-C District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1/2 acre 100 ’30’10 ’30’ Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 15,582 sq. ft. (.335 acres) 60 ’40 ’ from garage 93’ from house 1 10 ’ from proposed bay window 1 75’ to deck The subject lot does not meet minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The proposed bay window will be 10' from the side property line. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percent,.ge 15,582 sq. ft.12.03% proposed 2,337.3 sq. ft. (15%) Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. U2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18. 1997 page-~2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0‘-75'4,725 sq.ft.147.5 sq.ft. (3.12%) NONE 147.5 sq. ft. (3.12%) To allow the 3.12% to remain 75’-250’10,757 sq. ft.6,460 sq. ft. (60.05%) 2,689.25 sq.ft. (25%) 6,460 sq. ft. (60.05%) To allow 6,460 sq. ft. to remain (35.05%) There is a shed, sidewalk, and a portion of the patio located within the 0'-75’ setback which consists of 147.5 sq. ft. (3.12%) of hardcover. No changes are proposed for the 0'-75' setback. In the 75-250’ setback, the applicant proposes to construct a lO'O" by 4' bay window over non-structural hardcover. The amount of hardcover on the subject lot is due to the rock mulch and plastic that is located in the yard to direct runoff away from the house. The Building staff have reviewed this application and believe that the hardcover in the west yard should remain. However, they feel that rock mulch elsewhere on the site could be eliminated. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants have noted on their application that their lot is narrow and that the rock and plastic is to prevent water from damaging their basement. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The residence can continue to be used for residential purposes without the addition of a bay window. 2.The plight of the landovvp.er is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. H2274 Bryce and Mary Pal Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18, 1997 page—3 1 ■\ \ \ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The percentage of hardcover on the lot is due to the lot size not meeting the minimum lot size or wdth and the need to prevent water in the basement. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The bay window will not change the architectural style or character of the residence of neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The bav w indow is an allowed architectural feature in residential districts. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant worked with his neigh^ r to put rock and plastic in the si-e yard to prevent water from entering their basements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Other properties in the neighborhood are also zoned LR-IC and subject to the same U2274 Bry ce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Cascc Point Road August 18. 1997 page—4 . 1 hardcover requirements. Many of the lots in this area do not meet the 1/2 acre lot size requirements which contributes to the total amount cf hardcover in the 75'-250 ’ setback being more than the 25% of the total lot area. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ’ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding their need and desire for the bay window. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serv'e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The amount of hardcover on this lot exceeds the 25% requirement because of the small lot size and the rock and plastic between the applicant's property and the neighbor's to redirect water flow across the property*. Drainage on this property is a problem due to topography. Issues 1. 2. The subject property does not meet minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The topography of the subject property is steep in the 0'-75' setback. The property to the west is higher than the applicant's property. Without redirection, water would run from the northwest comer to the southeast comer of the subject property. 3. 4. The proposal is to install structural hardcover over non-stmctural hardcover. The permit record shows that the building was renovated in 1986. It was re-sided in 1993 and a permit for a porch was issued in 1994. U2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18, 1997 page—5 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve a variance to allow a 10* 9" x 4* bay window (structural hardcover) to be installed over non-structural hardcover and to discuss with applicant opportunities to remove hardcover elsewhere on the lot that is not needed to redirect drainage. i Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Topographical Map Hardcover Survey Proposed View' Window Plan Construction Drawings Permit Record **2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson 2929 Casco Point Road August 18, 1997 page—6 LoUtiou M Application # Date Received H - Amount Paid cO CITY OF ORONO ■ VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 (S50.00 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) A PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress Propertv ’ Identification Number (P.I.D.)—ZO - H ^ S 2 *7 4 ^ ^2.^ GOG~I Prooertv ’ laenimcaiiua v* —ae^-----m— ------— —;—; Attach legal description to applic^n if not included on required survey. Date Pr^rty; Acquired___—Li ^ I (do)(t^^^S^ also ov ' (month/year) ....______ X^idential Zoning ni.stnct: 0------------ other (specify). APPLICANT Phone (^vorK Cit>: WA-T^m: Phone (hnme^ ^ Phone (x*.r>Hc^ ^ S^b OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________________ Phone (home). __ Phone (work). Address:City:Zip:, description of request E^ed Consttuction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ___BferV:—----------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___1-°* Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) Attach additional sheets if necessary) ' 07,22/97 Pa» 220-«3:s5 Ooe_ feAis&Ae-rq T. { iTV-»- - ••• -T» . \ \ ■%..e' V c < // V </ 4 \ *>/,<^ <fi ■^/^>, /¥•■ *>/ >^ \ / X.,, -"xx ^ '.r—.u f '■Sh ^sA Vi''*Xi X X.< C50)A Vy' xAX'-i«)X^ / Zo-//7'Z3-3Z ' '** A\sfJA'i yC V zo-tn-z3-3i '•A' X' "ji ** (6 T >V. ..................";=-.\3v-^> ;•■ ^V \ V f» ‘ ,-^ V ';® *ii V. t' \5> '■> W V^ LEGEND •••« '___/ cn::> C22k CT5 GDD CD CD •CD O CZD CD o ram MatCHatU MM MlfCitai l■Ali fatli raMIK •tatCi PaMI» iiiMtaa •aiiMat MIH Site nail mim MC« CMivtil Mai • Mitu MU • Mitc» iaal/MM •Ilfan MilMtf ilai fiCl IMI CMIt tMM »iil svHlui flacf talc vau MIltlM MUIIM * ix iiauciiMi cotcictl UAt miifiiM fM ■IClCatlOi 9* IIM« fata •Mil t ititlf item ■uiiiiff ioi m ■aiiatat tib a ■alUOAO twi |0 MtUM CMU •aouM CMia IMII COalOb ^--------- MMIStiga i ------------Mscuaft CO* tst.a SMI Ciitafl 4 r> HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’250-500’50O-IOCO’ EXISTING Hardcover in /onf A. House ^ Length "3s,» X X X Width 3S3 » B. Garage C. Driveway 1/ On A I X X D. Sidewalk X X E- Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other I 2.,^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B forz^n X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN ZO?VR A. House ^_____ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway f X X X X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -- B /O TS n X 100 L-L^l S.F. S.F. S.F S 5 * li ■ i S.F. A >. '+S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.C “Sol S.F. S.F. i 4^7^ S.F. __________ S.F. ___ S F. 'V ij :2=^S.F. <^.4^0 S.F. A Lory^ S.F. B % - /(Ml S.F. /"=Tr:S.F. S.F. .S.F. 4«io S.F. S.F. S.F. “7 S S.F. S.F. (S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. fo , -jerr S.F. % A B Zg?cy ^uevAnoKCi J§>.eyc;e^ Pe.Te«5oo 7/^7^y <_________V \✓* AT s O 4 <r y ^ L'. ■-) J^X5ST.I»JC W<k\\ pRo:t<a.sisA'> - Ai>v \r.« P(l; ^JSJSTIS>C.„ t+OV5€-J' 13«ivce. PtBT^tsoo 2AZ9 Ose-o fv. ?£> t/j/pv SiW-—V/ifeV jStfAue- •/z."=V‘£>* \ ■fA ) •1 .^i •f STREET FILE f4. P.i. PERMIT RECORD PERMIT NO.DATE TYPE OF PERMIT rki> n A iiaJe. I Ls?^ / ga / ©to 7 Vi>3<5> 90C/7 ■*% ) » 14 It " « t' /uAt 9-1 '94 ^ ^ ' Le?Cc L 'S90 6 7 ^ "<4 ' l4 /O-A-9' 7^ //-y7-t // J ■* s T- —- Aug-l©-97 09:58A August 18. 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomercn Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Elizabeth Please de.iy the hardcover variance #2274 for Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson at 2829 Cascu Point Road The Petersons have continuously added hardcover without a permit. The following are examples: Bay window on West side of house Bay window on South side of house Deck on shoreline Sliding glass door and deck on East side of house Thank you for your assistance. I / Sincerely, A neighbor whose view was blocked when they built their house out over their deck* P-Ol - 1 n i TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator /o FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:August 13,1997 SUBJECT:#2276 Brent and Julie Walton, having an interest in the property located at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue Variance(s)--Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:12,754.5 square feet (.29 acres) Application: The applicants have a purchase agreement to buy the subject property which is a vacant lot to construct a new residence. Variances are needed for lot area, lot width, structural coverage and hardcover. Other issues with this application include relocation of a water linethat serves 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, proposed driveway location and access to either Dunwoody Avenue or Shoreline Dr., a sanitary sewer easement, and »ree/vegetation removal at the shoreline. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.25, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements, Subd. 6 A. and B. Section 10.22, Subd. 1. and Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations and Subd. 3, Tree Removal P.egulations Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 14, Yards and Open Space, C. Lot coverage M2276 Brent andJulie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue August 18. 1997 page-1 \ -• JV» vT , «-.•.-’.y^TTr.^7- .•|«ir-.-.—> ■ ■—rwTT’^ ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards 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 Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 12,745.5 sq. ft.50 feet 112 feet 10 feet IS feet The subject lot does not meet lot area and lot width requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,754.5 sq. ft.1,913.17 sq. ft. is allowed 2,120 sq. ft. (calculated as 1,400 for house w/o fireplace and 720 for garage) 15% is allowed 16.62% is proposed The plan that the applicants first submitted was for a 1,356 sq. ft. house and 600 sq. ft. garage which is 1,956 sq. ft. The first plan exceeds the 15% structural coverage allowed by 42.86 sq. ft. On August 12th, Mr. Larson (realtor) faxed a new plan to staff that shows a 1,400 sq. ft. house with a larger garage. The second plan exceeds the structural coverage allowed by 1.62%. M2276 Brent and Julie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue August 18. 1997 page-2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0’-75’ 75'-250' 250'-500' Total Area in Setback 3,750 sq. ft. 8.830 sq. ft. 1,050 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover ♦railroad ties v iewed on site by shoreline None None Allowed Hardcover None 2,207.5 sq. ft. (25%) 315 sq. ft. (30%) Proposed Hardcover None 3,352 sq. ft. proposed (37.96%) 175 sq.ft. (16.6%) Variance Requested None 1144.5 sq.ft. (12.96%) None needed The hardcover worksheets submitted with this application are for the first plan. Because the second plan shows a larger garage, the hardcover amounts proposed in the 75’-250' setback will be exceed what is shown in the above table. The amount of hardcover proposed for the driveway is proposed at only 8' wide which is not realistic. Most driveways are at least 10' wide. Also, the proposed plan does not show a turnaround which will be needed to avoid backing out of the long driveway. An additional concern with hardcover is the proposed location of the driveway. It will not work as proposed. The driveway needs to be redesigned to also serve the vacant lot to the west. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants have stated that a narrow jind very long lot requires a long driveway which in turn increases the hardcover percentage. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is currently vacant. It may be possible to redesign the house and garage so that structural coverage and hardcover is not an issue. The lot area and lot width variances could be reduced if this lot was combined with the adjacent vacant lot. U2276 Brent and Julie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue August 18, 1997 page-3 —w! T<“ 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. This situation is created by the owner's desire to sell three small lots rather than combining them into two lots or one larger lot. A previous sketch plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission ( #1958) showed three parcels combined for two residential lots. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Residential development on this property would be an improvement over the condition of the vacant lot. However, variances for hardcover and structural coverage could impact Lake Minnetonka. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the projjerty in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Residential uses are allowed in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The conditions that apply to this lot are due to the lot size and the relationship of the lot to Shoreline Dr. and Dunwoody Avenue. The adjacent property is also owned by the same property owner. #2276 Brent andJulie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue August 18, 1997 page-4 Z 1 The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Lots in this zoning district tend to be narrower and do not meet the lot area requirements. Many lots in this area do not meet lot area and lot width requirements and often do not meet hardcover requirements. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances for lot width and lot area are needed to build a house on this lot. 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Variances for structural coverage and hardcover will have a visual impact on views from Lake Minnetonka and may increase runoff into Lake Minnetonka. 12.The granting of such variance w ill not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variances will allow’ the applicant to purchase the property to construct a new residence. Issues There are numerous issues with this application. 1.The applicants need to finalize house and garage plans. Staff recommends that the plans be designed so as not to need a structural coverage variance. 2.The driveway as proposed will probably not work. The driveway needs to be redesigned by working with Hennepin County and the City Engineer. The width of the driveway should be at least 10’. Applicants should consider a turnaround for easier access to Shoreline Dr. New hardcover calculations will then be required. 3.The hardcover worksheets as submitted are for the first plan that was submitted. They need to be redone to show the revised plans. Any proposed hardcover along the shoreline shall be shown so that the complete amount of hardcover on the site can be considered. #2276 Brent and Julie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue August 18, 1997 page-5 i J 4. The applicant needs to provide an easement across the property for the sanitary sewer. 5.The water line that serves 2425 Dunwoody Avenue needs to be relocated. Applicant needs to submit a plan/agreeme.nt to indicate when and how this will be resolved.i STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the lot area and lot width variances and direct the applicant to resolve the above outstanding issues. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Water Main map Topo Map Proposed Survey Hardcover Worksheets 1st set of plans 2nd set of plans Adjacent Property Owner's List ii U2276 Brent and Julie Walton 2405 Dunwoody Avenue August 18, 1997 page-6 LOnTioO /U/if Z'^OS Qi/»xwOoJw^^ t !t Application # Ji^-7U______ Date Received -7 v ^ Amount Paid p 3 o . _____ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress_____ ^^1 Property Identification Number (P.ID.)__________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required su* vey. Date Pr^rty Acquired_____________________________________ (month/year) I (do) ^ nqf bdso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ZoningDistrict: other (specify). APPLICANT _ Name r J A-g AddressT ^ P/*rc-<' ^^^^^^€lSiii^(if different than applicant) Name Phone (horned ^ _____ Phone (work) ^V6>/ 7/7 3 City; Zip: 5^^^^ Phone (home) __________________________________ Phone (work) ^fH-*ZZ/6 Address: J$y?7 PR((/L Citv: _ Zip: fL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difEculty or unusual property conditions meventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: f /V/y /trz (attach' additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following inf UtffI order for vour application to be considergd 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owiier must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ______________ Date _______ 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^Xommission members, and Coupcil members for purposes of invgstigatipnmd verifipatitSriof this request. Owner ’s Signature /_Date Applicant must have all subnlutals 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 i ^ b I I ZHCf^ IXJln\^xDcd^ Ave. C^<s(irv\a^c.l Wat«r 929.6 ■DiTDpQSe:! ^XP/'\/^Exhibit 6 4NOCT ViJOlW . j hrve ^o 2MZ<^ Durvtood'3 fNeosb 1o b* ftJocAU^ LEGAL DESCI ra*^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* £xhib'il- . F" 7rZ9-97 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET^ 3€-+of piom r’eQ.cive.l 75-250 ’ 250-500 ’ 500-1000’ A. House X Length Width X • S X X • B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk • • X X E. Patio/Deck X • S3 X F. Landscape X ( Underlain -■ -X By Plastic X • SB. G. Other • • X •• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • •TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A#-r B X 100 = A. House X Length Width X H X S3 X a. B. Garage X A C. Driveway X W X « D. Sidewalk X 4 X xz E. Patio/Deck X m X F. Landscape X ^ • . Underlain X m By Plastic X • G. Other •• • • X »• • * • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A o +B 3-^ SO X 100 » S.F. • •• • »' • •• • * • S.F. S.F.. S.F. ^ S.F. _ S.F. . ; 7» A. B • • « S.F. TT • • • • 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. 3 7S ‘0 ■ S.F. . O %. • A .B • I • • I I • r • ^ •• 9 W • • otyjure/^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE:’ (CIRCLE ONE) r-2Y-97 0-75*75-250’250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVF R in ZONE A. House Lcngdi Width S.F. X X X • • B. Garage C. -Driveway X X 0. 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 ___________ -r B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ’/.OISTF A. House Length X X X Width B. Garage . C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. '-Patio X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X n X S.F. •F •S.F. V V. '. S.F. •7 Stf; S.F. t—--- \ .'v * S.F.'’-- ■’ S.F S.P, 1 s -:/ a S.F. ■ '•f. \ ' ■ o.r. 4 S.F. S.F. A »B ZJJ7*¥ S.F.* S.F. S.F. S.F. €00- S.P;' S.F. • ■ .S.F. 2.7< S.F. s:p. -------------------- % *. •i. ZSO ' S.F. S.F. tA S.F. f.F. S.P. • • G. Other s:f. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3 TS'Z + B X 100 - y^SZ • S.F. S.F.. i ^830 A B 37.9€ % . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75-250' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 20NF A. House V 2S0-50Q: 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 ZONfi TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____________B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN A.' House ■ ' 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 4 X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /ys + B y^Sc?X 100 - •• • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • • • • «li« — ‘S.F, /7S /oso /<r.d'7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7>-(f - 'X s.y.. S.F. % “ i , i S.F. \l S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B • % • «%• % • I f S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F., S.F. ^^:f. S.F.. S.F..• S.F. S.F. •• I S.F. I S.F. _ S.F. ______S.F. • • • •». ft* S.F. S.F. % A B • f I 1/4* •1'^^ Holiday ELEVATIONS I I0IAAT HOMCS - VII27 NCOtfl-V/ lOH 1 Homes •ft ■ iflai—-“■H 0 N VV‘> 3/0 V 0 B6PR00M 2 12-2 X 11-3 0 rOTHEJ K.ITCH£N 11-2 X 8-0 1. •••f.r (?ININ6 10 II X 7-9 4/0 Of MASTER 0EPROOM 17-1 X 13-3 4/0 or <; mN LIVING 21-10 X 17-1 1/1V A900 r ~ f " 1* . N01 '^WCLUDEP^/ *V fl PRO-V 1Koom5LPRPH6SMTapR5H05MTLRN/A 2026 N/A V5HI-2W0 TdAI 2096 N/A 2026 I iH N/A V5HI-2050 TtAI-2056PRN/A N/A ^ J N/A N/A N/AKITGH30303216VOL 1*3030 VSHI-3030 TCA2 1830M5T BR 6040 3624*2 8 1 ii:i V6V3-7M0 VSH2-3650 TCA3-26460R 2 4040 3624 8 1 vai*4040 VSHI-3650 T£A2 2646BATH 1 N/A 2416 s 1 N/A V5HI-2636 TCAI-2636 4 I A' ;»•> /•; • If ' ^ Holiday Ha OAT FIRST FLOOR Kixfs - VMM Monn -•/ ion 1 Homes % __telMi __ sz liillllillliK litilllilliliiilillillil 1 PRO'V ROOM apR 6H I^T I St PR 5H CSMT LOFT 6040 /6V3 705C V5H2 3650 T6A3 2646 # Oi o ;T • •Vt N«».. • Holiday Homes SECOND FLOOR , yt •*S; j ig k-aa •MMli •a " 1 B i CM CMiMmm INK mm mm __m ttw mm MfV IMfV mm.w a$f9 fUMiON fmtmm imim m$m mmim tt$m ? CR056 eeam iCM.t Holiday Homes CROSS SECTION NOUMY H0MCS-rUi^(S£l**iir-VH2 Im 5d> oo }-McauT-«Atf: 103 I IM6PRMM 6 to nWVR I« IA50H OR OlteR RCSPOMMLe 00NIIM010R RIfH IHE BUPCR rOUHPATION PiKIBaB. IT B HB RearaBB&in to eiBURe ihm nc fouNMim b oaBTRucieo MMOORPMicettiMMnicMU coots M SOI amiais r ictfNi or rouMMiioN mv ohurn teum as show mc chiucal . t amts ARC ttot. iiCT «»f ee RCPORteo aiepiATELT to nc CNCICeRMC OCPARUeHT ) M.L rOUNPATION rOOlMftS SHM.I OCM ON UNOB1URKO SOI At A ■MWM ocfTH or fr teiot oraos vereNOtB on local most CONOItlONSI VAor CAjni Moro ft . 4 VCHIMO ARCA OT OASCICH1 OWCmS 8HM.L BC it Of 1M SASCICNt rLOOR AMA in rOR BOCA COOESI CONBUStlOH AR rOR ICAtMO COUnCNt MO rOUNOAtlON NSULAtlON tO BC M AOORPAHCt WItH APPLICABLe coots 0404 0> oo ) rOR CRAM.SPACC rOUNOAtlONS. nc bason COHtRACtOR 6 to PROvnc AH IT 114* Access to tic CRAasRAce no veHtiAtm At nc RAte Of i/iM or tic cfuaspAce area covcr cRA«.sr>Aa ■iiriLBi patrLB Holiday Homes FOUNDATION PLAN HOUMT hohls - <M M laout */ ion I■rg^i"^ii7i!4n iyrjgrrti+4 4 W^7 ~4. CZD^ • • * *. f • •tls^SSSS^■MUiULoQ rSUfM a ?SSSSki a ITo________ Q O «* O Q O a rmiriwi »f«ra4n o Miaiuin Ml i}g:i:nr /T\ CT A-A TTP ^flLUMMFT6 PETAL /^ITP Be A* POCKET PE TAIL RK ¥ I I ‘fmmwmmmttm aasM* it If it OMit t-rtv OMn rrrf □Mi». rt rit ,.z:— I Ai IM KfPf AUUil 4/Mi Ml m IWA Ml tMM M«U IM UK* Ml «Mi M » U» M« IM «0 ii • M iKMMftirr r Bf mum immum m mu «c mm ■ AUMMMBt .. ,— ^ m^ssss,mgmmmmmmwwt M If Mi 11 MW# MlimrnmmtKAmmmmumtmmmmmmmmflML MM HLt UUM iMir# MM# uarca MVK1M*M f MMm mmmm TYP COL\im FT6 PE TAIL RK « V *1 unM MM o o ^ B 1 Holiday Homes FOUNDATION DETAILS HQUMT HOMS- rui MOM - wen acsui ¥oo 1 Jygs N0Q. H H •• U D h N (^ I N I U D a t)bCCIOU‘Dfcil OF Plans'?&3SN€0 V/2/91 L I ) i I I iH-rrrrrm”rnr*f rrrrr ODQ£VATKM Kl*-^ 1 eweigvATiow □ «£AA ei£VATKy< 12.0 4^ (WHfeUVAlRIr W3? i,2.e84^ Holiday Horms ELEVATIONS KUHVKwrt - mna-v un_____ a mna-v ? 100 Ml s ■ N • • H H U D I- N I N H I u D a Holiday Homes i FOMOATKM HAN W LOFT Huv na« - vw a MDCHt .AttHLiii^ljQl 0 • • H III D K N I N I U 3 4 ! I I I IIs ixn »4«»4 t J* ' SECOND FLOOR W/ LOFT G H H M H ri y 3 h I M r< I u 3 FIRST FLOOR W/ LOFT Mouofff Macs - ncoit #2 O 9 !?v7 ) V* jy -f Othitil-tc Adjacent Property Ownen* Acknowledgement Form I (we) ^/w^A_________of [print name(s)] [print address] (, have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at "Z^oS also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare i^proval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council t^t I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ^JProperty Owner Date Property Owner Date *4141**** A A*A******************************<»* ********* I (we) [print name(s)] of [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2 WO S 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 ^-T7-<r7 Property Owner 0,~7-22-T7 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 OfBce at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 33-1(0 3-405 ■DunvJOcdi^-^/o ^6 ‘5p/t« August 12, 1997 C/A,,<% %1 Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planning/Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Dear Liz, It was a pleasure meeting you and your intern Brad yesterday at the Dunwoody Avenue lot on which my wife Julie and I would like to build a home. We would like to briefly review a few items regarding our application. *The principle hardship in developing this unusually narrow and long lot is that it requires a very long driveway that greatly impacts hardcover percentages. In fact, the driveway is over 3/4 the size of the footprint of the house plan, and nearly 1/3 of all hardcover. As we discussed, there are two possibilities for a driveway on this lot. We prefer to use the existing curb-cut on Dunwoody Avenue. However, if your office and or the Planning Commission would like us to use a Shoreline Drive curb-cut, we would be willing to work out a compromise plan. The Shoreline Drive driveway may possibly reduce the hardcover percentage. *We have contacted Coffin & Gronberg Land Surveyors and requested a line of-sight survey showing the neighboring houses. We have also requested location confirmation of the iron markers. *The placement of the house and garage would save the mature, healthy trees on the lot. *lf you, or any planning commission member has an interest in viewing our house plan, the same house with a bigger garage on a smaller lakeshore lot is currently under construction at 3025 Brighton Boulevard in Mound. 4 Please consider our request for a variance at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue. Without a variance, under the current hardcover limitations, we feel this lot is nearly undevelopable. As you know, our plan is to build a moderately sized home that is very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We thank you for your assistance and consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the following address or phone numbers. 4 Sincerely, Brent & Julie Walton 8 Shoreline Place Spring Park, MN 55384 471-9440 (Home) 646-1717 (Julie Work) cc: Planning Commission: Dale Lindquist Sandra Smith Charles Schroeder Janice Berg Elizabeth T. Hawn William Stoddard Lili McMillan TO:Chair Linda aist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron MoorS'City Administrator 9 FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator July 30, 1997 SUBJECT: #2278 Paul Woodruff of Wood-N-Nail for Patrick and Kathy Middleton 720 Tonkawa Road Structural Coverage,Side Yard, Hardcover, Lakeshore Setback, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR>1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:12,244.75 square feet (.28 acres) Application:The applicants are requesting variances on behalf of the property owners to remove an existing deck and construct a smaller deck that will provide more natural lighting into the rooms below the deck. The proposed deck would reduce hardcover, however, a hardcover variance, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback variances are required. Pertinent Ordinances: I ; • I ' • Section 10.24, LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District. Subd. 5, A. and B. Section 10.22, Subd.l, Lakeshore Setback Regulations, and Subd. 2., Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration »2278 Paul Woodruff/Wood-N-Railfor Patrick and Kathy Middleton Address: 720 Tonkawa Road date of PC: August 18. 1997 page—1 ■t i ■ ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140' 1 35' 1 10'75' and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Loi Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 12, 244.75 sq. ft.51.34 ft.124 ft.5.7' from north property line and 6' proposed from new deck to south propert> line 70' from existing deck, 66' from proposed deck The subject property does not meet the lot area or lot width requirement. The existing residence does not meet the minimum side yard setback requirement. The new deck would further er roach into the required side yard. The new deck would also be closer to the shoreline at 66' than the existing deck which is 70' from the shoreline. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,244.75 sq.ft.2,199.92 sq. ft. existing with all of the deck included 1,980 sq. ft. proposed with all of new deck included 18.36% existing 16.17% proposed 15% (1,836.71 sq. ft. allowed) H2278 Paul WoodrufpWood-N-Rail for Patrick and Kathy Middleton Address: 720 Tonkawa Road date of PC: August 18, 1997 page—2 A structural coverage variance is required. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0 ’-75' 75’-250' Total Area in Setback 3,759.75 sq. ft. 8,485 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover 250 sq. ft. (6.65%) 4,124.92 sq. ft. (48.61%) Allowed Hardcover None 2,121.25 sq, ft. (25%) Proposed Hardcover 220 sq. ft. (5.8%) 3,405.95 sq.ft. (40.14%) Variance Requested 220 sq. ft. (5.8%) 718.97 sq. ft. (8.47%) The applicant is proposing to reduce hardcover in the 0'-75’ and 75’-250' setback. However, variances are still required for both setbacks. Staff recalculated the hardcover worksheet and used the applicant ’s numbers for ^hc sidewalk and driveways. The plans submitted however, did not show the location of the sidewalk and driveway and the survey should be revised to show the location and dimensions. Additionally, the applicant supplied a calculation for plastic under landscaping but staff is not certain if the applicant was measuring under the e.xisting deck or elsewhere on the property. The hardcover calculations need to be confirmed. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has submitted a statement of hardship on the front of the application. This lot does not meet lot area, lot width, side yard, lakeshore setback, or average lakeshore setback. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship I ' 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used as a residence. 2. The plight of the landov/ner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The landowner wants to make the deck smaller to allow sunlight into the lower level. The circumstances are created by the location of the existing deck and residence and the lot »2278 Paul Woodruff/Wood-S-Railfor Patrick and Kathy Middleton Address: 720 Tonkawa Road date of PC:. august 13, 1997 page—3 configuration and relationship to adjacent structures. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances will not change the character of the neighborhood, however, the deck will be closer to the lakeshore and 2 ’ closer to the neighbor ’s property on the south. 4. 5. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration w ith this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Decks are permitted on residential structures in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 8. 9. Not applicable. J' ■The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining propert>’. This house is very similar in size to the adjacent property. The lots in this area do not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The adjacent house is similarly located relative to the lakeshore and side yards. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The conditions on this property apply to all other zoning lots in this district. it22 78 Paul Woodruff/Wood-N-Rail for Patrick and Kathy Middleton Address: 720 Tonkawa Road date of PC: August 18, 1997 page —4 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\ ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant is interested in improving the condition of the deck by reducing the size to allow sunlight into the lower level. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant needs to provide testimony regarding the need to further encroach into the side yard setback requirement and the desire to angle the deck which further encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and the lakeshore setback. Issues 1.This lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. The existing deck encroaches 5' into the required lakeshore setback. At least half of the residence is located forward of the average lakeshore setback due to the adjacent structure being located more than 170' from the lakeshore. 2. The lakeshore yard slopes down to the lake. 3. The deck and retaining walls are in need of maintenance. . 1 I' ’ 4. The applicant is proposing to remove hardcover in the 0'-75' and 75 ’-250 ’ setbacks. 5. Previous variances have been granted for this property. (See resolution #2324). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Advise the applicant to verify hardcover calculations for the driveway and sideway. Identify areas where there is plastic under the landscaping. Discuss further encroachment into 75' lakeshore setback and required side yard. Also discuss the reduction in structural coverage. ^2278 Paul Woodruff/Wood-N-Railfor Patrick and Kathy Middleton Address: 720 Tonkawa Road date of PC: August 18, 1997 page—5 Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Adjacent Property's 0^vners Acknowledgement Topo Map Hardcover Calculations Proposed Plans Front and Side Views Permit Record Previous Resolution ■> '; • • r ■ i #2278 Paul WoodrufffWood-H-Rail for Patrick and Kathy Middleton Address: 720 Tontuma Road date of PC: August 18, 1997 page —6 : !( . i • j I < • \ [i LOCATIOnI VA/Vp 22-1€> ■MSt cm-mr rwMiiM fwi itri INDEPENDENCE ______________________ mmn «tu ca D S § X I Witt tMaoi M 1 o ©aE MINNETRISTA S w«fmiJ MI SEI= MAP 75 •ft vmwim Jenningt 9^ |m (J\M ilarUy '"7 ZO To*AVa»>tt ^00 J|,h^ M V I U s/»eyVNil Application # “7 ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rene>\'al Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received *7 - 7 Amount Paid $ c~c ■V PROPERTY INFORMATION ~72Q Hopk:::4i^c^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal descript.jn to application if not included on required survey. Date Propertyj^uired ___________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do'^oO^o own the adjacent parcels of land. Present ^il5BT5r^opert>-: /X~ residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICi^T Name *4^1 (. Address: t9»\0'^S 'J-Phone (home) ''h City: (Vttsl Zip: 6STl\ OWNER (^if different than applicant) Name VcA- k W\:(^\g.-V6/\ Phone (home ) Address: "39^ €a _____ Phone (work) City: QfOrvn___________Zip:_____ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: 4m/vi t\o S oofr « V^\ccw\ » ■J (attach additional sheets if necessary) ±Le. VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area • Lot Width /\ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear _}^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: V\ofA«a-o-ooo r> VsW ft* 1 z^’i__ft C!>cig.*^ <$ . TVc \c ---------------------------... (attach additionalsheetsifnecess^ A H' y-T' / 7 Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) ________of lit Rh [print name(s)][print address] k^ve review'ed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No,________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date ♦**♦♦***♦*♦*♦***♦*♦*♦*♦*♦♦♦** ******************^****^^^***j^^^j^*^*^j^^^^^,^^^^^^^ 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 (w^e) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. HARDCOVE SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) rXISTINC HARPrOVER IN ZONE A. House X CULATION WORKSHEET 75-250* 250-500* 500-1000’ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X 120 130 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ - ^ ^ A ___________ - B 3 ^1^x100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______ X ______________ asz) Length Width 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 X \ZO Insi G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ A ______________ + B X100 e S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B ■StlMrF dAUlULf?r(0KJ HARDCOVER CALCULA SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ .AJIOK4V ^S-2S0'^ ORKSHEET 250-500*500-1000 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____X Length Width X X X 3. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X tLUra F. Landscape •f. Underlain !l By Plastic X X X c;G. Other rit TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVTR IN ZONE A. House_____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck c\^rL X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - ^ A ____________ - B X 100 1,11!^.^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i^O S.F. S.F. 34 :z S.F. S.F. CtfW Cm dw3i< S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Cj, I2M .qi^s.F. ^ S.F. 4S.(ol % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 234>.2/i S.F. S.F. S.F. /^O S.F. S.F. 153.0? S.F. S.F. E BAS. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3,^0^ .qC S.F. _S.F. % A B A B Base?:^ on ftCo\cjx[aMoif^i 0y\>^ Sulomi-fjcj Nee</ -fe \> OAd( F HAW)COVEaX^CULATIQ^^WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (J5-25^ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000’ A. House 4(/ T ZL3 Length Width X X X B. Garage ^C> / Driveway V ‘f X X e 4- •f D. Sidewalk 4o /7 - r / X X 4 » E. Patio/Deck \0 (f F. Landscape •« Underlain ~N By Plastic ‘ Or Fabric X X ^ 5 •4 n \ tr X X X V. / G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4^c?s - B }ZOOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 4' 4_____ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 214 14 X X D. Sidewalk Go X X i E. Patio/Deck ■ S ^X X J4 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric / 5 X X 4 / 4 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONEDPERTY -r B I___ X 100 X100 = S.F. >^o 240 !(.0 zsc> r4 ^ 'laoo f:4o /ZO r 5‘S'i/ lPO(P<S 4- 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. S.F. % A B A B As SUBM iTTeW J lot PAKTtN'S ro\^n• FlttT ADDITION HtMNEfIN COUNTY iMN. X • LAtt MTi SCi^Lt*. 1**»^.0* I-till TItEATiO C.IW1 fcXbTRCATCO POST ltr. 6* fLiNTM (LOCK. ' STttL" ANCHOR. riM GRADt irxAV SOMA TUBE ZxbriANO EAtU KA TOf »»ll- 4»+ POSTS 2x2 PlCttTS VMAt SrACIW Jl I K •4.' • • • ' • A •4 . I- 4 “TT“ 0 1 i-1X4 ftOTTOW4 CA;u ZAb DlCKINGi 1,4 TtiKl OOAKD j^FOCiTIN& DEJAIU Vl/SCALt: V‘i'-0" T e RAlUNGi DETAIL SCAuE;’/i*»i’'0" f ' ; ' •*: V. > •*. .' • • ■• »• V. ’ ... . * ^ % *4 « • A • .• •: Z-ZxaPtRiMCTEK. fcX(» TREATED POyWTtr jOiSrSPACiNS 9(U*.D4. , - • • i •1. . *...•• -.'i' ••■. V-- • * • » *.*••••■.% * ^ * * xr. .• . .. ..i ; : - 1 jO»5T HANGKa AS ItO'O. 2X12. LEDGER BOLTEQ.TO RJM 00<ST LAEHINO AS RECWtRtO.. V.t f V ’: ‘ ’• • \ • ILJ ' . • i • : .. . *• • *v‘ * V*; • J - • *:r^‘v:tlnOT^lNRee> / ^FRA'niN&.PLAM VJli/ SCALE :V.i'-0“ ■ ••; F F ( DM If? b CSS / EXISTING HOUSE 4':0:i;rrcHEM TufcceoAe DccoNo ff HI • . • U A-*2- . ^ TO'-O” [-------• •.' #• • • . * X •• # • iiwrr V . LIVING ROOM > • . DIRECT YENT.:^ . GA5 pmePLACE.,.. I - ^ -4: If 2«fe CEDAR DECWNG. Z-x4B" POST roomNG TYP. b'lfc" treated posttyp .. 2*2x11 KIM JOIST . rsee footing OCTAIL © FEAMING DLTA'L© + SEE RAILING DETAIL© DECK, plan SCAUE: »♦*» I'-O" • • • #2278 • ' •: ' *y .-**• -v **..••• . •. *• • .* .‘.f ''v . . , • * • .* ■’ . ' . t' *•* . *• . • f* •* •. A. / • •• .I-* j ■■••>. I r. . rs=r-". " : .1* . .f :*^»***- •• 1 ”m*t% lA^RIfTP* I'tiV^TU'W l.u!k'AlSII>i*i"_-^isi9H 1 •. \4 * 1 1 #v 7ZO JONWWA.RW cv ;: tvA . . — - - ^ m 9 ■ r • • 'i . •iliiM ItSi '0E2.•V'i.- • .» G- I»OOIIOI1 QIN>I I f *.1, 3;I.■V 9^.^*' I OP g NO S3S0S53City of ORONORCSOtUTION Of THiCITVCOUNCIi NO ______A RKSOlilTfON GAAIITIW A VAMANCt to NUMICIPAL 10N1N6 COM SBCTIOM SOMIVISION 2 PIM 11227 WB82IA8, Patrick Kiddlotoii Ch«r«iAaft«r *th« applicant*! is the cwnar of the property loeatod at 720 Tonkava Soad vithin tha City of Orono (hereinafter *City*) and legally described as fol loess That part cf Lot f *Partene Point* Pirst Division** Hennepin County* Minnesota* lyinf northitesterly of the folloeinf described line and its enteneionss Sesinnins at the Bidpoint of the southeesterly line of said loti thence northeasterly throush the Midpoint of a line drawn from a point on the northwesterly line of said lot distant 230.S feet northeasterly fron the most westerly corner of said lot* to a point on the southeasterly line of said lot distant 208 feet northeasterly fron the most southerly corner of said lot* to the northeasterly line of said lot* %^nd there ending* (hereinafter *the property*)} and vacsBAS* the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22* Subdivision 2 to pernit the construction of a detached garage and driveway resulting in hardcover i:i the 7S*2S?* lakcshore tone in excess of the hardcover r.craally allowed. BOit* TBinBPOBB* BB IT BBSOLVBD by the City Council of Orono* Mxrr.csota: P1ND1IIG8 This rrplicition vac reviewed as Toning Pile ^1227.i • T:.v prepoTty is locit^cd in the hR-lB Fin-^lc F.iirily LnJteshoro I c-^ ia I rrr. rr. 7 L\.*trict. The C rc.->ri f . *! : Cr irr.: ssi on reviewed this ^fp) iv at !cn e>n !;over!<L*r K*, ir.«i 1 eccrceriilod approval nt the. proposed v .ri*.rcc I 3 bed .:pcr. ♦he fo) lowing findings: •ii Thr' f;af?rty it st'-eply rlcpei frer the read rewn to the 1* rat ion ra'ir t!:o read is eipp*. c; r »:.t o fe: a «sr.fe •. • : • r . I *::;v«v.oy Icc -tirr., 1 •• 4• •• 4 * • ^ •% •#. VV ,u. . •.V »» V t • r. .».'V:-V. A •> ..W- 'v iti- ; .n: fjj-: • ‘ i. *.• .V- .• . ^ >.■• . ♦ .*• «* * ^ * *^ <; ■ .% • ! • •• « « CKY X RISOLUTION or IHi CUV COUNCIL bl The proposed fetAfO eottfttrttctioft results in e Aet decrease in hardcover in the 75-2S0* rone. c) Applicant has a hardship in that there is no esistinp garape on the property in uhieh to store vehicles or equipment. 4. The City Council has considered this application includinf the findinqs and reccrcendations of the Planninq Coonission* reports by City staff* coair.ents by tho applicant and tho effect of the proposed variance on the health* safety and uolfare of the coBssunity. S. The City Council finds that the conditions esistiny on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply yonerally to othor property in this roniny district! that yrantiny the variance Mould not adversely affect traffic conditions* liyht* air nor pose a fire hasard or other danyer to noiyhboriny propertyi would net oerely servo as a convenionco to tho applicant* hot is necessary to alleviate a dsmonstrahle hardship or difficoltyi is necessary to preserve a substantial property riyht of tho applicant! and ooold be in heopiny with the spirit and intent of the Zoniny Code and Conprehensive Plan of tho City* Based upeo tne above findinys* tho Otone City Council hereby yrants a variance to the Kuntcipal Soniny Code Section 1S.22* Subdivision 2 to pemit the construction of a detached yarayo and driveway which will result in Sl.St hardcover in tho 7S-2SS* laheshore setback tone where only 2St hardcover is nonsally al lowed* subject to the follewiny conditionst 1. Applicant shall subeiit a yradiny plan for City approval prior to issuance of s buildiny perrit for the csraye. 2. Applicant shall revise driveway plan sc that the wrdth of the driveway entrance tc Tankawa Foad is no y!eater than 15*. 1. Applicant shall revise the driveway proposal to include a backup apron so that vehicles ray cntei forward onto Tonfcawa Road. i face i of 4 POOR OfHQINAL DOCUMENT !n«l h.’ftirovtr apprcvcd £oi tJ.fc r • c t t follows lldt area in 7S*2SC* son# *» Rouse 1.220 s.f. Sideualka 441 s.f Landscape areas 100 s.f. Ratios S deeks 0)1 s.f. Garage 720 s.f. Driveway 102 s.f.__________ Total 4.40S s.f. or ;^.pplicant is advised that no future harJeevrr ir.rr< j . .• • • property will be approved, but sight be cr . conjunction with concurrent rer.ovals el ex:s* xr.r f.^ri-rv«r. 5. Authorities granted by this variance rwr. with : • . ; • * • not with the applicant, but are persisrive or.:> art r . t i exercised by application for a building perrit wiT.ir the date af Counci 1 approval, or this var larce wi I : t . :c that date (Deceirl^er 14. 1980}. 0. Violation of or non-coapllance with ary cf tfe terrt i* conditions of this variance shall constitute a vi r'Ia*;©- toning code, shall autoaatical ly ter&irave any auth:^r;ty herein, and shall be punishable as a sisdoreancr. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, urierstcod and !.er?:y agrees to the term of this resolution and cn behalf cf hieself. his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the- recciiing of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day cf CNsceii^f# 1987. <3Frbf^rty Owner(s) -kiA±» Janos A. Grabm. Kayor / y Page 3 of 4 h. POOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1 ORONO hi.bOLUi.ON C» tlilctN CC w\«.:l w. -5:-; STATT or MINNESOTA ) ) SS. count ; of henkefik ) Or. this --i day of * I _ _ _, is»7 before Re”# Kotary Public within and for said county» personally an-eared T. ^ t f v ^ * I ^ U‘ 1 ^ known to i.»e to be the personTs) descrTFcd Tn and who executed the foregoing irstrunent, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. n" ho:Asr fi*blic ^-y- yj KY CCKy.ISSlOK EXPIR’".*: STATE OF MINKES07A ) )sr. COUKTY OF HENKEPIN ) On this day of • before me a Notary Public within and for saad County, perronariy appeared ___________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrusientf and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ko;abv rcELic vy CC:^>:iSSIO.N EXP1RF.S rnac 4 of 4 "> t) < 3 iH L-vj I rAR I ciN ruiiNi, nr^oi uivic^iuinHENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA settxxtl LOT AREAS: LOT 12680+- S.F. 0-75 FT. 3760+- S. F. 75-250 FT. 8750+- S.F. >250 FT. 170+- S.F. r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 14, 1997 #2281 Hennepin County Department of Transportation - County Road 6 Reconstruction West of Highway 12 - Variance/Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, unsewered. Application: Hennepin County Department of Public Works requests a conditional use permit and variances for alteration of existing wetlands in conjunction with reconstruction of County Road 6 from just east of Orchard Park Road to the west City boundary. This project involves the filling of City protected wetlands, and land alteration in excess of 100 cubic yards. Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.55, Subds. 8-14 (Flood Plain and Wetlands Management Ordinances). 2. 10.56, Subd. 16(J) & (K) (Shoreline Management Ordinance). 3. 10.03, Subds. 19-21 (General Land Alteration Regulations). List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Project Description Narrative Including - Wetland Delim Uion Report - Wetland Replacement Plan - Table of Wetland Locations and Impacts Summar>' - Multi Agency Project Notification Form D - Wetland Locations Map (Sheets 1-2 of 8) E - Wetland Delineation Maps (Sheets 3-5 of 8) F - Wetland Impact Maps (Sheets 6-8 of 8) G - Orono Protected Wetland Inventor)' Map 1974 1 - National Wetland Inventory Map J - DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Map K - Hennepin County Soil Survey Map L - U.S.G.S. Topographic Map M - Aerial Photographs of Project Area Zoning File #2281 August 14, 1997 Page 2 Background The City Council in December 1996 approved the layout for proposed improvements to County Road 6 west of Highway 12, including reconfiguration of the intersection of Watertown Road/McCulley Road/County Road 6. The project is further described in applicant's project description narrative. Exhibit D. The project involves movement of earth in excess of 100 cubic yards, requiring a conditional use permit per City ordinances. Further, the project involves the filling of 0.56 acres of wetland historically protected under Orono ordinances, plus an additional 0.25 acres of wetland protected under the Wetland Conservation Act, for which Minnehaha Creek Watershed District serves as the "Local Government Unit" (LGU) for administrative purposes. Total impacted wetland acreage is 0.81 acres. The applicant proposes to mitigate off site at locations as of yet unknown. Applicant proposes that 0.81 acres of wetland impacts be certified for replacement by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) as provided in the Wetland Conservation Act rules. Orono's wetland protection ordinance prohibits filling of wetlands, but generally provides only minimal direction as to criteria for the granting of variances. Since virtually all of Orono's 1974 inventoried wetlands fall under the Jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act. the City in contemporary times has supported the MCWD’s determinations regarding wetland mitif. tti an. Wetland Impacts Summary The following is a summar>’ of the proposed wetland impacts: * Ir ORONO WCA AREA TO BE FILLED APPROX. % OF TOTAL BASIN AREA TO BE FILLED WL IN //0.16 ac.NB WL IS ✓/0.08 ac.NB WL2 ✓0.05 ac.NB WL3 /0.02 ac.10% WL4 ✓0.16 ac.60% WL5N ✓/0.07 ac.20% WL5S ✓<0.01 ac.5% WL6N /✓0.25 ac.30% WL6S /<0.01 ac.10% WL7 /0 01 ac.5% *NB = Not Basin (part of a drainage way) Total wetland acreage to be filled: 0.81 ac. Orono (1974) protected Non-Orono protected 0.56 ac. 0.25 ac. \ t Zoning File #2281 August 14,1997 Page 3 Erosion Control and Revegetation Applicant has submitted a detailed erosion control plan including revegetation plans. These are included in the 182 page project plan, which is available for review but not included as part of this memo. Other Agency Reviews Since the total impact on wetlands is less than 3 acres, this project qualifies for the Corps of Engineers Nation-Wide General Permit No. 26. It appears that Wetlands IN and 1S are potentially subject to Di\R jurisdiction because they are adjacent to the protected Painter's Creek tributary. As noted previously, the wetlands are subject to the Wetland Conservation Act for which MCWD is Orono's LGU. Discussion This Hennepin County project is necessaiy in order to reconstruct Countv ’ Road 6 in a manner that will incorporate new safety features and bring this roadway up to current standards. The City Council clearly fee's that the project is necessary from a public health/safety/welfare standpoint and has approved the proposed construction plans. As noted in applicant's submittals, the County has minimized wetland impacts by staying in the existing right-of-way whenever possible. Impacts to wetlands were also minimized and avoided by steepening slopes and pulling back the construction limits. Due to safety requirements for road alignments and sight lines, the County's ability to avoid wetland impacts is restricted when widening the roadway and adding turn lanes and roadway shifts. It appears to staff that the most significant impact on Orono protected wetlands will be in Basins 5N and 6N, which are essentially two halves of a single w etiand basin separated by a private driveway w hich has been in place for many decades. Approximately 1/4 of this 1.5 acre wetland basin will be filled. Tiiis basin drains to the north to another 1 acre basin, then northwesterly to the 100 acre "south Katrina marsh". This wetland system has been identified within the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan documents as an area requiring some storm water infrastructure improvements, possibly including a culvert replacement. Staff will be forwarding the application to the City Engineer for his review and recommciuhtion as the filling of this pond relates to the preliminary storm water plan. As noted in the discussion with the County Road 15 reconstruction project review, the City adopted Shoreland Ordinances that suggest that prior to filling a wetland there should be an analysis of the specific value provided by that wetland, but since the City has never completed an inventory of Zoning File #2281 August 14, 1997 Page 4 wetland values for specific wetlands, it is again at this point rather subjective to reach a meaningful conclusion. Note that the only Orono protected wetland within the shoreland boundaries for this project is the filling adjacent to Painter's Creek where it flows under County Road 6. Issues for Consideration 1.Is the proposed filling of City protected wetlands justified by the health, safety and welfare needs of the community served by this project? 2.Does Planning Commission have a concern about the loss of 1/2 acre of wetlands without any assurance that mitigation will happen within a similarly situated watershed draining to Lake Minnetonka? 3.Will the proposed fill have any negative impacts on the alTected properties that could be resolved on site i.e. for instance, is there any merit in expanding these wetlands on site to accommodate the filling? 4. Does Planning Commission have iny concerns regarding the overall nature of the project? Staff Recommendation Given that this project is in the public interest and given that it appears the applicant has attempted to minimize the impact on wetlands while balancing the needs and desires of the affected property owners, staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1, City Engin^'er to review storm water impacts of wetland filling. 2. Subject to review and approval by all agencies having jurisdiction. 3.Subject to adherence to the erosion control plan as presented and use of Best Management Practices during all phases of construction. 4.Subject to applicant obtaining land alteration permit from the City of Orono prior to commencement of the project. 5. Su‘ ject to any other conditions Planning Commission feels are appropriate, i Zoning File #2281 August 14,1997 Page 5 Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Recommend approval with additional conditions. 3. Table for further information (specify). 4. Reconunend denial, stating reasons. 5. Other. 5 "it vi >. Application # ^ / Date Received 1-3.3'^ 7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address CSAH 6 - West of Townline Road to east of Orchard Park Road Type of Application to be Filed ________Roadway Reconstruction Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) N/A APPLICANT Name Steve Theis Address 320 Washington Avenue South City Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Hopkins N/A i 930-2528 Zip 55343 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Hennepin County Address 320 Washington Avenue South City Hopkins Phone (home). Phone (woric) N/A 930-2500 Zip 55343 Date Property Acquired N/A I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore N/A . * I ‘ ' 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 N/A________ Present Use of Property______Residential X Other (specify ) Roadway RUN DATE 07/17/97 BATCH 003 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XI^ORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»tCRS LIST SB 29-110-23 S3 0009 PROP AOOR 0S9A0 SIXTH AVE N OMCR NAME NORTHERN STATES POMER CO TAXPAYER MSP PROPERTY TAX OEPT NAME/AODR • AM NICOLLET HALL MPLS m 55401 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 30-116-23 33 0009 0A765 CREEKMOOO TR L N UNDERHILL/H L UNDERHILL LONNIE H/MARSHA L UNDERHILL A76S CREEKMOOO TR MAPLE PLAIN m 55359 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 31-116-23 11 0003 007A5 ORCHARD PARK RD R K A M A SANSEVERE ROBERT K A MARY A SANSEVERE 7A5 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 31-116-23 11 0009 00755 HUNT FARM RO L H A J A MCCARTNEY LARRY A JAN MCCARTNEY 755 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 31-116-23 12 0007 04260 SIXTH AVE N KATHARINE S C0L6R0VE KATHARINE S COLGROVE 4260 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 31-118-23 12 0011 04360 SIXTH AVE N DAN FLIES JR DONALD A NAHAL FLIES 4360 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 0007 I TR 36 30-118-23 : 04675 CREEKNt DAK BIEK DAVID A KATHRYN BIEK 4675 CREEKMOOO TR MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 30-118-23 44 0006 00665 HUNT FARM RO HUNTINGTON FARM HOME OMCRS LARRY MCCARTNEY 755 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 31-118-23 11 0004 04165 SIXTH AVE N STEVEN R JACOBSON STEVEN R JACOBSON 4185 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 31-118-23 11 0010 00760 HUNT FARM RO JAR MARTIN JEFFREY J A ROBIN L MARTIN 760 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0009 04320 SIXTH AVE N F L DETERMAN ETAL FERDINAND L DETERMAN 4320 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0012 04225 SIXTH AVE N H A MUELLER A P 0 MUELLER NILLIAM A A PEGGY A MUELLER BOX 3 LONG LAKE rt4 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 36 30-116-23 33 00C8 04745 CREEKMOOO TR D A STOROAHL A N L STOROAHL DAVID A A NANCY STOROAHL 4745 CREEKMOOO TR MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 36 30-118-23 44 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HUNTINGTON FARM HOME ONNERS HUNTINGTON FARM HMOMBtS ASSN 1055 E NAYZATA BLVO MAYZATA MN 55391 38 31-118-23 11 0005 00665 ORCHARD PARK RO JAM P106E0N JOHN 6 A MAGDALEN M PIDGEON 10912 GLEN NILDING LA BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 38 31-118-23 12 0005 04285 SIXTH AVE N CHARLES E LARSON CHARLES E LARSON 4265 6TH AVE NO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-116-23 12 0010 04340 SIXTH AVE N C S MILLIANS A E R HILLIAMS CRAIG A ELIZABETH WILLIAMS 4340 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0013 04235 SIXTH AVE N H AND S WYATT WILLIAM D WYATT 4235 N 6TH AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 I 1 uf RUN DATE 07/17/974 HEMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTOWUTION SYSTEM PROPERTY OttCRS LIST REPORT NO. PX9SS40X PAGE 2BATCH OOS PROP AOOR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»f<ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER ' NAME/AOOR 38 31-118-23 12 0015 OA220 SIXTH AVE N RAJ HANNINB JR ROBERT C A JULIE HATMINO JR A220 CTY RO NO « LONG LAKE MN 5535A 3B 31-118-23 13 0002 00420 TURNHAM RO L E BERG A K M BERG LEONARO A KATHLEEN M BERG 420 TURNHAM RO MAPLE PLAIN m 55559 38 31-118-23 21 0002 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO >ERT JOHNSON lERT JOHNSON 2245 PLATMOOO RO MINNETOMCA M4 55305 38 31-118-23 22 0003 04705 HATERTO»M RO NEO L BUTTERFIELD NED L BUTTERFIELD 4705 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN W 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0007 04407 HATERTOHN RO J F A J M SERENA JOHN F A JOAN M SERENA 4407 HATERT0»t4 RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 36 31-118-23 24 0001 04480 HATERTOHN RD TAM SNEEZO TIMOTHY M SHEEZO 4480 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 5S3S9 38 31-118-23 12 0018 04380 SIXTH AVE N J E A J E CARPENTER JAMES E A JANET E CARPENTER 4380 CO RO MO 4 LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 13 0013 04300 HATERT0M4 RO JAMES JAY JOHNSON A HIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 4300 NATERT0M4 RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0003 04580 HATERTOHN RO KIP A NELSON KIP A NELSON 4580 HATERTOIOI ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0005 04720 NATERT0W4 RD ROBERT L PIERCE ETAL ROBERT L PIERCE 4720 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0008 C0430 DEBORAH DR 6 T KARLEN A M J KARLEN GREGORY T KARLEN 430 DEBORAH OR MAPLE PUIN m 55359 38'. 31-118-23 24 0004 04545 HATERTOHN RO J L A M R BROLL JEFF BROLL 4545 HATERTOFM RD ORONO FN 55359 38 31-118-23 12 0022 04300 SIXTH AVE N ROBERT A MARILYN GEHRMAN ROBERT S GEHRMAN 4300 ATM AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 21 0001 04490 NATERTOAM RD KEMIETH TURNHAM KEMCTH TURNHAM 4490 HATERTOHN RO MAPLE PUIN m 55359 38 31-118-23 22 0002 04745 NATERT0M4 RO DEfMXS GENE ESTERLY DENNIS GENE ESTERLY 4745 NATERTOAM RO maple plain MN 55359 ■ h 38 31-118-23 22 0004 04440 HATERTOHN RO SUSAN E LURTCS TRUSTEE H N LURTON A S E LURTON 3135 JAMESTOHN RO LONG LAKE MN 55354 38 31-118-23 23 0003 00425 DEBORAH DR S A A A T SHERLOCK SHAAM A A ANGELA T SHERLOCK 425 DEBORAH OR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0004 04405 HATERTOHN RO J F SERENA A J M SERENA JOHN F A JOAN M SERENA 4405 HATERTOAtl RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 I •»•• «I'RUN DATE 07/17/97 BATCH OOS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PACE 5 PROP ADOR OmSR NAME TAXPAYERName/addr PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR L PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 52-110-25 22 0005 05025 SIXTH AVE N raCHAEL A ALEXANDER raCHAEL A ALEXANDER 5025 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE HN 55550 50 52-110-25 22 0000 00000 ORCHAm PARK RO D E NINTERS ADR LAMB DOUGLAS E NINTERS 000 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55550 58 52-110-25 22 0007 00740 ORCHARD PARK RD J 1 8 HETHAN JOSEPH A A SHIRLEY A HETHAN 740 ORCHARD PARK ROAD LONG LAKE HN 55550 70 25-110-24 44 0002 04098 CO RD NO 0 DONALD H PAINTER DONALD H PAINTER 4096 CO RO NO 0 MAPLE PUIN MN 55559 70 25-110-24 44 0005 04000 CO RO NO 0 B R A J M ALEXANDER BRETT R A JUDY H ALEXAMER 4000 CO RD NO 6 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 70 25-110-24 44 0015 04955 BROADMOOR DR R L A J M BRANDRIET ROBERT L A JUNE H BRANDRIET 4955 BROADMOOR DR MAPLE PLAIN HN 55559 70 25-110-24 44 0014 04095 BROADMOOR DR J V HCNAMILL A M E MCMAHILL J V MCMAHILL A H E MCMAHILL 4095 BOAROMOOR OR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 70 25-110-24 44 0016 00065 jom iim rd 0 A A HANKINSON DOUGLAS A ANN HANKINSON 065 TONN LINE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 70 56-110-24 11 0002 04915 CO RO NO 6 ROGER H BRUCE ROGER H BRUCE 4915 CO RD NO 6 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 70 56-110-24 11 0007 04025 CO RD NO 6 BARBARA J LEFKY BARBARA J LEFKY 4025 CO RO NO 6 MAPLE PLAIN M4 55559 70 56-110-24 11 0000 04005 CO RO NO 6 K B A R E NQHAK KARL B A RUTHMARY E NONAK 4005 CO RD NO 6 INDEPENDENCE MN 55559 TOTAL BATCH 005 00047 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 KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE cr> <)7-/^-97 „ ZU. 1 JJ. fr V r - PROJECT NARRATIVE PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed project is to improve public safety by the addition of turn lanes, bypass lanes, paved shoulders and consolidating access in accordance with current design and safety standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will reconstruct a segment of CSAH 6 located in the City of Orono. The segment to be reconstructed is approximately 1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers) long and extends from 750 feet (228 meters) west of Townline Road to 375 feet (114 meters) east of Orchard Park Road. Portions of the following connecting roads to CSAH 6 will also be reconstructed as part of this project: McCulley Road, Watertown Road, and Tumham Road. Additionally, a consolidated cul- de-sac access area will be constructed off of CSAH 6 in an area approximately 200 meters northeast of the existing intersection of McCulley Road and Watertown Road. The roadways will generally follow the existing aligiunents but some minor shifts of alignment will occur. Wetlands adjacent to the project will be impacted and will require mitigation and replacement consistent with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. Overall, the typical sections for CSAH 6 and the connecting roadways are suburban and rural in nature. In areas where right-of-way restrictions exist and the topography warrants, a suburban section was used incorporating curb and gutter. The other areas will be constructed according to rural standards. Both typical sections consist of one 12 foot (3.6 meter) lane in each direction with 8 foot (2.4 meter) paved shoulders. Areas which differ or have additional features from the above description are discussed below: CSAH 6 A 14 foot (4.2 meter), center, rsvo-way left turn lane will be constructed on CSAH 6 between the consolidated cul-de-sac access area and a point 328 feet (100 meters) w'est of Hunt Farm Road (approximately 1542 feet, 470 meters). Exclusive right turn and bypass lanes (12 foot, 3.6 meter) will be provided at the intersecting roadways of Townline Road and Deborah Drive. Exclusive left and right turn lanes (12 foot, 3.6 meter) will be provided at the intersecting roadways of McCulley Road, the consolidated .access area, and Hunt Farm Road. The intersection with Orchard Park Road will have an exclusive right mm lane (12 foot, 3.6 meters). McCulley Road A free right with acceleration lane will be provided at the intersection with CSAH 6. Exclusive right turn and bypass lanes will be constructed at the intersecting Watertown Road. All lanes will be 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide. Watertown Road The intersection of Watertown Road with CSAH 6 will be eliminated. Instead, Watertown Road will intersect with McCulley Road to the southwest of the existing intersection and the alignment will be adjusted correspondingly. C - r • M 1 This project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1998 and be completed by the fall of 1998. During construction, roadway usage to access driveways of local residents will be maintained. Roadway users traveling through the area will be detoured. WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY , Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetland boundaries that were within 200 feet of the proposed construction limits were delineated, staked and surveyed. Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on May 8, and May 15, 1997. Additional field work was done on June 10-11,1997, to verify information regarding hydrology, soils and vegetation. Wetland stakes were surveyed by a Hennepin County Survey crew in May, and June, 1997. Wetland classifications are based on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) publications Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39). Soil colors are described in accordance with Munsell Soil Color Charts (1992 Revised Edition). Wetland Descriptions Ten wetland basins (Plan Sheet 2) were delineated along CSAH 6 between a point 750 feet (228 meters) west of Townline Road and a point 375 feet (114 meters) east of Orchard.Paric Road. The data forms for these del'T^-- .aons are attached to this report (Appendix A). Two additional basins near the eastern end of the project were also delineated but are beyond the construction limits of the project and are not impacted. Descriptions for these two wetland basins are not included in this report. Two additional sites within the project corridor were investigated and determined not to be wetlands (Plan Sheet 2). Descriptions of these areas are included in this report. The data forms for these two determinations are also included in Appendix A. The National Wetland Inventory and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Protected Waters and Wetland Inventoiy for the project area are shown in Figures 1 through 3. The Hennepin County Soil Survey and USGS topographic map for the project area are shown in Figures 4 through 7. Aerial photographs of the project area (Figures 8-11) are also included as part of this application. Wetland #1N(WL1N) WLIN is a type 2/1L/R4 wetland (PEMB/PFOl A). The dominant vegetation is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), boxelder (Acer negundo) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Soils are described as Hamel Loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined and were established primarily on elevation and hydiic soil indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #1S(WL1S) WLIS is a type 2 (PEMB) wetland dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Wetland boundaries are sharply defined by the toe of slopes of the existing road fill. Soils are mapped as Hamel loam (10^ 3/1). Field samples indicated that the fringe area resembled Dundas silt loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features (mottles) were present at two sites (TI-1, Tl-2) along a transect perpendicular to the northern wetland boundary. Mottles at Tl-1 are distinct, very ft . s fine and approximately six inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 4/6. Mottles are less than one percent of the matrix. Mottles at ten inches are distinct, fine and approximately one to five percent of the matrix. Mottles at Tl-2 are distinct, very fine and approximately eight inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 4/6. Mottles are less than one percent of the matrix. Mottles at 12 inches are distinct, fine and approximately one to five percent of the matrix. No mottles were found at the upland site (Tl-3). Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydric indicators (mottles). Wetland #2 (>VL2) W’L2 is a tvpe 2/3 (PEMB/C) wetland. The dominant vegetation in the wetland fringe is reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Cattail (Typha sp.) is dominant at lower elevations.. Soils are described as Hamel loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fnnge. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined and were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect 1, Appendix A). Wetland #3 (WL3) WL3 is a type 2/3 (PEMB/C) wetland. The wetland fringe is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), black willow (Salix nigra.) and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Cattails (Typha sp.) are dominant at lower elevations. Soils are described as Hamel loam (lOYR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in two of the three transect sites (Tl-2 and Tl-3). Oxidized root channels, 2.5 YR 4/6, were observed at Tl-1. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #4 (WL4) WL4 is type 2 (PEMB) wetland. Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), elm (Ulmus sp.) and boxelder (Acer negundo) are dominant in the wetland fringe and adjacent upland areas. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Soils are mapped as a depressional area in Lerdal loam (10 YR 2/1). Field investigations found soils resembling Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1). Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #5N (WL5N) WL5N is type 4 (PEMF) wetland. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is dominant in the wetland fringe. Cattail (Typha sp.) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Most of the wetland is open water. Soils in the wetland fringe are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1). Peaty muck (Gley 2.5/0) is present below the wetland fringe. Redoximorphic features were not observed in the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). • I I 1! !.s .-j ? Wetland #5S (WL5S) ^ WL5S is a type 1L (PFO1 A) v.etland Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) are dominant in the wetland fringe. Boxelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fra.xinus pennsyivanica) and elm (Ulmus sp.) are dominant below the wetland fringe. Soils are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1) but have some characteristics of a E)undas silt loam. Redo.ximorphic features (mottles) were present at one site (Tl-1) along a transect perpendicular to the northern wetland boundary. Mottles at Tl-1 are distinct, very fine and approximately 8 inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 5/8. Mottles are less than 1 percent of the matrix. No monies were found at the wetland boundary (Tl-2) or the upland site (Tl-3). Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). ■ .• I'l Wetland #6N (WL6N) WL6N is a type 3 (PEMC) wetland. Reed can^ grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is dominant in the wetland fnnge. Cattail (Typha sp.) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Soils in the wetland fringe are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1). Peaty muck (Gley 2.5/0) is present below the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #6S (WL6S) WL6S is a type 3 (PEMC) wetland. Reed can^ grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is dominant in the wetland fringe. Cattail (Typha sp.) is the dominant vegetation below the wetland fringe. Soils are descril^d as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/1) but have some characteristics of a Dundas silt loam. Redoximorphic features (mottles) were present at two sites (Tl-1, Tl-2) along a transect perpendicular to the northern wetland boundary. Monies at Tl-1 are distinct, fine and approximately 6 to 8 inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 5/8. Mottles are 1-5 percent of the matrix. Mottles at Tl-2 are distinct, very fine and approximately 14 to 16 inches beneath the surface. Mottle color is described as 2.5 YR 5/8. Mottles are less than I percent of the matrix. No mottles were found at the upland site (Tl-3). Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and hydrologic indicators (Transect Tl, Appendix A). Wetland #7 (WL7) WL7 is a type 4 (PUBFx) wetland. Wetland boundaries are sharply defined as this is an excavated man-made pond. Sedge (carex) is the dominant emergent vegetation but most of the pond surface is open water. Black willow (Salix nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsyivanica). and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) are dominants upland of the wetland fringe. Wetland boundaries were established primarily on elevation and water marks. Wetland Determinations Wetland Determination#! (WDl) WDl is located on the north side of CSAH 6, approximately 260 feet (80 meters) southeast of WLIN and across CSAH 6 from WL2. This area drains to a wetland located to further to the north. A culvert under CSAH 6 drains water from the south side of CSAH 6 but sufficient slope exists to prevent ponding adjacent to the north side of CSAH 6. WDl is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Soils are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/2). Redoximorphic features ■K -M. " .y .: 1 1 •> were not present within 16 inches of the surface. The hydric soils and vegetation criteria were met but wetland hydrology was absent. Wetland Determination #2 (WD2) Wp2 is located on the south side of CSAH 6 approximately 72 feet (22 meters) east of WL6S. This area is upland adjacent to a wetland located further south. WD2 is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and boxelder (Acer negundo). Soils are described as Hamel loam (10 YR 3/2). Redoximorphic features were not present within 16 inches of the surface. The hydric soils and vegetation criteria w'ere met but wetland hydrology was absent. WETLAND REPLACEMENT SEQUENCING The County has minimized wetland impacts by staying in the existing right of way whenever possible. The County also avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands by steepening slopes and pulling back the construction limits. The design calls for 0.81 acres of permanent wetland impact. The County's ability to avoid wetland impacts, when widening the roadway and adding turn lanes and roadway shifts are necessary, is restricted due to safety requirements for road alignments and sight lines. WETLAND IMPACTS Wetland impacts are shown on Plan Sheets 6-8. A total of 0.81 acres (0.33 hectares) of wetland will be impacted by fill associated with the proposed project. Tablc#l summarizes the wetland impacts for each indiv’dual w'etland. All impacted wetlands are in the Mississippi River Metro watershed (watershed #20). This project qualifies for Nationwide General Permit #26 from the USAGE since the total impact is less than 3 acres. WETLAND REPLACEMENT The 0.81 acres of impact to WCA protected wetlands will be certified for replacement by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resouices (BWSR) as provided in Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 5F. The Hennepin County' Transportation Division, Department of Public Works, will comply with the requirements of Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Subp. 5D and submit a report to the BWSR that includes the 0.81 acres of permanent wetland impacts described in this report. 1 r a !f‘j, $ '' A4.. ' . v^-^-V //•». / TABLE#I WETLAND LOCATIONS AND IMPACTS SUMMARY WL« ■ A------------------ I----------:------------------------Area of Impacts (ft") Impact Type Jurisdiction Topographic Setting 147.4 2.1L.R4; PEMB/PFOIA 2; PEMB 2J; PEMB/C 2.3; PEMB/C 2; PEMB 4; PEMF IL;PFOIA 3; PEMC 3; PEMC 4; PUBFx USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA USAGE; WCA 353S8.8 ft* ^0;8l^acre^0J3Jiectaies)^ Isolated • « • # ’ \ HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 6 (CSAH 6) RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (CP#9444) WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION Applicant: Hennepin County Transportation Division, Department of Public Works Project Location: City of Orono, Minnesota Date: July 16,1997 CONTENTS Local-State-Federal Project Notiflcation Form Project Narrative Wetland Delineation Report Wetland Replacement Plan Appendices LIST OF FIGURES iitle Project Location Map Wetland Location Map National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Map Hennepin County Soil Survey Map USGS Topographic Map Aerial Photo^ph of Project Area Wetland Delineations Wetland Impacts Figure Number Plan Sheet Number 1 2 1,2 3 4,5 6,7 8-11 3-5 6-8 PERMITS REQUESTED Section 404: Nationwide Permit No. 26 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Conditional Use Permit: Land Alteration, Grading and Filling - Designated Wetland from the City of Orono APPLICANT AGENT Hennepin County Transportation Division Mr. Steve Theis 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 (612) 930-2528 Hennepin County Environmental Management Division Mr. Joel Settles 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 (612) 348-6157 CITY OF ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION CSAH 6; COUNTY PROJECT 9444 S.A.P. 27-606-15 PURPOSE: To supplement the City of Orono General Land Use Application which is required due to the grading and filling of wetlands. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve public safety by the reconstruction of CSAH 6, adding turn lanes, bypass lanes, paved shoulders and consolidating access in accordance with current design and safet> standards. The attached permit application requests a wetland permit from the Army Corps of Engineers in addition to the Conditional Use Permit and fully summarizes wetland delineation, impacts, and mitigation. Upon the City of Orono’s Planning and Zoning Commission review, Hennepin County respectfully requests that this Land Use Permit be granted and recommended for city council approval at the September fifteenth council meeting. Attachments inc’nde the following: • Completed application form. • Certified property owners list with mailing labels and plat map. Existing and proposed contours (see plan sheets 3-8). Construction plan. City of Orono approved Layout 3 (colored). ! i 1 i£LSTBUCnONS>PLEASg READ CARgPUt IV ***''• *®**'*V. O' wawohod manaotmom oroanlaatfon. Spadfy th. LGU to wh.a, you »e aandin, th. tom.:___Minnphaha rrool, District Watmmo D mtmct (W one exists for the project free). Specify the Watershed District: Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dlstrirt. MswitsoTA OiPAivTMsrT OF N atwal RcMuncis (MDNR) regional office U.S. A mwy Cowe OF ENQMEBts (ACOE). Send the ACOE copy to: ^ Anny, Corps of Engineers. St. Paul District. ATTN: COfl. 190 Fifth Sveet East St Paul, MN 55101<1638 wSlSdaS™ “ Chedk wHh p«"* opioorton torn,. H caraMy *. „«owi„, lnt«mad.TS^”,n P«>nl» f<» yoor ordae. Kaaa. xxnxxmxnxxixxxmxmxnxxixxxmxmiuxiixiiimnxmxxn sliSTiXSTeVo; u'JC:!!*' duly^^orised^aMm of the applicant. ^ P®**«** ^ *uthonty to undertake the proposed ecdvHies or I em acting as the / DateSignature Of Applicant / oatfc ' . Signature of Agent H it "*“« be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activitv (aPDiicantl or it y be signed by a duiy authorized agent If the information requested below is provided. Agent's Name and title: Agent's address; Agent's telephone: ( knowinflly and willfully f^«n*t*eonc««l«!^^^rt uo b^wiv rt'k j«n*«l'ction of eny dapertmont or agancy of Tha United Stataa fraudulent atatemanta or rooraaantatiana *ar nub.. «. ^ ^ ^•viea a mataifal fact or makaa any falea, fletitioua or not more than fiva yaara, or both. SEE ATTACHMENT ABOUT MDNR PfjRMIT Pgtjfy J W4-<nnr»gi Local * State * FspcmL Waie ^ Rtsouwct Pbojcct N ottficapow / a >wjcation Fowm U m 0i« fofm u notffy/applY to tho U.S. Anny Cofpo of CngiMoro. ttw Miwomu Ooponmont of Noturri Rooowrooo. onf your UoRI i u-*. of o propoood wotor/woflond profoct or work which moy foU within thoir Juriodickon. Thooo oponeioo olwtdd odMoo you of tfwlr h-'TitBd"'" ro«iit«monu within 4S dovo. Somo LGU o moy doo ro^uifo oubmiooion of thoir own ipp«orton fomio. P9 out tNo fonn oorrod«dy wd m!a T2T tiSn’SSSA'^SSs’SfoiriSl.SlN^^ ~r-y~youmu»totTAM*awouimd ’’ AGtMCY USE ONLY: LGUNUMBOI:MOfW HUM •i.'. Applicant'# Norn# (Loot. Rrot. M.IJ AuthYiUod Apam, if «iy Hennepin County Transportation Division; Theis, Steve — — w ^ y ■ V A ^ *612* 930-2528 Addr#4# IStroot. RFO. Box Number. City, Stott. Zip Cod#) 320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkines, MN 55343 Q. Leeaden of propotod pro)oct tottoeh drtwina thewing hew to got to oito)Hennepil! Countv. City of Orono COUNTY Hennepin QUARTER SECnONIa) T118N, R24W SECnONSto) No. TOWNSHIRto) No. RANGCM No. Sec. 36 T118N, R23W, Sec 31.32 Lot. Btock. tubdidoi#n FIRE No.. BOX No.. OR RROJECT ADDRESS N/A name of waterbody affected end NUMBER OF KNOWN) N/A m.estimated PROJECT COST: » 3,225,000 00 length OF SHORE AFFECTED On foot): IV."X-----^/ Aeroo. OR Sguoro Foot WOTi: yptf may ptAftftidp AnoMoono) V.TYPE OF WORK AND AREA CCHECK Aa THAT APPLY): □ CONSTRUCT □ DRAIN □ EXCAVATE UQLL □ REMOVE □ REPAIR □ Aoens Path □ □ Dooc □ LAKE □ cuwir □ SHORELINE □ WATERWAY □ D am JtWD OTHER (DESCRIBE): WETLAND TYPEIS) AND ACREAGEIS) PROPOSED TO BE FUJLED/DRAINED: (see attached Plans 1 _____________ Attoch appGcablo drawingo, piano, and ASCS crop phetoo. Iftdudo a doocriptfen of any propoaod eomponaatory midgaiion. Iwoortont: Idandfv th¥ tfopotol and borrow ofooa. Dotenbo the worti bolow: how it would bo done; whM oquipmant would bo utod. I VI. PROJECT PURPOSE (why ia thio project rwodod-whot bonoRu will It prov(do7): Improve public safety by the addition of turn lanes, bypass lanes and paved shoulders. VII. ALTERNATIVES (dorcribo any other ti’ao or methodi that could bo Utod to achiava the purpoaa of your projoct whila avoiding Of fidnimixing wadand/watar impact#: Attach oddibond sheota, if neadad). No build alternative is not feasible due to safety concerns. VIII. DATES: Propoaod aurt of activity; Spring,1998 (Idandfy any computed work on an attached drawing) Proposed cocnpl«Tion: Fall. 1998 IX. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach Uat H mora than two) Name AddreaaSee attached^s*t Chy Sut« ONR ^X. PERMITS have boon racaivad (antar an fl) or alraady appliad for (antor an ^ from: __ _A_Towh /City a WATPgrm Dcnaer ___MN PotumoN CoNmo. AcorcY Haa an archoaological aurvay of the projoct aita been done? N ao. by whom: GrOUP Ltd. COUNTY 1 htrtby notify tho rodpUnts of this form of tho pro{set proposed hsrsin and rsquoot that I bo odviood of ony pormhi or othor dotomdMtiono oonoomlng thio oroioct that I must obtain. I undorotand that procoading with wort baforo al raquirod aMthortzationa art obtainod may ai^lact ma to Fodoral. Suu.^d/or local adminiatrativo. oivfl and/or oriminai panahiaa. /i Signatura of Panon Propoaing Pro)act or Agant < < < PLEASE CAREFUUY READ AND COMPLETE BACK OF FORM> > > DATE:7//// (Revised 1 1 l—ArJ/t_ -J ViVL e cn inm 3 \ “ ■\ » 'if i /f (■' ’J «c?ss P «3 Sr- -o m -« ii ti 8 S^* ~ u» r- rn r- * Xm -4 X X o 8 /R P'1 $ 9 $ $ M ^ ^ ^1 p^ r*i 33? 3? 5? <n %M t>» -> M ^ rR 5 PPPE iSS^ — o r* r- |Pg5 5 * :2 := 5gs s oos S3» “w ^ 3 S Qip w —i tw 5 o e ^ s ; * g> g I 2S 2 •»•o 2 m o > «o (nnl ==il (r= *110 5Sa O •D <K I ORCHARD PARK ROAD CP CD Oc CD 3>za -< o cz m :xj oo Call' m ocz:3o 00 o -< 03m:o 'y M/'' '7'* i> \ ’''-.lo)r'M^ ' v-y •■?' .//// ! f f* f-"". ..-i-ypi'i\ yhi 'i/u ..i rfjh >i / / « •* O'*'* <...- - , y . -..-•..■yr ■■■ A * • . V-\ ;.^/ •v7-v?,^V '•/^' V\ ;/ / / \ /' I /; ;i 7W/ \.l/; ; l; 7i- yy--:>>x- / I I / /r / V' tr62 --^- r> m c/> I I Xrr C m -o oo o (/> “O 30 O O CD 00 no ro -nI Io>ocr» I £u> 30m 30m m 30 </> m 00 00 m 3D COm m C3J tAO m 1/^oc: o R:o rmo I»•« I XPmo s 5 m-o in -o o ocnI :om o in •D 33 OC- O• U3 4^ m m 33 CO m 00 CO m 33 COm mo o CO —I Hr o 3* § Om 33 8 mo 09 -< I I 33mo § o >* n1 m "D O Oc o -D 33 Oc. LO in >>CO m r-—4r-►•—4 •D•OzZtooc•33m N> -<4 1 2^cn •H O COcn 33cnm -Hm 33CO CZzr"m CO CO o-Hzm —« 33 o 3e.•—•COCO-HmJ> —121 O o -H ~p^m C3 1 ? f > II z > cH Z —oz > Hm O (0 H > Hm (/} $mom T > JO Hsm Z o CO-n > o X Z H m 3D ^ O= o 3} • • r-T T---7-d <' \-' H ’^4^ \ Jr • ^ ^ • i : ^ . ■JKL'--..'.‘..'fisL .i 1 I itn niU'.!! f*n )’!! I ! M * JL^ 'il !!I!r!n"! {h''ll}li)l iii ‘I'ii-H! nplitii? il«*!;iij{ i iliiHilliJ'iM 'i I ;ii:i(Ji;i:ii'!‘ •1- c X “Z 2: M "n 5c 3Dm 0} ill jaSL (D MS •il T-JV-' V- I'. V J ■n oc 3Dm CO . . C\-/ . h - ('■•vX- ml I X z § JLJL__•5ii. 5 ( i* s 1 mz 2 m •D oo 2 Z 2 m CO I / rs C ; CO Im q 2 Cs CDm ;o » l\) 9 $ N 3«• § mm • • :-i.4x-ckJkW ca c \n( 1 ? 1 / :•:;? Ilf if Ti.''’'; :K' c c*o 8 § Al < L'a> /T / I 1 i''(irv_ Ui ► > ^0**^ i\Q^ VJ -V 0/*«® V_u ---► =rU'^l’' ■>>■/ »’>*-^ 0'-'^ f'K a.^1 * •\''- f/pf ^ «' •' s \ L 1 . >J* / L t.» » I o I V -5* .■''\ c'I 'S •**fiuei'i L\0 s • \ n A r A y 4' I * \ <^l » i > )I * ) I /> I »r i .w .'.__2 » i i ^ »> ♦ cN L ,’VL V. I Oit'. .^// o 2^ / "*V- •7' -1 ® ( I i I > f > I Vi ‘ . •./ k ^ ;— 1-1 I > ;r .«.-;ooo‘ ' / - ► » . * M/t’i9‘ c:f. > »►1-^ r±o^yn ,v «- %^—ZZ.' /» ,:v »» .4air«to' :-ri/\T ~\ -V !Q'4^"l -\ I 11 I » V. \ ' ■V * “ " • * • ► r ^••ao r.I >''V o V V* 1-\ 0 “ f > V*- r ^ »• • ,:c.;/ r-* I P.xio i.,'I , ^ - i ■'•’f - *'CL 4 ? »t * , -*>• '•*'» * I te' r s. ^ » t ';v i^N'f f'E'^ ” (' (•CW^ •t • K [ ^ rf;'.I >SI ^ . -t' t k rV ri"-' .'^:e-"; -'•s^//■<(.■w '^x % \ . ^ CT> \ lv. » I ( \', /I // ■ »1 :2/ P >'V -1 » • \'"-M /■ .\- 4 ■f V mm ' I V vTT^is F^.-’ '• *A». i>'.' .:n / j’»Af i * ^ II?;:' ■ ii: ' ;j A-J'Vw'"c; - - \\ fsm '1 •o t-=^' 'i ^ I *. r • -, ♦ 0 - *i/*I V, o r ‘;IP^u- u y) f ►--fc .'/' ' N.'- gw V-~"7P^ 7 .1 k ■f « I »'* I.,' kV'> >yW ' M' i V ■' ► LI '),'V , '■;!■' 'V^,^ 8 r - 5 ^ ^ - w m '' q po 5 O ♦ * rn m zT? O) Jn > ?^f-' J i i\ 1\ Jr \ \ VILLAGE Jij 1 A n 2 <S! 3) O 7D Tl 5cnm o> -n J CJ1 » 2 X “1" tnz5 <n Zocz 2 O* tn 5 (0 « H I PI^ so a -4 •n •;/iS :' tOx^i ■■' :A-' :-• V:••SN'n •11' y'i » I •• .‘I \ I* V \' |u '. ‘ '"'nX ' V > /V /'9 ^ ' • . ' *1 1 i » ^ ' 17/;' C£ ‘ y»v5 v/i •. - i - I ■ •' ''• '/jv '/ . ' ' * ‘ *y Uy ‘ ‘ , ‘ r 1 — Z^’ ^ v">/ — • •» • f I ^ fy^. A i*\ - \\ ■■^' / • \ 2. O ^ • « ' I I I — it I 1 ► I Jr u • i!|y i5 i_j.. H • • i!? - i=?"l_ •_• • * ■»• _• i_ i I ■■CSBF3. ^IL• • • ••• I *••••<;• %» » 1* •. vCT^ >o I !\f j : V \» * *y ....^. 5l* • T*"^v ^ \3<>Q i ’*fl\ l’v-”i* ‘Xj^ ¥' ••■?-*>-'{\\ "S'. :^Ar )• '‘•-X . I ■'x j!5j : •I "I*. A^.‘ I5B-/ V; ••• ‘ -Vpfr\j I! r f »/>-1' 1! .^/ !. •" • ••-• /lo r ■••• • • ^rr^v. 0 7) ^ Vl ^ • -^*1 ' - IW • t tI o r^V'-.'I • ' J- Jk “_ •, -- * • ' ', ' j] _ J r» ' I .y \ ■fe :• Sljmi yj I'-'L Ay U.. 4 M ', >-S I*V V \.......ll!.X \N^. <■ c 3 ■-,# .'"^r ^'Hs S^r-^v •\,'.Me* . • % s \ 'V X . O V '■* V- •\/ Sz/\ ./ » ,s %) t » \\! \ \« 1» I t—. I ■r ■ X '.^■ *»*\ ♦' I x» - \ ■' ____________________ - •. ! y. f .1 * ! I *i \ w\M li II > y -i 5\.-'O • A X / o 'y • '• > > tf , } \}<31 ;5^ /yfl V » * -^'r-'J ii<Pi K V -9- ' 'X* •: Jix ( •' "• w 7 • S 2 yJ' *v a R 1%-// A S. V \\ \\ Afi •^-' W ;;ar5 V s • i' las VI X//fe?' 'k'! ^1 • -< o i!;§ I • • • • • - • , <.. • • • v* ■ ,*^**^»'* •« • • • _ •••■■/•■ .!!■ :• 'V ^ h ^•.©■\w<t. ,rvj - iS( ,T)U)- \\ “ . jL' I t > ) ^ <L A N \AN .»,( I I ^3 / A \\ • •v^W*.’ Z^. A py (. • < V.‘ N / ''/i ■^\ / ;i A:-x xS z<V N%'< • '•’ »A\ « 7 \ ryd r *• /.-si V ,1 .• >»•» f. 'VI K mm. *'%. r.^ VA* 'i Ejs c. ■'^ .%•; . . i-* % '3^ ■s .--' ♦ V J5 r-r ' * •'! S aS T.|^ ' *-r^:.<:’ll A.m y _ ’*^ . v> w\,wi *; ,\i -^ < -•'W. '«■.. -4 •k 1 NP** hi-„. ■•v k- ' - -^i 1 ■■". '<.?'/« :-.y . . - wm »u« « .r (-VL I y. .' PPi<Mtm m € ^ M1* ,«5 ‘ 0'\\V'\ ,A;'^ >*ij« • ‘ ' 1 IV . r •. ^ ’ vsr^:29 *4': ^ < f>5 Ok j£lv • *•>. V' y{ ■ . d • iT'*I >;« A •i \ :^>^' I***- PL' ^ L.4ittK)»«a^'<r . :iC^ >1 'sr,-<V ^ • . '55^T ^ ♦a’A> ■' '• •• Vr‘‘-ul........»; • ";jrVP7.-Vr? .V ^ /-.I 'Nfef ?jar<' •'*' k£5!feiij?-»i- • VVit :-Vi»i r*'-jpfti' m ^'>»' ■ ' v;^f .i’ ' / k- /'iiilk. Lk4M^ * % ■ * 1^ .m i- ^ • fr M ' V > ^Jll .'i& “•r\v>< »: .2^. *m V v: . w •* ^ H ' .. «S *rWm ■* r. •■ ••'-f.^1 ^lltosSi, i. ■•■<-. *. •'.*v<i"^/J r.Hs:AL -1 11 tTsS"'::i..,v * '* jlL f T Bcr iii r'jfl^Hi.- a?s^.>4 K k* ? s mm0 i*^ r.'.yv ^ t ‘ ♦III t-'^ *\ *;%v4- 8k M-"3 7 ?/. !#2 2.# ** •'x^^ Riili •r V * .< 3;^ Wf,- t*i 1 ■. -. > vV y*s* ^ >; <v'! VIA 3^^-*■mi 'H:^; >V "if -* ... ".'A TfW ii fmm T ■ ^V’*' ■ ■ lJ\l;^^l /'■- •W•>^^••5m•.:•i•^.v V;;a v; ,,•'.' *?S- e.^kwUV* City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax; (612) 473-0510 13. MEMORANDUM DATE:August 14, 1997 TO:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance A subcommittee of the Park Commission has been working on tree preservation issues.Their work is included for your review. On July 7, 1997, the Park Commission voted to send their comments to the July 14, 1997 City Council meeting. The City Council voted to send this issue to the Planning Commission. The minutes from the Park Commission and City Council meeting are included with this memo. StafLR Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this background material and discuss providing direction to staff regarding ordinance preparation and possibly scheduling a work session. Attachments Minutes from July 7, 1997 Park Commission meeting Minutes from July 14, 1997 City Council meeting Park Commission subcommittee work Minnetonka tree preservation ordinance ORONO PARK COMAUSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 7,1997 DRAFT ATTENDANCE The Park ConuDlssion met on the above mentioned date Tvith the fbOowing members present: Chair Susan Wilson. Commissioners Shcrokee Use, Andrew McDermott, James White (who arrived at 7:40), and David Beat Van Erickson and Peter WeOes were ^sent. Representing Staff were Public Service Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zommeren. and Recorder Sheny Frost. Chair Wilson called the meetisg to order at 7:20 pjn. (#1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 2,1997 MEETING Wilson noted that the Commission decided not to meet earlier on ste for this meeting as indicate in the June minutes to discuss the sketch plan being considered for property on Saga Hill due to changes being considered for the sketch piaa Beal moved, McDermott seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Park Commission Meeting of June 2, 1997. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Item #2 follows Item #6.) (#^ TREE PRESERVATION POUCY Beal reported that a meeting of the sub-committee was held resulting in a broad based policy. Points 1 throu^ 5 will be discussed with Council and the policy will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The policy is directed at developers with emphasis on commercial properties. Beal said the committee recognized the ri^ts of private property owners and has recommended a brochure be provided relating the philosophy of Orono regarding preservation of its rural theme. Gaffiron had mentioned at that meeting concern for "taking" of land. The policy will be reviewed by Coundl at thdr July 14 meeting. Wilson indicated that a couple members of the Planning and Park Commissions could review with Staff and possibly the consultant to provide the details of the policy. Wilson indicated that the policy as currently presented is a broad parameter ^"4 tl^ Mayor h«* ~ a^red the policy to move forward. Beal asked Staff if details could be developed once Council received the broad policy. It was indicated that the consultant co ild aid in this development. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7» 1997 •A '■ (#6 - Tree Preservation - Continued) Wilson asked Van Zomeren her opimon regarding commercial property. Van Zomeren siud she has reviewed the zoning ordinance, code, and comprehensive plan to see what b detailed regarding tree preservatioa There are landscaping requirements noted for commercial property of 12%. Van Zomeren noted that the City of Minneapolis requires 20% and questions whether 12% b adequate.. Van Zomoen would like to see more developed site plan regulations for commercial properties. She said she is in the process of recodifying the zoning codes. Van Zomeren noted the need for the City to determine how stringent zoning codes should be for the Highway 12 commercial area. She cited an example of excess parking and tninimitm landscaping required for Rick's Super Valu in Navarre. She opined that ad(fitiooal trees and shrubs would inq>rove rites and be an opportunty for being a cata^ in in^ffoving commercial areas. She acknowledged CounciTs dedrion to decline provichng mput in landscaping on a prior commercial applicatkm. Van Zomeren noted that commercial site plans are related but separate from tree preservatioa Wilson asked how commercial rite frfans interface with tree preservation. Van Zomeren said tree preservation should occur and noted examples of commercial areas where significant trees are located. Wilson questioned whether tree preservation belonged in site planning or as a separate issue noting the possibility of requirement a buffer area in commercial properties to maintain the rurid atmosphere. Van Zomeren said tree preservation could be part of the landscaping plan. Beal mdicated the 12% landscaping requirement frils to state where the landscaping should be placed. Van Zomeren reviewed the existing ordinance and comprehensive plan which was distributed to Park Commisrioners noting where buffering b indicated to maintain a rural fed to property. She saw the references as bring a starting point for providing needed preservatioa It was noted that the requirements are more general but have no specifics to hold owners to a standard. ♦ Examples were shown in the comprehensive plan where environmentd goals in preserving natural resources were indicated (3.18), natural resources to be included in development proposals (3.21) and retention of vegetation by the lake prohibiting clear or thin cutting (3.22) requiring CUP in 0-75’ setback. Van Zomeren noted there arc slope restrictions over 18%. Gappa indicated bluff areas cannot be disturbed without a CUP according to the zoning ordinance (not referenced in comprehensive plan). Van Zomeren noted environmental comments. Wilson indicated the need for more specific requirements. Use noted that the comprehensive plan b more general or semi-specific that could be developed in the zoning ordinance. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7,1997 (#6 - Tree Preservation - Continued) Wilson acknowledged that the philosophy of preservation is within the ordinance and comprdiensive plan giving more credibility to a tree preservation policy. Van Zomeren noted references to rural areas regarding native vegetation within the 0>7S* shoreland (4.13), land use for future devdopment enhancing the environment and preservation of views (4.1S), rural dendty and open space retaining woodlands and wildlife (4.9). (Wlute arrived at this time.) Beal questioned whether or not the conq>rehenrive plan needs to be revised. Van Zomeren indicated that it will have to be done. She said she was surprised by the amount of references to tree preservation in her review stating that priorities are the same as in the proposed tree preservation policy. The "teeth" for adherence to policies will be through the subdividon ordinances. Van Zomeren reference definition #58 of shade trees. Van Zomeren said species and size should be indicated. Beal sdd subdivision H2 on page 3 refers to it. Van Zomeren referenced the first paragraph in 4.32 where it in^cates the supply b provided by the developer. She noted it could be argued that the tree preservation should make that pro\dsion. White said if the Commissioners had known these policies were in the ordinances and codes, these requirements would have been required. Wilson noted the lack of reference to what is required for fields. Van Zomeren said vegetation plans can be requested. Van Zomeren referenced the general policy statement regarding the removal of trees. She sugg ested tree location could be noted and the possibility of bufifering along the road frontage. She noted that b has probabty been arbitrarily enforced in the past. New trees are to be at least 2 ” in diameter. Van Zomeren noted that the policy has not been used in the past. She indicated that the Jyland Development which b now vacant land and recentty approved does not have to inventory all trees. She noted that thb is similar for Saga Hill. She does not believe tree removal will occur here but there are parcels where it could happen and should be protected. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7, 1997 draft (#6 - Tree Reservation - Continued) McDermott questioned the definition of a sigmficant tree. White said trees of 6" or more cannot be cut in the shoreland district. Van Zomeren said the zoning code b scattered in its reference to trees but b clear in the 0>75' lakeshore in all zoning districts regarding clear cutting of trees. She believes tree preservation should be compatible with reference to ugnificant trees. She asked what the Commbsion would be comfortable with as &r as definition of significant trees. Beal noted that the definition of ngnificant trees b noted elsewhere. Use suggested 6" as used in the 0-75* setback instead of the 8" for replacement. Wilson said it should be specific as to what b done. She noted that the zoning code refer' to a 12" trunk above ground level as not less than 2" diameter. There are good lists of species for both coniferous and dedduous trees. Van Zomeren said there is the bsue of improving what is happening regarding tree removal. Wilson feh tree removal is only occurring randomly and not clear cutting. Beal noted tMs does not refer to private property. White cited the example of the ordinance involving dead tree removal. This cannot be done without inspection. Wilson asked what should be brought to Council in light of comments made by Van Zomeren. Beal asked what is involved in strengthening the zoning ordinance. Van Zomeren said the vegetation plan could be expanded regarding types of trees. Beal asked if thb could be done with a new ordinance. Van Zomeren said it should all be referenced in one addendum to the ordinance as the "tree preservation ordinance” and made reference to elsewhere in the ordinance to the tree p^cy. She felt the definitions in the subnuttal requirements are reviewed regarding directioa to applicants. She asked if 11.60 is needed or should be incorporated. The tree preservation would be a new chapter and referenced in the zoning code. Van Zomeren smd the code would have to be reviewed to verify there are no contradictions. She said the commercial subdivi^ons are r^ulated by the zomng districts and is reportedly satisfied with what b writteo in the zoning code. The code can be amended, delved, and upgraded where necessary. The zomng code, however, needs to reference the tree ordinance policy to strengthen it. Van Zomeren confirmed for Wilson that all developers, both residential and commercial, must adhere to the zoning code. Wilson asked how what has been done so far fits m with the codes and whether it can be enforced. Van Zomeren indicated the purpose, authority, and broad concepts can be placed in the purpose statement. Beal can the first draft which was more detailed could be referenced. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7.1997 (#6 - Tree Prescrvatiwi - Continued) Commissioners discussed whether points one and two were necessary. Beal noted #2*s intent is to inform private land owners what can be done. Van Zomeren said the distinction is wdien an application is made to the Ci^ to divide land, which would initiate the tree inventory and how trees are to be preserved. Wilson noted that this would not affect a person wanting to remove a tree on thdr property. She feh the right of the private property owner needs to be recognized. McDermott questioned if tree removal wodd be allowed if h affected maintaining the ruralness of the property. He noted tree removal is restricted in the shoreland district Wilson noted that the purpose of the shoreland ordinance b to orotect lakes from pollution. Beal said the purpose of #2 b to show that government b not to be heavy handed regarding what private property owners can do with tbwr property. Dse questioned whether the policy can protect the right of each property owner versus a person subdividing thdr property. Beal indicated that h has bera determined tiiat the City has the right to regulate subdivison. Wilson inrheated that she feds the buffer zone areas are important. McDermott felt U2 goes against buffering and questioned whether some restrictioo would be included for fwivate property owners. Wilson did not agree with McDermott but thought there would be some restrictions. Van Zomeren questioned the effect of deciding level of enforcement on subdwidons may impact the ruralness of the property. She noted smaller properties may not have the same uxq)act. She indicated that the ability to inventory trees and regulate what happens with trees will not change. Beal suggested #2 be etiminated and buffering cited ebewhere. Wilson noted the purpose b to set guidelines. Qappz noted that the guidelines would only affect new construction or subdivisiorL Van 2fomeren said tree loss can occur with the installation of a new septic. It was determined that #2 showed the thought process the committee was taking. Beal suggested starting with the guidelines for development. Wilson said additional detail can come later and present the general concept to the council with some direction. Van Zomeren noted that the purpose is not to micromanage individual properties. Beal questioned whether the bsue was people clear cutting trees. McDermott said he would rwt be happy if that occurred but people have that right. 1 1 f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7,1997 (p6 - Tree Preservration - Contimied) Commission determined to ddete #2. #1 would remain with the reference to the City of Plymouth deleted. #3 was revised to say, "Provide a guidebook for property owners, gi^g recommendations on baacs of tree preservation and reforestation and maintenance This is conadered an important........that is targeted at commerdal and residential devdopers. (#3 will now become #2 since the ori^nal #2 was deleted.) The last sentence in #4 (now #3) will say," Specifics regarding tree preservafion and reforestation afil be provided by outside consultants with Staff gtndang^ Regarding #4, Van Zomeren questioned whether die number of tree would create a problem for providing a buildbg pad. McDermott said Council can make individual excqrtiotu. Van Zomeren said she is not clear on density of zomng districts. She cited the example that 100% of the property does not have to be protected and the intent could result in no development Wilson said the property would have to meet certain parameters. Bed suggested leaving the parameters to be set by consultant. Regarding poUcy for commercial properties, Van Zomeren cited what she looks for in applications. She acknowledged the need to preserve trees but feh there was more need for landscape development. She said the Commission needs to recognize that there are other needs than tree preservation alone. She suggested a separate commercial site development policy should be considered. White noted that Navarre is not rural and does not reflect Orono's philosoptty of a rural community. Wilson agreed that the statement in #4 is an ambiguous statement. Commercial development would be required to follow tree preservation policy alortg with the other guidelines. McDermott questioned what #4 would do for properties such as the Dickey Property. Wilson sjud it needs refixestation. Van Zomeren questioned what should be reqiured for subdivison of what is now com fields. Wilson said the requirements should irKlude buffering. Wilson suggested buflfeiing adds grace and softens property. Use questioned what the Commission wants Highway 12, winch is the heart of Orono, to look like. Van Zomeren said she is concerned with the Highway 12 parcel that is ava^le for development. Wilson said tree bufiering should occur. McDermott said it would require a specific ordinance for that to occur. Use and Beal agreed that a sq)arate ordinance should be required. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COM\flSSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7. 1997 DR APT (#6 - Tree Preservation - Continued) Van 2U>nieren quesdcmed whether parking lot reqiurements should be traded with increasing landscaping and trees. Wilson encouraged Van Zomeren to be stringent The new #4 is the detenmnation of criteria. #5 will state, "A commercial ate devdopment policy is needed to encourage devdopment.” Wilson said this should contain very ^>ecific guidelines for specific bufifering. It was suggested that a #6 be added to refer to reforestation. The consultant will be deferred to regarding internal tree % and buffering. Commissioners voiced concern with cornfields or pasture land now becoming reforested and whether that was the goal. McDermott suggested referencing the 5-acre zomg and returning property that was once prdrie back to prairie. Wilson suggested #6 be reforestafion or prairie development. Use asked how this would afilect horse farms. Wilson said 5 acre properties should be dealt with differently. Wilson said there should be a parameter for reforestation or preservation. McDermott suggested different parameters for different parcel Mzes. Wilson thought this was dealt wth under #4 where criteria is detemuned. McDermott said the larger acreages can be reudned as open field or prairie under criteria determined in #4. It will be noted in the preamble that Orono has been developed well over the years (whidr was noted at the end of the original #5). Wilson said she would like to encourage the Council that the next stq> in the process be the craftirig of the policy with the consultant, Staf^ and several members of the Planmng and Park Commissions. Van Zomeren noted that ^e consultant is under contract. Wilson said Council will to asked to pay the cost of using the consuhant for this task. Wilson asked if the consultant would be hired to handle the tree preservation issues once a policy is established. White said the developers could be required to hire a consultant. Beal win redraft and submit with assistance fi'om Van Zomeren for Council review on July 14. Wilson thanked Beal and Van Zomeren for their work on this issue. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7,1997 QR AF ^ (#2) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL UPDATE Gsppa reported that the tnke trail haa been paved to the student center. Some restoration and seedily is still required. The Council has rejected the bids for the last section as a result of a daHenger to the process regarding an addendum. It will be rebid in 1988, '!^ch will allow the City to know the plans being considered for the school property. Henn^in Paries will also be constructixig their section of the trail next year. Wilson asked if the DNR grant money has been received. Gappa said the mon^r not yet been received but shall be when the last trail connection is madf McDermott questioned fencing placed along the trail south of Kghwjty 12 on Old Crystal Road. Gappa said the particular fencing was a resuh of an easement agreement (#3) PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANNING/MAINTENANCE Wilson noted that the Commission will regularly review the paric plans. Gappa will update the progress being made at each park and hs maintenance each month A. ANTOINE Gappa reported that the playground equipment should arrive shortly. Site preparation will take place when that occurs. Completion of the improvements sh(^d occur in ea^ August. Gappa will call and check on the antidpated date of arrival for the equipment. G^pa indicated that the neighbors have asked that a portion of a garage be saved and doors removed. Gappa and Paric Comnusaonen agreed that all of the buildings will be removed as planned. B. CRYSTALBAY The poor condition of the fields was noted during the Park Tour. Gappa rq>orted that a contractor had extra black dirt he donated for use at the park. The City hji» agreed to pay for spreading of the 2,000-3,000 yards of dirt. Wilson questioned whether the dirt wfll be seeded. Gappa said dormant seeding and mulching will be done in the fall. Commissioners asked that something be done now. White suggested seeding now with rye. Gappa said he would attempt to put some type of seeding on the dirt. 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 14,1997 ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date wth the following members present: M^or Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charies Kelley, Baibara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Represendng Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administr^or Michael Ga&on, Planner/Zomng Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (•#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #8,9, and 11 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•#2) REGI.TLAR MEETING OF JUNE 23,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 23, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS (#3) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UPDATE Van Zomeren referred the Council to the memo regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance. She noted that the subcommittee and staff met several times regarding the issue. The Park Commission directed the memo written by Beal be forwarded to the Council for their review. The Park Commission recommended a committee made up of two Park and two Planning Commissioners, along with Stafl^ and Consultant develop the spedfics of the ordinance for review and adoption in the fall. Goetten said it was her understanding that the Planning Commission would review the ordinance. Van Zomeren indicated that the Planning Commission has not seen the draft. Jabbour asked to discuss the agenda item later in the meeting noting he was dissatisfied with the process taken. (The agenda item was discussed finther following the Zoning Adiiumstrator's Report.) 1 • I * MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Stoddard had no additional comments at this time PUBLIC COMMENTS Keith Vanden Branden, 14S0 Long Lake Boulevard, asked to address the Counci; regarding the major problem that has erupted with milfoil in Long Lake. He asked for Council direction regarding what action property owners can take and with whom the matter should be discussed. Vanden Branden feh the problem arose from use of the public access by boats and there should be a public contribution to rectify the problem through an agency such as the DNR. Jabbour informed Vanden Branden that each boat license issued creates a $2-$3 contribution toward milfoil control. Orono docs not receive any of these funds. He told Vanden Branden that the increased clarity in the lake has caused the milfoil's growth, Jabbour said he has spoken with the DNR. Moorse indicated that he has spoken with a person from the DNR who smd the darity of the lake has allowed the growth of milfoil to occur. He said there were two options for treatment that could be used, chemical or harvesting, neither of which would solve or eliminate the problem. Jabbour cautioned Vanden Branden regarding the use of chemicals and their toxicity, which he personally feels is a problem. He noted that aquatic birds also create infestation of the milfoil. He suggested Vanden Branden speak with the DNR on the matter. Jabbour said if chemicals are used, the property owners should receive proper notification of its use. He suggested Vanden Branden review the chemicals used and make his own conclusion. Kelley asked who pays for milfoil harvesting on Lake Minnetonka. Jabbouf s>aid the LMCD has three harvesters and another which was donated by Hennepin Parks and receives funding from the DNR. It was noted that the MCWD is not involved. Kelley asked whether the DNR could be petitioned regarding treatment of milfoil, Jabbour said they could. Moorse noted that there is DNR grant money available for such use. I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 9. 1997 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Tree Preservation Ordinance . ^ , Overview A Park Commission subcommittee has met several times with staff to review other tree preservation ordinances from other municipalities aral to review information provided by the American Planning Association entitled "Tree Conservation Ordinances". On July 7, 1997, the subcommittee reported on their work to the Park Commission. The Park Commission discussed a draft memo prepared by David Beal and voted to send the attached memo to the City Council. • PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION; To request that the City Council appoint a subcommittee or work group of two Park Commission Members and two Planning Commissioners to finalize a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance with assistance from city staff and consultants, such as Dahlgren and Schardlow. The ordinance would be in draft form by mid-September 1997 with ordinance adoption by November 1997. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the Park Commission recommendation. Attachments: Memo prepared by David Beal dated July 7, 1997 Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance re: shade trees and tree preservation Draft ordinance prepared by David Beal dated April 4, 1997 Tree Preserration, Maintenance, & Reforestation Policy for City Council Review and Action Prepared by Orono Park Commission July 7,1997 Introduction The Park Commission has been asked to prepare the first draft of a Tree Preservation, Maintenance and Reforestation Policy. The process involved review of other municipal ordinances in the metropolitan area (Wayzata, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Eden Prairie). Several meetings have taken place with Park Commission subcommittee members and city staff. The Park Commission voted at their July 7th meeting to propose the following for review and action by the Orono City Council at their July 14, 1997 meeting: Purpose Statement It is the policy of the City of Orono to recognize and preserve existing natural resources. Trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to: stabilization of soil by prevention of erosion and sedimentation; reduction of storm water runoff; improvement of air quality; reduction of noise pollution; control of urban heat ishnd effect; proteciion and increase of property values; prf lection of privacy; energy conservation through natural insulation; providing habitat for birds and other wildlife; and conservation and enhancement of the city’s physical/aesthetic environment The Park Commission recommends that an enforceable policy be enacted to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with development or construction would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or subdivision. The policy would also apply to public projects and commercial development. The Park Commission notes that Orono has been well served over the years by "good development". Former cornfields and open pastures, such as Webber Hills, are now forested and covered by vegetation. A Tree Preservation policy and ordinance would continue to encourage appropriate development. Authority The state statutes provide the authority to enact tree preservation ordinances under enabling legislation in Chapter 462. Further, the City’s Comprehensive Plan (June 1980), notes the importance of tree preservation in several sections, environmental protection goals, urban area policies for natural resource management, and rural area policies for natural resource management. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances (Subdivision Chapter) provides authority for the city to require shade trees around the perimeter of subdivisions and provides a list of specific trees. Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Chapter are attached to this memo. Key Concepts for a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance 1.Direct a tree preservation policy and ordinance at residential and commercial development. Clearcutting of forested areas would be discouraged. 2. Prepare a poM for property owners that provides information on tree preservation, maintenance, and reforestation. 3.Preservation of the rural theme of Orono should be the purpose or theme of the policy. Rural characteristics include wooded areas as well as open prairie or pasture land. The ordinance should address specific development such as; forestitjion of pasture land proposed for housing development tree replacement in wooded areas proposed for development creation of buffers between public and private property tree planting and landscaping for commerical development/redevelopment Establish criteria for preservation, maintenance, and reforestation, to include • tree size and type • density • canopy cover as a percentage of total lot size 6.Prepare amendments to the existing Zoning Code and Subdivision Chapter that address tree preservation, maintenance, reforestation and landscaping. The proposed guide is considered an important companion to the tree preservation ordinance to provide information and assistance. The Park Commission believes that the majority of Orono residents enjoy the rural character and want to protect and maintain trees. The guide would serve to encourage residents in this endeavor. Consultants who have specific knowledge of trees (landscape architects and foresters) can assist staff with developing specific criteria for preservation, maintenance, and reforestation. Recommended Action The Park Commission recommends that the City Council appoint a subcommittee or work group consisting of two Park Commissioners and two Planning Commissioners to work with Liz and Mike to fmalize the policy, ordinance, and citizen's guide. Assistance would be provided to staff on an as needed basis by consultants (Dahlgren and Schardlow are considered to have expertise in this area and are already consultants to the city on other matters). A draft policy would be prepared by mid-September with ordinance adoption scheduled for November 1997. 1 i i COHP PlwJ envirqnmeni JUNE, 1980 The statistical result of this study was the realization that a natural storm water drainage and filtration system was economically practical for Orono, but that excessive urbanization would outstrip the natural capacity of most of the wetlands leading to flooding potential and to increasing levels of nutrient pollution in Lake Minnetonka. Three of the twelve study recommendations are most significant in terms of the effect on this CMP: 1.Every available means should be utilized to preserve the natural water storage and treatment system, which is one of Orono*s best assets. 2.The City of Orono should protect land adjacent to marshes which require more than their total existing areas to control storm water runoff and preserve the water quality 3.The City of Orono should acquire supplementary land which is needed to preserve the integrity of the natural system of pollution treatment and runoff control. QRQNQ^S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT The Goals and Policies of this Chapter are basic to the remaining sections ^ of the Community Management Plan, without environmental stability, Orono*s character and vitality would be lost. With environmental care and concern, Orono citizens expect their forefather's heritage to live on for generations to come. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GOALS 1. 2. 3. 4. TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LAKE MINNETONKA. TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF ALL OTHER LAKES IN ORONO. TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLAND AND NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. TO PROVIDE FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SUCH THAT THE CITY IS PROTECTED FROM BOTH FLOODING HAZARDS AND POLLUTION HAZARDS. 5.TO PROTECT THE CITY'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES FROM POLLUTION AND FROM DEPLETION. 6. 7. TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM AIR, WATER AND NOISE POLLUTION. TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR, INCLUDING SOLAR ACCESS FOR ALL PROPERTIES. 9. TO PRESER'^ A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATIVE WOODLANDS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF ORONO'S HERITAGE. TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT IN WOODLANDS AND WETLANDS. 10.PROTECT THE LAND FROM SOIL EROSION AND THE HAZARDS OF DUST AND SILTATION. CMP 3-18 El H » fi m ■ r PNVIRQNMEKT JUNE, 1980 I ri3. I i iI 11 development or alteration of floodplains will be RESTRICTOD. Mo.t of^^Cit^ri^ntifi.d floodplain, ar. located along the shoreline or Se.ignated .ar.hland. and will be protected *>y other pro- Visions applicabls to thoss areas. In addition, where j e.4.*- on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or flt^iJiorwlJJ be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avo cos y flood damage or pollution dangers_^ 12. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS ?^,^ationDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will Include ‘»P°9raphlcal information, «oil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion contr ^d ;imllar iiti data related to each project, whether public probable environmental impact. Greater detail will be ;lr«r project, than of .mailer one.. A. proximity or a major wetland Increa.e., .o will the care and concern inerea.e in direct proportion. qTsITE water RETENTION FACILITIES WILL BE »EQUIMD M PART^^ residential, commercial or industrial development projects IWENEVE SXiliAIN OR IMPROVE THE EXISTING STORM WATOR PATTERNS. Whenever a development’s location, site, soeed of would tend to Increase the quantity of runoff, increa.e the «« runoff, or decrease the quality of runoff, that Tt^iaintain ^aouirid to provide on-site retention facilities sufficient to the ixisting’^situation or to improve the resulting runoff Zlntdy, reducing speed and/or improving quality. No development will he permitted to adversely impact it’s neighbors, or changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely 9 water drainage. 14. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED ATTffi EXPENSE OF environmental PROTECTION. No land will be permitted ^rooosed ^ built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for Jhe proposed use because of flood hazard, inadequate drainage, soil with severe limitations for development, severe erosion unfavorable topography, inadequate ^*^®^ supply health, capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmf safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed “ *r;hrcoLLity. NO lend u.e will be allowed to *“ttt.d the neighborhood's air or water resources nor will any us p to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution. CMP 3-21 gNVIRQNMENTAL JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN ARPA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space put docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat __ storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OP URBANIZATIOl AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcuttlng or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaininc walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline . pursuant to Mn. ONR recommended shoreline practices. 4. ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients* therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands would be lost. Additional steps to Improve nutrient assimilation include on-site retention on all new developments and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. 5. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they will not overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter* especially salt, will not directly entar a marsh or lake. Spring cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 « I 1 1 1 >' V.. FMVIRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Ratentlon of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. _ _ _ 7.ALL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE DESIGNED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR, AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. RURAL AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAfiPMPMT 1.LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE POLLUTION LOADING OF PURAL MARSHES AND DRAINAGEWAYS. Rural densities will be low enough to ensure permanent reliance upon satisfactory on-site sewor and water systems and to ensure that rates of phosphorus and nitrogen generation will not adversely affect the water quality in theriatural drainage system RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOODS AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total watershed population increases, even at our relatively low rural densities, the volume of runoff Increases as does the nutrient input. Upland marshes and wetlands will be required for flood control water retention and for maximum nutrient assimilative capacity. 4.the city will PROMOTE FARMING PRACTICES DESIGNED TO CONSERVE THE AND GROUND WATER. Where farming occurs in the rural areas, the use of innovative tilling methods, land banking, crop rotation and wind breaks are encouraged to protect the native soil from erosion and deterioration. Animal sanitation methods will be enforced to assure minimal pollution of drainageways or ground waters. #*• CMP 3-23 ID U.S£.JUNE, 1980 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Orbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT, in conformance with Hn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw erly vill be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runcff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 *] LAND USE JUNE, 1980 13. 15. 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique-fiatural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 1 ^55^^^JJ|"^jJpROvSffiNTSREQUIREDTO^^COM*MATE NEW DEVELOPMENT ^ST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the develcper. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fits protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. ‘ I ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Lamd subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 i mJ^JUNE, 1980 RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPABILITY. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water table. RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for the intended use, especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and Internal i iprovement maintenance, so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOOD! AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marsh lands will then assure permanent habitat for gmmmmmmmmmm our abundant wildlife. Public open apace will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained open space. 0. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total population in the watershed increases, the total requirement for storm water filtration will increase. Orono*s rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration. CMP 4-21 1 5cccr K2c 1 . r • • I i . 1 Subdivision § 11.03 55. "Setback” - The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, system, or facility and a natural feature, property line, right-of-way line, OHWL, structure, system, or other facility. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-24-92 56. "Sewage Treatment System, On-Site" - A device or series of interconnected components designed, installed and main tained for the purpose of safely treating and disposing of sewage and domestic waste, whenever such system is not part of a municipal sewer system. a. "Individual System" - A system serving an individual building, typically a single family residence. b. "Collective System" - A system serving two or more buildings, typically including individual septic tanks connected to a common soil treatment and absorption area. c. "Commercial System" - A system serving any non-residential building. 57. "Screening" - A man-made or natural visual barrier of a type that will form a year-round dense screen. 59. "Shoreline" - A line denoting the ordinary high water ^'levation of any lake, stream or other body of water, which ordinary high water elevation shall be as established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources or any other agency, whichever elevation is the highest. 60. "Slope" - Vertical distance in feet per 100 feet of horizontal distance. 61. "Street" - See Roadways. 62. "Structure" - Anything, or part thereof, which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires a location on, below or above the ground, land, or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground, land, or water. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series Adopted; 2-24-92 ORONO cr 423 (4-1-84) S 11.10 a vegetation ___________________ itional information y tne Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission such as: (a) proposed protective covenants; or (b) statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestions of population; or (c) where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire the property adjacent to that property which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a Sketch Plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and any future subdivision. In any event, all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions; (10) payment of the Preliminary Plat Review fee; and, (11) written and dated certification by the Zoning Administrator confirming that the subdivision has been completed in compliance with the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter. Certification does not mean all information submitted is correct, just thrt apparently all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed by the subdivider. D. Application Deadlines. The subdivider shall file a complete Preliminary Subdivision application with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty days prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at which a public hearing will be scheduled. Subd. 11. Staff and Agency Review of the Preliminary Subdivision. On behalf of the City, the Zoning Administrator shall coordinate the review of Preliminary Subdivisions by all appropriate City staff persons and governmental agencies. The subdivider is responsible for filing all applications and obtaining all appropriate approvals from other agencies and to keep the Zoning Administrator fully informed of the status of the review by the appropriate agency. The subdivider shall submit to the City copies of all applications filed with other governmental agencies. A. Referral to Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete Preliminary Subdivision application, the Zoning Administrator shall place the application on the agenda of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for which the public hearing has been scheduled. The Planning Commission shall then begin reviewing the proposal. B. Public Hearing Meeting Notice. Notice of said hearing shall consist of the time and place thereof, the address of the property and a brief description of the proposal including subdivider's name, number of lots proposed, and the proposed use thereof, and shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the meeting. Written notification of said ORONO CC 432 (4-1-84) § 11.60 SEC. 11.60. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES AND AMENITIES. Subd. 1. General. Existing features which would add value to residential development or to the City as a whole, such as trees, as herein defined, watercourses and falls, beaches, historic spots, and similar irreplaceable assets, shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision. No trees shall be removed from any subdivision nor any change of grade of the land effected until approval of the preliminary subdivision has been granted. All trees 6n the subdivision plan required to be retained shall be preserved, and all trees where required shall be welled and protected against change of grade. The vegetation map shall show the number and location of existing trees, as required by this Chapter and shall further indicate all those marked for retention, and the location of all proposed shade trees required along the street side of each lot as required by these regulations. Subd. 2. Shade Trees Planted by Subdivider. A. As a requirement of subdivision approval, the City may require that subdivider plant shade trees on the property of the subdivision. Such trees are to be planted within five (5) feet of the right-of-way of the road or roads within and abutting the subdivision, cr, at the discretion of the City, within the right-of-way of such roads. One (1) tree shall be planted for every forty (40) feet of frontage along each road unless the Council, upon recommendation of the City staff shall grant a waiver. B. New trees to be provided pursuant to this Chapter shall be approved by the City and shall be planted in accordance with the specifications of the City. Such trees shall have a minimum trunk diameter (measured twelve (12) inches above ground level) of not less than two (2) inches. Only Oak, Honey Locust, Hard Maples, Ginkgo, Ash or other long-lived shade trees, acceptable to the City shall be planted. SEC. 11.61. NONRESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. General. If a proposed subdivision includes land that is zoned for commercial or industrial purposes, the layout of the subdivision with respect to such land shall make such provision as the Council may require. A nonresidential subdivision shall also be subject to all the requirements of the site plan approval set forth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Site plan approval and nonresidential subdivision approval may proceed simultaneously at the discretion of the Council. A nonresidential subdivision shall be subject to all the requirements of this Chapter, as well as such additional standards required by the Council, and shall conform to the proposed land use and standards established in the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, and Zoning Chapter of the City Code. ORONO CC 469 (4-1-84) hF-P 04 * 97 10:02hH TFhVEL11h-i'S P.2 12 Date: April 03,1997 From: David Beal To: Park Commission Members CC: Eliaabeth VanZomeren, Mike Gaffron, Greg Gapa and Ron Moorse PV* 1^__Subject: Tree Eoiigy: On March 19 a Park Commission sub-commiliee consisting of David Beal, Susan Wilson and Jim White met at the City Hall on the Orono Tree Policy. Liz, Mike and Greg were in attendance. The purpose of this committee is to develop a proposal for consideration by the City CouncU A general discussion took place, with everyone giving his or her n ^ unammously agreed that Orono needs a policy, but there is disagreement as to whether it should be a policy passed by resolution or as an Ordinance heart and wiU tend to do the "right thing" when it comes to preservation of uecs. The writer of this memo has reviewed a number of policies from other cities, including shouid adopt the same type of policy because, if there are no clear applications, definitions, application procedures and enforcement mechanisms, there will be too much Opportunity for improper activity to take place. Action needed 1 If the Park Commission and the City Council agrees with my position 1 t^l proceed to consideration. OR 2. If the Park Commission and Council would prefer to implement a general guide and recommendauons" for tree preservation and replacement a much shorter document can be prepared. NOTE: If a PoUcy and Ordinance is enacted an attractive, concise, layrnan’s ^ide to tree preservahon and replacement should still be produced and distributed to all residents of Orono. • ! hPP 04 ''Sr 10:0B hM TP h'-ELII hVS P.3^12 Draft document Jg). 4/3/9T TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY CTTV OF ORONO 1. Purpose. It i& the policy of the City of Orono to recognize and preserve existing natural resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded character of the area, the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to; stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise poUutiori, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through natural insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aesthetic env ironment The purpose of this policy is to preserv e and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or construction would adversely affect the character of neighborhoods, subdivisions, public or semipublic projects This policy also recognizes that, despite the best efforts of the City and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in the development or construction process. In those cases tree replacement or reforestation shall be required. n. Applicability. This policy shall apply to any person or entity that would disturb land areas and impact significant trees or stands of trees in neighborhoods, subdivisions, public and semipublic projects such as streets, utilities and parks whether disturbed by a public agency or private developer; except when the City Council may waive these requirements where there would be greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this policy The terms and provisions of this Policy, in conjunction with the Orono Tree Preservation Ordinance No shall apply to all activity which requires the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit m. Definitions. All words in this Policy have their customary dictionary definition except as specifically defined herein The word "shall" is m^datory and the words "should" and "may" are permissive Technical terms used in this Policy are denned in Appendix A RiiilHahle Area- The portion of a lot which is not located within any minimum required yard, landscape slrip/area, or buffer, that portion of a lot wherein a building may be located, as prescribed by the Orono Zoning Code. 04 '97 10:051^1 TPhVEl'.Ih'i ’S P.4'12 npH A Standard measure of tree size, whereby a tree trunk diameter is measured in inches at a height of four and one-half feet (4 1/20 abwe grotmd. If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet (4 1/2'), then the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split. nriplinei A vertical Une extending from the outer surface cf a tree's branch tips down to the ground T nittnrhanee Permit; An official authorization issued by the Building and Zomng Administrator, allowing defoliation or alteration of the site for the commencement of any construction. protect! eionifirant Trees: Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring eight inchesTs’') DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring twelve inches (12") DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring eight feet (8') or more m height. Box-elder, cottonwood, and willow trees shall not bc considered to be sigmficant trees. Tr« Of Stand - Any tree or grouping of trees which has been deternmed to ofaWghv^ue by the BuUding and Zoning Administrator because of its species, size, age, or other professional criteria Simciuifi Anything which 1$ buUt. constructed or erected, an edifice or building of My kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together m some definite manner whether temporary or permanent in character. Tree: Any self supporting woody plant, usually having a single woody-trunk, and a potential DBH of two inches (2") or more. T.s>.Pre<erx-ationPian : A plan estabUshed in Section IV(B) of this Policy. See Appendices B and C. n.,;iHinr .nd 7nninp AdmiDUlraai. Tl.' of th« City of Orono b«ving the primary responsibilities of administration and enfc cement of this Policy. TV Procedures A. Development Standards (copy to be added) 1. Size of trees. . 2 Species, health and attractiveness of the trees mcludmg; a. Sensitivity to disease b. Life span AF-R 04 ’97 10:04Af l TP hVEU JAVS P.9-12 3, 4 5 c. Nuisance characteristics d. Sensitivity to grading Potential for transplanting Need for thinning a stand of trees. Effect on the functioning of a development B. Land Disturbance Permit Procedure. (Details of items 1-10 omitted) Here would be a listing of approved tree species to be used as replacements when trees are lost or removed. For example: Green Ash - Fraxinus permsylvanica Black Locust - Robinia psuedoacacia etc 11. Financial guarantce(Subdividers) (copy omitted) 12. Financial Guarantee (Builders) (copy omitted) Tree protection zones: (Here would be wording on tree protection and disturbance prevention regarding; physical root damage, indirect root damage, trunk and crown disturbance, and direct physical root damage, etc. Mof Tree PrQtecti<m> A. Planning and considerations, (copy omitted) B. Protective Barriers (copy omitted) C. Encroachment, (copy omitted) D. Reclamation of the Growing Site., (copy omitted) APR 04 '97 10:04 hM TRAVELlJA'i-S P.6-IZ TPFF PttFSFRVATtON POLICY CITY OF ORONO Technical Terms: APPENDIX A Cambium- The tissue within the woody portion of trees and shnibs which gives rise to the woody water and nutrient conducting system, and the energy substrate transport system m trees Cambial dieback: The irreparable radial of vertical interruption of a tree’s cambium, usually d by mechanical damage, such as "skinning bark", or from excessive heat.cause Coitiferous Belonging to the group of cone-bearing evergreen trees or shrubs. Deciduous- Not persistent; the shedding ofleaves annually. Feeder roots A complex system of small annual roots growing outward and predominantly upward from the system of "transport roots" These roots branch four or more times to form fans or mats ot thousands ot fine, short, non-woody tips, ^y o these small roots and their multiple tips are 0 2 to Inun or less in diameter, and l«s than 1 to 2mm long. These roots constitute the major fraction of a tree’s root system surface area, and are the primary- sites of absorption of water and nutrients. Major Woody Roots Fiist order tree roots on^nafmg at the "root collar" and growmg horizontally in the soil to a distance of between 3 and 15 feet from the tree s tru es- roois branch and decrease in diameter to give rise to "rope roots’’. The pnm^ frmction of major woody roots include anchorage, structural support, the storage of tood reserves, and the transport of minerals and nutrients. Protected Root Zone; The rooting area of a tree established to limit root disturbances. Tliis zone is generally defined as a circle with a radius extending from a tree s to ^ point no less than the furthest crown dripline Disturbances within tbs zone will directly affect a tree’s chance for survival . Root Collar: The point of attachment of major woody roOts to the tree trunk, usually at or near the groundline and associated with a marked swelling of the tree trunk. Root Respiration. An acUve process occurring throughout the feeder root system of trees, and involving tlie consumption of ox7gen and sugars with the release of energy carbon-dioxide. Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport ot minerals an nutrients essential for tree survival. 04 *97 10:04AM TRA'/ELllAt'S P.7X12 Rope Roots; An extensive network of woody second ordei loots arising fr jm major woody roots, occurring witliin the surface 12 to 18 inches of local soUc, and with an average size ranging from .25 to 1 inch in diameter. The primary funttion of rope roots is the transport of water and nutrients, and the storage of food reserves. Soil Compaction; A change in soil physical properties which includes an increase in soil weight per unit volume, and a decrease in soil pore space. Soil compaction is caused by repeated vibrations, frequent iraflBc and weight. As related to tree roots, compacted soil can cause physical root damage, a decrease in soil oxy gen levels with an increase in toxic gases, and can be impervious to new root development. Transport Roots. The system or framework of tree roots comprised of major roots and rope roots. '4 04 '97 10:Q4 hI1 TPhVELIIh'. S P.S IZ jTtFF prf ^fr VATION POLICY CTTY OF QRQNQ a PPENDIXJEL Checklist for Tree Protection Plan; Tree Protection Plans. a Provisions for tree protection on the site shall be, at minimum, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Orono Tree Preservation PoUcy m conjunction with the Orono Tree Preservation Ordinance No b A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted either as part of a landscape plan, preliminary' plat, or as a separate drawing, to include the following; (1) All tree protection zones n) Approximate location of all specimen trees or stands of trees O) Approximate location of all specimen trees when their preserv’ation is questionable, or might result in a change of the site design Identification of specimen trees to be removed (Removal of specimen trees is subject to Building and Zoning Administrator approval.) (5) Limits of clearing and land disturbance such as grading, trenching, etc where these disturbances may affect tree protection zones (fi') Proposed location of underground utilities (7) Methods of tree protection shall be indicated for all tree pi otecuon zones, aeration systems, staking, signage, etc The plan should indicate staging areas for parking, material storage, concrete washout, and burial holes where these areas might affect tree protection. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree preservation plans and a grading plans in lar ge letters: fn Contact the Citv Planning Department at+M.4SW to mange a ^ pre-construction conference with the City Zoning Admimstrator pnor to any land disturbance (2) All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to building construction (3) Contact the City of Orono Planning Department at 473-7357 for a Site Inspection upon completion of landscape installation. 04 '97 10:09Mht TRhVELIIAYS P.9 12 KEY CH -CHSaRY 4.0. - REO OAK V/.O. - WHfTE OAK A - ASH tree preservation policy CITY OF ORONO APPENDIX C SAMPLE DRIVE R.O. GROUP ---------------------------- - 1S FOOT WORKING E.NVELOPS FENCING WARNI.NG SiGNAGc ---------- UTILITY ALLJE’f STOCKPILS PERIMETER TREE TO BE REMOVED h FP 04 '97 10:0tHf1 TPh -ELH h i S P.l£ 12 T5EE fENCINC SHALL CCNSIST Cf *A' Ml"H MINJMLM C^A»jGE PCLYETHYLE*<£ lamtna^ satcty netting . fence shall 3C secu»!C ly anchored by STEEL FDJCE POSTS INSTALLED 6C FEET CN CENTER. • N T* • , figure 2 ACXrVTE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING PtPR 04 '97 10:0Ti^ l TF'HyEn_l 1h . 9 P.IO 12 TREE PROTECTION AREA CAUTION DO NOT ENTER mM TREE SAVE Passive Protection with Rope and Signage FIGURE 3 PASSIVE PROTECTION DETAIL hPP 04 '97 10:QT hM TPhVELUh'.S P.ll IZ ^l.' —V txx7<Jfx ’«ib V.CS5«c5 • - ^ ---vs/^Arc^.'x' ^Canopy Drip-line A ^^^^Ar**^|iag|BP^jHXPcj%A>.>-«^ - *■ ' ‘7^~‘:wjooCC«X'0*J^CC^^-NVXxSi^ 12?QVw*X^ Critical Root Radius Critical Root Zone Within the Drip-line Actual Feeder Root System Extends Well Bevond the Dnp-lme figure 1 t^tical critical root zone n^f CITY OP I III ORONO .* 1 CITY OF MINNETONKA GUIDE TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE JUN 2 5.199^ •l-t., r* ^ 1. PURPOSE OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE The City of Minnetonka has establish^ a Tree Preservation Ordinance to govern the preservation, protection, and removal of trees within the city. This document is a summary of the ordinance. For specific details of the ordinance, please refer to City Code Section 300.28, subdivision 19 or call the planning department at 939-8290. X 2. DEFINITION The Tree Preservation Ordinance only applies to trees that meet the city’s significant tree definition. Trees that do not meet this definition are not regulated by the ordinance. Significant Tree - A deciduous tree of at least eight inches caliper or conifeiowu tree of at least 15 feet in height, excluding a diseased tree which is likely to die. The caliper of a deciduous tree shall be measured 4.5 feet above the base of the tree. 3. WHERE SIGNIFICANT TREES CAN BE DESTROYED WITHOUT REPLACEMENT \. Significant trees may be destroyed for development, without any required replacement, in the following areas; 1) within the width of required easements for public streets and utilities, and the required areas for suiface water ponding. 2) within the areas improved for reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements, and 3) within the footprints of buildings and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings. - •• B. Tree removal on property with an existing home or other principal structure shall be exempt from this subdivision, except as stated in 4C below, unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. 4. REPLACING SIGNIFICANT TREES '► A. For each significant tree removed in areas outside of those identified in 3A above, a • replacement tree must be planted on the property, subject to the following: .. 4. ■ •.. .. 1) The applicant will not be required to raise the number of trees above 25 trees per acre. • •• 2) If the applicant and the city agree that there is no appropriate location for some or all of the replacement trees, those trees will not be required. -f' i ’ » < - -Tii.V. A* *••••% 'r«.y .* .2 t • V- * “I . ..'4 .s*. • * II* « *■ «■ - >:W, • n • j • i'.r • » 1 » B.Any .rees required to be planted must be varied in species, must be primarily species native to the area, may not include any specif that are subject to disease epidemic or are on the list of less desirable trees established by the city forester, and must be hardy under local conditions. The required trees must be replaced by the property owner or original developer if they die within one year after installation. ^ C.A significant tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed by human means within two years before a development application must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of 4B above. The replacement trees will be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. 5. TREE SIZES All replacement trees must be at least two and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and six-feet tall for coniferous trees, except that for property located in the Plarmed 1-394 District they must be at least three and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and ten-feet tall for coniferous trees. 6. BEFORE STARTING WORK Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing, erosion control fenemg, or a similar device must be placed around the drip lines of significant trees to be preserved or that are located nearby on adjacent propert>’. No construction, compaction, or grading of any kind may occur within these drip lines, except when necessary to save additional significant trees and when the risk to the trees designated for preservation is minimal. The developer must place signs on the fencing prohibiting construction, compaction, or grading. 7. CITY FORESTER TREE SPECIES LIST The following trees are considered by the City to be less desirable trees. New replacement trees may not be of these species and the City will take into consideration the less desirable qualities of such trees in the review of a development proposal. f.Less Desirable Trees Boxelder: Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay. Cottonwoods; Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay, heavy seed production. Elms: Poplars: V •>»Susceptible to Dutch elm'disease. . • • • A . Willows: Rapid growth, weak wood, short-lived. - ... •! « Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to deMy^ahd wind damage •tv: • •• C:\WP\FOR.MS\TREEPRES.nLM . APR97 -■K'■r{X ■ • ^ \ >•• • ‘J... ■J*.': L*‘: . -• V* • •.• ) ) J c CITY OF ORONO [lE[10\i:;^fP 'J ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MINNETONKA CITY CODE CHAPTER 300 REGARDING TREE PROTECTION AND DENSITY RANGES LJUN Z 8 1997 » • • • THE CITY OF MINNETONKA DOES ORDAIN: ARTICLE I - TREE PROTECTION Section 1. The following existing definition in City Code §300.02 is amended to read as follows: Significant Tree - A deciduous tree of at least eight inches caliper or coniferous tree of at least 15 feet in height, excluding a diseased tree which is likely to die. The caliper of a deciduous tree shall be measured 4.5 feet above the base of the tree. Section 2. City Code §300.28, Subd. 16(b)(3) is amended to read as follows: a tree survey showing all significant trees and a tree preservation plan; Section 3. City Code §300.28, Subd. 18(a) is amended to read as follows: The plan shall comply with the performance standards regulating tree removal under subdivision 19 below. Section 4. City Code §300.28, Subd. 19 Is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 19. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REGULATING TREE REMOVAL. a) Standards governing the preservation, protection, and planting of trees are necessary to: prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compaction, filling or excavation near tree roots; 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) prevent or reduce soil erosion and sedimentation and storm water runoff; improve air quality and reduce noise pollution; enhance energy conservation through natural insulation and shading; control the urban heat island effect; increase and maintain property \ralues; ) ) J ORDINANCE NO. 97- 778 Page 2 protect privacy by maintaining buffers between similar land uses and establishing and maintaining buffers between conflicting land uses; and 8) • preserve the variety and extent of trees which exist in the city and which are an integral part of this city's identity. A certain amount of tree removal is an inevitable consequence of the urban development process. Nevertheless, construction of streets, utilities, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and other facilities must be located In a manner to save as many significant trees as possible. In enforcing this ordinance, the city may give preference to the preservation of higher quality significant trees over less desirable trees. A tree may be considered of higher quality based on its species, size, location, or other relevant factors. The city forester will establish a list of species that are considered less desirable, and this list will be kept on file in the planning department. The city may require that a property be rezoned and developed as a Planned Unit Development to utilize flexible development standards to preserve significant trees; the city may require the clustering of buildings where this would preserve significant trees. Significant trees may be destroyed for development, without any required replacement, in the following areas: within the width of required easements for public streets and utilities and the required areas for surface water ponding, within the areas improved for reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those Improvements, and within the footprints of buildings and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings. If a significant tree is removed in other areas, trees must be planted to meet the number of significant trees which existed in those other areas before development, subject to the conditions in paragraphs (f) and (g) below. The provision of replacement trees is subject to the following; I ) ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 3 ) J 1) The applicant will not be required to raise the number of trees above 25 trees per acre. 2) If the applicant and the city agree that there is no appropriate location for some or all of the replacement trees, those trees will not be required. 3) In calculating the number of replacement trees, only trees meeting the minimum sizes in subparagraph (g) below may be counted. Notwithstanding the above, any development that is subject to Section 300.27 must meet the minimum landscape requirements of that section. g) Any trees required to be planted must be varied in species, must be primarily species native to the area, may not include any species that are subject to disease epidemic or are on the list of less desirable trees established by the city forester, and must be hardy under local conditions. They must be at least two and one-half inches In diameter for deciduous trees and six feet tall for coniferous trees, except that for property located In the Planned 1-394 District they must be at least three and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and ten feet tall for coniferous trees. The required trees must be replaced by the property owner or original developer if they die within one year after installation. h) Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing, erosion control fencing, or similar device must be placed around the drip lines of significant trees that are to be preserved or that are located nearby on adjacent property. No construction, compaction, or grading of any kind may occur within these drip lines, except when necessary to save additional significant trees and when the risk to the trees designated for preservation is minimal. The developer must place signs on the fencing prohibiting construction, compaction, or grading. i) The city may require a conservation easement to ensure that selected areas of significant trees are not destroyed after development has been approved. j) A significant tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed within two years before a development application must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of paragraph (g) above. The replacement trees will be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. k) The area of any compensatory water storage may not be located where there are any significant trees, unless approved by the city. The compensatory ) ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 4 ) storage area must be created in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. I) Tree removal on property with an existing home or other principal structure shall be exempt from this subdivision, except as stated in paragraph (]) above, unless the tree removal Is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. Section 5. City Code §300.22, Subd. 3(a) is amended to read as follows: a) Each P.U.D. shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated Wetlands, Floodplain or Shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: 1) unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a P.U.D. will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2) the property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a P.U.D. or planned unit resident development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development; 3) the property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan; 4) ^.he property is proposed to be developed with single family dwelling lots having a minimum area of 15,000 square feet; or 5) the property contains a significant amount of significant trees which could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. Section 6. City Code §300.10, Subd 5 (g){2){b)(3) is amended to read as follows: b.variances to permit lots with reduced frontage on public right-of-way, neck lots or lots with no frontage on public right-of-way which access by permanently recorded easements will be considered, but not necessarily granted, only upon evidence that the following standards are met: ) ) ) ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 5 3) the city determines that a right-of-way extension would adversely impact natural amenities including wetlands or stands of significant trees; Section 7. City Code §300.24, Subd. 8 and 9 are amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 8. REMOVAL OF LANDS FROM THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT. Land mav' be removed from the Floodplain district only by a zoning map amendment pursuant to the provision of section 300.09 of this ordinance and only if water storage is provided in an amount compensatory to that removed by such action or if acceptable hydrologic engineering data is presented which indicates how conditions have changed such that the floodplain characteristics can be maintained. The area of any compensatory water storage cannot be located where there are any significant trees, unless approved by the city. The compensatory storage area must be created in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. In addition to other application requirements, the city may require submission and approval of the following information: a) b) a concept plan indicating ultimate utilization of the property; a grading plan with appropriate drainage calculations and erosion controls prepared by a registered engineer; c) d) e) a floodplain survey in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance; a landscaping or revegetation plan; a review of the proposal by the Minnesota department of natural resources If applicable and the appropriate watershed district; and such other information as may be necessary or convenient to review the request. SUBDIVISION 9. ALTERATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN. No alteration of the Floodplain district shall be allowed without a floodplain alteration permit, subject to recommendation by the planning commission and approval of the city council. Alterations will only be allowed for correction or enhancement purposes and only if water storage is provided in an amount compensatory to that removed or if acceptable hydrologic engineering data Is presented which indicates how conditions have changed such that the floodplain characteristics can be maintained. The area of any compensatory water storage cannot be located where there are any significant trees, unless approved by the city. The compensatory storage area must be created in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. In determining the ) ) J ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 6 appropriateness of an alteration request, the city council shall consider the size of the Floodplain district, the magnitude of the area proposed for alteration and the hydrologic effect. Application for floodplain alteration shall be accompanied by such information as required by the city and may included the following: a) a concept plan indicating ultimate utilization of the property; b) a grading plan with appropriate drainage calculations and erosion controls prepared by a registered engineer; c) a review of the proposal by the Minnesota department of natural resources if applicable and the appropriate watershed district; and a landscaping or revegetation plan. ARTICLE II - RANGE OF DENSITIES Section 1. City Code §300.10, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R-1 district is to provide a district for single family detached dwellings in those areas where such development is consistent with the low density residential designation of the comprehensive plan and compatible with surrounding land use characteristics. Development within this district shall occur at densities not exceeding four dwelling units per acre. The allowed density for a piece of property will be determined by the city at the time of the development application. The determination will be based upon the site specific characteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be considered in increasing or decreasing the allowed density Include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and significant trees; the specific site plan; the type of housing units proposed, including whether greater density is desirable because the development contains affordable housing that is consistent with the city's affordable housing goals but that avoids unacceptable concentrations of such housing; the requested zoning; the minimum standards of this ordinance; the potential impact from traffic generated by the development; and the surrounding area. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high end of the density range will be on the applicant. Section 2. City Code §300.11, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R-2 district Is to provide a district for single family and two family dwellings in those areas where such development is consistent with the low density residential designation of the comprehensive plan and ) ORDINANCE NO. 97- 778 ) s3occu^"^densife^ 'Exceeding density for a piece of property will be determined by "he city the dme^M^he greater dUity s des mbL h;^^^^ °! P^oPO^ed, including whether the density range will be on the appHcan, ^ appropnateness of the high end of Section 3. City Code 5300.12, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: fnfr'h',^''''^« purpose of the R-3 district is to provide a district for ofmedtm deS resWem °[!f' consistent with the low with the develooment oattp'^ esignation of the comprehensive plan and compatible Ire ordeTy ^ buildings to permit nTexceVdlng'ltdwein)^^^^ d^er^m—H^ ^ ^P-^T^r the reouested devpinnm specific characteristics of the property and allowed density include ^the considered In Increasing or decreasing the floodolainc «too I _i environmental conditions such as wetlands hniic'^ '• slopes, and significant trees; the specific site .plan* the tvoe of developmTnrcom^nra'fV"H'M'"f whether greater density is desirable'because the housing goals but that ^lousing that is consistent with the city's affordable requested jonino hi m- ° concentrations of such housing; the traffic generated bv thr'd “""iordinance; the potential impact from establishina thp ‘^®''®*°Pment; and the surrounding area. The burden of aTpt "nt^ appropriateness of the high end of the density range will be on the Section 4. City Code §300.13, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows; atta^ch*^*t*i?d^^^ purpose of the R-4 district Is to provide a district for residential development in the Irn those areas designated for medium density shall occur at denies Greater P'an. Development within this districtat densities greater than four but not exceeding 12 dwelling units per acre. ) ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 8 ) i The allowed density for a piece of property will be determined by the city at the time of the development application. The determination will be based upon the site specific characteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be considered in increasing or decreasing the allowed density include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and significant trees; the specific site plan; the type of housing units proposed, including whether greater density is desirable because the development contains affordable housing that is consistent with the city's affordable housing goals but that avoids unacceptable concentrations of such housing; the requested zoning; the minimum standards of this ordinance; the potential impact from traffic generated by the development; and the surrounding area. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high end of the density range will be on the applicant. Section 5. City Code §300.14, Subd.1 Is amended to read as follows; SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R-5 district is to provide a district for multiple family dv'ellings in those areas designated for high density residential development in the comprehensive plan. Development within this district shall occur at densities greater than 12 dwelling units per acre. The allowed density for a piece of property will be determined by the city at the time of the development application. The determination will be based upon the site specific cha.''acteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be considered In increasing or decreasing the allowed density include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and significant trees; the specific site plan; the type of housing units proposed. Including whether greater density is desirable because the development contains affordable housing that is consistent with the city's affordable housing goals but that avoids unacceptable concentrations of such housing; the requested zoning; the minimum standards o^ this ordinance; the potential impact from traffic^ generated by the development; and the surrounding area. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high ' J of the density range will be on the applicant. Section 6. Any violation of this ordinance Is subject to the penalties and provisions of Chapter XIII of the City Code. Section 7. This ordinance is effective upon adoption. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on this 17th day of March, 1997. Karen J. Afiderson, Mayor c1]^ 11^ •lfT«UI«Btl ^i«ra«icA ofltiiifiir^s TO; FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator August 14,1997 SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance Attachments: 1. Draft Outline of Tree Preservation Ordinance 2. City of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Background-Process of Ordinance Development The Park Commission has developed a general outline of a tree preservation ordinance and has identified a number of issues to be addressed. The Council has referred the tree preservation ordinance to the Planning Commission to address issues identified by both the Park Commission and the Council, and to provide a recommendation to the Council regarding the key elements to be included in a tree preservation ordinance A joint work session will then be held with the City Council to firm up the elements of an ordinance to enable staff to draft the ordinance. A public hearing will then be held at the Planning Commission regarding the tree preservation ordinance and the ordinance will then be brought to the Council tor tmal approval. Tree Preservation Issues/Qutline 1. Definition of significant trees (see the city of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance) When should the tree pre.ser% ation ordinance apply? a. ) At the time of a subdivision b. ) At the time a parcel is initially developed c. ) As part of a commercial site plan review (particularly for commercial development along Highway 12) d. ) At the time an existing structure is expanded or an additional structure is added to a developed parcel. The city of Minnetonka ordinance indicates that tree removal on property with an existing home or principal structure will be exempt from the tree preservation requirements unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. Protection of existing trees on undeveloped property prior to development (discouraging tree removal in advance of a development proposal). a.) Set a time period prior to development within which any trees removed must be replaced. 1.) If this is included, what should the time period be? The city of Minnetonka uses a two year time period. A longer time period may be beneficial. However, as the Tree Preserv ation Ordinance Continued 4. 5. time period increases so does the difficulty of documenting and monitoring existing trees vears in advance of a development. Reforestation - should the city go beyond protecting existing trees to requiring additional trees in non-forested areas? a. ) Commercial development. The city may want to include landscaping requirements as part of its commercial site plan review, particularly along Highw ay 12. b. ) Subdivisions. 1. The city's current subdivision ordinance enables the city to require some tree planting. The city may want to add specific landscaping requirements to its subdivision regulations. An important element running through the above issues is a balancing of the city's interest in preserving trees with the property owner's rights to use the property. 1 • • City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE August 15, 1997 TO: FPOM: Mayor Jabbour, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Article The enclosed article appeared in the Edina Sun-Cunent on Wednesday, August 13lh. Affordable housing is defined as costing no more than 30% of a household's income. A roundtable discussion on affordable housing wUl be co-sponsored by Lutheran Social Services (LSS) and the Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing (MICAH) on Saturday, September 6, 1997, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the LSS office at 2414 Park Avenue in Minneapolis. '.."JSl-T ’S . •• f McKnight Foundation ups ante on housing in suburbs ■ Group gives additional $4 million to promote affordable housing in the communities surrounding Minneapo lis and St Paul By Jeffrey Pieters Staff Writer A private, philanthropic groups ef fort to build and save affordable hous ing in Minneapolis and St. Paul will do more work in the suburbs in the coming years. The McKnight Foundation on July 29 announced it would give $4 million to the Family Housing Fund to help increase the number of affordable homes and apartments in the seven-county metro area. The $4 million grant will augment an earlier $3 million the Foundation gave the Family Housing Fund for use in the suburbs. The money, according to Anne Ray of the Family Housing Fund, will be avail able to communities and developers on a request basis, with requests to be re viewed by the Family Housing Fund, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MMFA) and the Metropolitan Council. A primary use of the money, Ray said, will be to support existing programs in subur ban communities. Depending on the community, af fordable housing programs will focus on construction or preservation, Ray said. Inner-ring suburbs, which are more developed, have difficulty building af fordable housing developments, and have argued against standards they say would require them to devalue their housing stock. Communities such as Edina have cho sen to focus on maintaining, rather than increasing, their amounts of affordable housing. For example, an affordable housing program, the East Edina Housing Foun dation, provides financial incentives for owners of low- and mid-value properties to fix up their homes The program helps first-time home buyers with down pay ments and mortgages. “Even in a community that has older housing, there are thinp we can do to promote affordable housing," Ray said. To date, the Family Housing Fund has helped create or maintain 700 affordable housing units in communities such as Eden Prairie, Apple Valley, Bloomington and Eagan, Ray said. According to Family Housing Fund statistics, however, more than 50,000 suburban individuals and families still live in homes and apartments they can not afford. Affordable housing, said Ray, is that which costs a household no more than 30 percent of its income. To rent a typical Twin Cities apart ment — a two-bedroom with rent of around $620 per month — one must make at least $25,000 per year, Ray said. To buy an average three-bedroom home, valued at $93,000, the bench mark income is $30,000 per year, she said. The problem, Ray said, is that many jobs — particularly those in the burgeon- HOUSENG: To Next Page Housing: According to group, 50,000 cannot afford their homes From Previous Page ing service sector — pay less than those salaries. According to a 1996 survey conducted by the Minnesota Department of FIco- nomic Security, the median salaries for jobs such as preschool teacher, secretary, retail salesperson, bank teller and nurs es aide, to name a few, arc not enough to live in an affordable way in most sub urbs. Families drawing two incomes at or near the minimum wage cannot afford those housing costs either, according to the Family Housing Fund. Some people, however, choose to live in housing they technically cannot af ford, because they are willing to pay a premium for other advantages, such as proximity to work or a safer neighbor hood. However, a household directing a higher portion of its income to pay for housing is more vulnerable to unforeseen expenses, such as a car repair or hospital bill, according to the Family Housing Fund. In the Twin Cities area, according to the Family Housing Fund, roughly 185,000 households Ht that description — with annual incomes of less than $30,000 and housing costs command ing more than 30 percent of their wages. A third of those are in the sub urbs. As the number of low-paying jobs has increased, the availability of affordable apartments has decreased, according to the Family Housing Fund. Vacancy rates of apartments in the Twin Cities dropped from more than 7 percent to less than 3 percent in the past ilvo years. Since 1980. when it was formed by the McKnight Foundation and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the Fami ly Housing Fund has added 16,000 units of affordable housing to the IVin Cities. The McKnight Foundation, a pri vate philanthropic organization found ed by a former 3M executive, gave $68.3 million in grants last year to support the arts, provide human ser vices, protect the environment and supply affordable housing, according to the Foundation. Edina Sun*Currtnt/Wednesday, Aug. 13.1997 7ALSS sponsors discussion on affordable housing A round-table discussion on afford able housing will be held Saturday. Sept. 6, in Minneapolis. The event is free of charge. Sponsored by Lutheran Social Ser vice (LSS), the discussion will be at the LSS Metro Center, 2414 Park Ave. The event will run from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., with lunch following. The Metropolitan Interfaith Coun cil on Affordable Housing (MICAII) is a co-sponsor of the discussion. **Every month it becomes harder and harder to find quality housing at a price that lower-income families can afford," said Bill Vanderwall, director of LSS Housing Services. “As we face significant challenges in this area, it is important to pull to gether community leaders and hous ing advocates in an effort to find solu tions," he said. Participants in the talk include Vanderwall; Sue Watlov-Phillips, di rector of Elim Transitional Housing; Tonya Orr, director of intergovern mental relations with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; and Joy Sorensen Navarre, executive director ofMlCAH. Church leaders from across the Twin Cities have been invited to join the discussion. “We need to pool together with church leaders who are already con centrating their efforts on finding so lutions to the housing crisis,* Sorensen Navarre said. *Our churches play such an important role in helping to shape ideas that benefit the com munity." Anyone interested in attending or participating in the round-table dis cussion can call LSS at 989-2271 to re serve lunch. Though the event is free, LSS will solicit a free-will offering to cover the cost of the event. LSS is a statewide social service agency that is owned and governed by the six Minnesota synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. An eight-member board of directors establishes the Foundation’s grant making priorities. Affordable housing has been a cause of the McKnight Foun dation since 1980, according to Sylvia Paine, a Foundation spokeswoman. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth HawTt, and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the City Staff; Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Plaimer Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherrv Frost. Council Member Goetten was present. Vice Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. (The meeting began with Agenda Item #23. Items #1 and following continue after discussion of this item.) SKETCH PLAN (#23) #2263 BROOK PARK REALTY 3560-3700 SHORELINE DRIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW The applicant was represented by Bill Gleason of Brook Park Realty and John Gleason of Eagle Crest Builders. Gaffron reported that the 9.8078 acre property is located west of the tv\in homes in Navarre, which are the only multi-family dwellings in Orono. The property abuts Shoreline Drive on the south and the Dakota Rail to the north. West of the property is a gravel and landscaping business, which is non-conforming in its use. The subject property is located in the LR-lCl, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The LR-IC allows for two units per acre. The ICl allows for a PRD with a 50% increase to 3 units per acre. The proposed development would be four units per building. There are wetlands located to the front of the property and the northwest. Runoff drains to the south into Carman's Bay from Casco Point to the east. The concept plan results in a development density of 4.6 units per acre. Per the zoning requirements, the 9.8 acre property would allow for 29 units where 45 are proposed. Gaffron reviewed the code sections that apply to the development plan. Section 10.30 Subdivision 16(1) disallows rezoning of the site to M-6 Multiple Family PRD because the site is adjacent to an LR district. M-6 is the only zoning district which would allow densities such as that proposed. Section 10.55 Subdivision 15(A)(3) allows credit for wetlands for density purposes for sewered residential property. Section 10.60 Subdivision 2 disallows density in excess of 4 units per acre of dry buildable land. The property in question has about 7 acres of dry buildable allowing for about 28 units. Section 11.10 Subdivision 14 prohibits the granting of variances to the density provisions of the code. This results in the proposed 45 units being too manv to consider under the current code standards. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 2L 1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the memo regarding wetlands, hardcover limitations, engineering issues, and sewer and water connection charges. There is a concern about possible wetland encroachment along the west side. The wetlands require confirmation and may require some restoration. There is a 35% hardcover limit for a PRD in the LR-IC District. A letter is included from the City engineer regarding the proposal. The preliminary determination for sewer and water connection charges is approximately $3800 per unit. The memo also outlines PRD standards for consideration. Gaffron informed the Commissioners that under a PRD they have the opportunity to create what they would like to see for such a development and give direction to the developer. The applicants were asked to comment. Bill Gleason indicated that they had been unaware of the limitations on the property being adjacent to the LR District. It is their plan to develop affordable housing through higher density. A portion of the development plan is laid out on neighboring property not yet acquired or part of this proposal. He noted there is a driveway currently crossing over wetlands. The wetlands will be preserved. Entiy into the property would be from Livingston Avenue. Gleason said his goal is to provide a lower unit cost through higher density. He proposes a unit would cost about $135,000 or less if the 48 unit density was allowed. Gleason said they would redo the plan if the 48 unit plan was not allowed. Each unit w ill include two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double garage, central air conditioning, and appliances. 1 here w ill be a front entry with garage entrv on the other side. There will be four units per building. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicant had reviewed the letter from the City Engineer. Gleason said he had no issue with the contents of the letter. He said he thought the driveway may be a problem. John Gleason asked what would be involved with restoration. Gaffron said it would likely include reexcavation and revegetation. Gaffron said the driveway has been a long standing issue for the City as it encroaches on property being developed and needs to be resolved. He felt it was resolvable. Hawn asked what the cost figures are for affordable housing. Gaffron said the top of the affordable range is a $120,000 valuation, which results in the estimated $135,000 cost per unit not meeting the affordable criteria. More density would be required to reduce the cost. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Berg indicated that the land value attributes to the cost. She felt the proposal was too high density. Smith said the plans are an improvement over what is on the property now but saw^ a problem with resolving the density issue. Hawn questioned whether the same size units w ould limit the type of residents who w ould purchase the prope*ty. She asked whether the developer has considered building some units bigger to allow for more of a mix of residents. Bill Gleason said the main issue was with keeping costs down. They are gearing their development to young couples or singles. They originally considered providing housing for empty nesters but there is not enough room for one level housing. The acreage would only allow for 16 one-level units, and Gleason felt empty nesters would desire a housing cost less than $130,000. Berg asked if the interior units in the building would be smaller. The applicants said they were all the same size at just under 1500 s.f finished. Berg asked what market analysis the developer has done to determine who their buyers would be. Bill Gleason said he thought SI50,000 per unit would be too high for townhome buyers. He acknowledged that land costs were high but felt the street and infrastructure costs were the main concern. Berg inquired what the development cost per unit would be. John Gleason said it would be about $30,000 with the lot. He noted that access to the property would be through an existing neighborhood which sets the tempo for the housing. Gleason said the homes would have maintenance free siding. He also indicated that an association would be formed. The entr>' cost would be $120,000 with options available that would increase the cost. The homes would include a set package. Gleason said building two level townhomes is more affordable. Bill Gleason said the unit development cost would be about $15,000 to $16,000 not including the land. Berg noted that the cost would increase for the premium lots. McMillan questioned the road access to CoRd 15. Gaffron said it is shown in concept only if the adjacent property is similarly developed in the future. (Schroeder arrived at this time.) ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) McMillan asked about guest parking. Bill Gleason said each unit would have room for two cars in the garage and tw o cars in front of the units. There w ill be room elsew here for parking and a public road going through the development. Green spaces will be provided. Hawn asked if it was impossible to rezone the area. Hawn indicated that the property is the last area available for affordable housing. 1 he proposal is way over the density that can be allowed but Hawn said she favors the effort. Bill Gleason reiterated that they misunderstood the zoning. Gaffron said any higher density would require rezoning. He informed the Commissioners that in order to allow more than three units per acre, a new zone would have to be created. Hawn asked if there were any other area where low cost housing could be built. Gaffron said he did not think so, this is the only area zoned for multiple family in Navarre. Hawn said she wnuld like to pursue rezoning of this property. Berg said she would consider reviewing it but not for the number of units as proposed. McMillan agreed with Berg. Berg said she understood the concern but felt the number proposed was too dense. Smith agreed with Berg. McMillan noted that any density between 29 and 45 units would still require rezoning. Gaffron said this would require changing the LR-lC-1 zone standards or creating a new zone which takes time. Smith also indicated that the unit price would not necessarily come down much in cost. Smith said she overall supports the proposal but docs not favor rezoning to the e.xtent needed for the density requested. She said the other issues are probably solvable. Berg said she liked the look of the proposal. John Gleason said they would trv' to maintain the price. He asked what the time frame was for rezoning. Gaffron said the Council would likely want to review all of Navarre on a comprehensive level and estimated a minimum of six months. John Gleason asked if the Commission thought the proposal with less density was favorable. Berg concurred noting ihe desire for affordable housing while still meeting the benchmark density. Gleason asked how they could come up with a density level. Smith informed him that any density level over 28 or 29 units would require rezoning. Gaffron reiterated that density over 28 units would require at least six months for review of the zoning. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Bill Gleason asked how the determination of 28 units was made. Gaffron said it was determined by the dry buildable and would result in 28-30 units. Berg said the applicant also has to consider the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal will increase the traffic which has to be considered. She noted that the addition of the adjacent parcel would result in the County reviewing the traffic as well. McMillan indicated that with no code allowing density over 28 units, the density level cannot be determined at this point. Bill Gleason said they could review and re-tool the plan if rezoning was a possibility. Gaffron said if the Commission would like to consider rezoning, the Council should review the sketch plan first to see if they support the idea of rezoning. John Gleason clarified the water and sewer connection charge of $3800 per unit. Gaffron said density level would not change the unit cost. (Dale Lindquist arrived at this time.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:12-7:24 .M. The Applicant, Robin Helgager, along with Neil Heup.-’, ’vcre present. Gaffron reported that the application is a continuation of a public hearing for remodeling of the residence. The applicant received approval for a 5' east lot line setback in 1996 and removal of the existing detached garage and addition of an attached garage, a family room, and a change in the driveway. A revised proposal was reviewed early in 1997. Gaffron indicated that the property requires a 50' setback from CoRd 6, 150' setback from Lake Classen, a 30' side setback, all of which leaves little room for expansion of the footprint. The lakcshore setback requirement has increased since the original residence was built. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#1 - #2187 Donald and Robing Helgager - Continued) The original 1997 proposal included a mother-in-law apartment. The current proposal does not include an apartment. A second story is planned over the g?/age area. This would result in the second story being located within the 30' setback with the proposed 5' setback. Gaffron asked Commission to consider this proposal and how it might affect the adjacent property's view of the lake. He noted that the Plarming Commission had found it difficult to allow additions to the residence towards the street. There will still be an encroachment of the lakeshore setback but less than that with the existing garage that will b. removed under the proposed plan. Heupel said the front entrance is now established. He said while the suggestion by Hawn for an addition to the rear was appreciated, they had forgotten about the septic tanks being located in that area. Other alternatives were not possible resulting in the request for the second story above the garage. The current entrances to the home are from the porches on the front and side. Hawn said she saw' the drivew ay in front of the home as being a problem. Heupel said it serves as a turnaround only. Robin Helgager said it is dangerous to attempt to turn around any where else. Hawn questioned whether the drivew ay has to be extended across the w hole front of the residence. Helgager said they are losing their parking currently used and are not able to park side by side. Smith noted that there is no place to park off of the property. McMillan asked how large the driveway area will be. Heupel said it is about 25' wide and the length of the home. Helgager said she has three small children and the property’ drops off to the side and would like the area for the children to play basketball. Smith said the proposal is an improvement over the last application. While she does not like to see adding to the mass of the structure, she prefers this proposal. Hawn asked if the driveway w ould be blacktopped. I lelgager said she would like it to be as it is the only flat part of the yard. McMillan asked if the next door neighbor approved of the plan. Heupel said he lived next door and was in support of the plan. Hawn inquired about trees being affected by the proposed plan. Helgager said one tree was lost, but they plan on planting more trees. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2187 for the hardships noted. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#2) #2238 CHIC DWIGHT AND FRED GUT! ORMSON 1220 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:24-7:58 P.M. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application had been previously tabled at prior meetings. The question revolves around the after-the-fact variance for deck and enclosed porch improvements, and a new hardcover variance request for a 32'x30' detached garage. Gaffron directed attention to the memo of June 12 regarding the applicant's discussion with him regarding options of reorienting the proposed garage and relocating the driveway loop and eliminating the loop in the yard to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' setback. No conclusions were made. The issues still involve the reconstruction of the deck, deck enclosure, and detached garage. The potential tradeoffs were reviewed as noted in the memo. Lindquist asked the applicant to respond. Guttormson said he discussed the options with Gaffron. Dwight said they have agreed to remove the deck at the lakeshore if the garage and deck enclosure are allowed. The gravel driveway would be eliminated resulting in reduction in hardcover. Guttormson questioned whether the enclosure is actually a building. Lindquist said it was and would have to be reconstructed to code. Lindquist said the garage as proposed should be moved to meet the 15' setback and loop driveway eliminated in the 0-75' setback. Gaffron said if the removals were made, the applicant would remove the shed, giavel driveway to lake, and lakeside deck but wished to leave the loop driveway as it is. Hawn noted there were two sheds by the lake. Guttormson said both sheds would be removed (one already has been removed). Havvn asked about storage of the motor home. Guttormson said it is parked elsewhere during the winter months and parked on the property during the summer when not in use. Lindquist asked if the applicant was willing to reduce the driveway loop. Guttormson said he has made it as small as possible in order to still be able to turn around. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (U2 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Smith suggested the applicant remov e the portion of the loop in the 0-75' setback which she felt would allow enough remaining space for tumarouiid and parking. Guttormson responded that he does not need the garage enough to eliminate the driveway loop. Dwight said they arc unable to park on the road and would lose space needed if they had to remove the loop. HawTi asked the size of the current garage and the use for the proposed garage. Guttormson said the existing garage is 22’ wide. The new garage would be used for storage and parking of two cars. Lindquist asked if there are any changes agreed to regarding elimination of the loop driveway for the new ^arage. Guttormson said he would remove the lakeside deck. Hawn informed him that the deck enclosure was approved with agreement to remove the deck by the lakeside. She indicated that the app'’cai.i proceeded with the projects which required removals as conditions of the approval. Hawn nv" .’ >he garage is a separate issue from the first variance and the approved variance should stand aj vvitten and not be allowed for reconsideration. Dwight said Staff ioldil«c»^.- to repair the deck and did not mention needing a permit. She said they do not feel what th aid was out of line. Hawn agreed but said the proceedings called for the enclosure and reconstruction of the deck. Dwight said her understanding is the driveway to lake and lakeside deck removals were to allow for the deck enclosure. She indicated that they realized they did not need sliding doors and believed the removable screens used did not constitute a deck enclosure. Dwight said they also did not remove dirt as previously proposed. Berg noted that the prior conversation related to removal of the gravel driveway, shed, and lakeside deck. She noted the need for the Planning Commission to clearly communicate the issues to the applicant. Smith and Berg were in consensus regarding removal of the lakeside deck. Berg said the ordinance must be protected noting the attempt to accomplish the needs of both the applicant and City. Berg reviewed the issues of the lakeside deck, enclosure under the deck, the reconstruction to code of the deck for safety reasons with required permits obtained, removal of the two sheds by the lakeshore, one already remov ed and one which will be removed, the new garage, the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback, and the driveway in the 0-75' setback. 1 ORONO PLANNING COIVfMlSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#2 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) Berg said any type of construction under the deck would require the lakeside deck, gravel driveway to lake, and sheds be removed in order to allow any enclosure regardless of sliaing doors or dirt removal. Dw ight said the original application included removal of dirt and patio doors. Gaffron confirmed that the dirt was not removed. Lindquist said in order to obtain the new garage, the loop driveway in the 0-75' setback would have to be removed. The deck enclosure would require the other removals as noted. Schroeder agreed. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2238 for reconstruction of the deck and underneath deck enclosure with permits to be obtained and improvements built to code with the understanding the 8' gravel driveway, lakeside deck, and lakeside sheds are to be removed. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The abov e approval does not include the garage. Question was raised about how much of the loop driveway would have to be removed. Guttormson noted the trees located in the area which he says he is trying to maintain. Schroeder informed him he needs to determine how important the trees are. The applicant reviewed his options regarding the driveway. Smith said the portion of the loop dnveway located in the 0-75' setback would have to be removed. She felt the remaining portion was adequate for the needs of the applicant. Guttormson said he would be unable to turn his Suburban around without backing in. Schroeder informed Guttormson that in order to move the application forward to the Council, they would have to make a recommendation or the application would be tabled regarding the garage. Guttormson requested a motion be made regarding this issue. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny Application #2238 for the garage portion of the application. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED TO AUGUST 18,1997 This item was continued to the August 18, 1997 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated that the neighboring property owners were advised of the continuation of this application. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#4)#2254 CURTIS AND BARBARA PALMER 2710 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:58-8:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for a variance to allow addition of storage space above an existing garage. The garage is located in front of the principal residence and is therefore non-conforming. Van Zomeren noted the building pad for the property. She indicated that the additional structure would add to the bulk in the non-conforming area. She felt there were other areas where storage space could be added. Van Zomeren said Staff did not find adequate hardship to justify the request. The size of the added storage area would be 5'9" and 16' towards the street side of the garage. Mr, Palmer said the lot was hilly. The garage had been built prior to the current code. He believe the request is a good way to gain storage space and would be pleasing in a, earance. Palmer said the front elevation would allow the roof line to continue its downward slope. McMillan asked how much additional space would be gained. Palmer said it would be about 100-150 s.f There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicants were the owners of the property when the porch and addition were constructed. It was indicated that they were. Smith said the property may be a residence where additional changes would result in too much coverage. The applicant indicated that no additional ground cover would occur. Smith replied that the request would result in added bulk too close to the street. Hawn said she originally was not in favor of the request but after viewing the property, she felt the front of the house was obscured by the garage. The houses across the street were also located down a steep decline which makes a significant difference to her regarding the view of the property. Palmer noted that the house next door was more prominent. Smith inquired about the condition of the foundation. The applicant said the apron has settled and pulled away from the garage. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#4 - #2254 Curtis and Barbara Palmer - Continued) Lindquist said he agreed u-ith Haun. McMillan asked if there were any other storage sheds. Palmer said no and indicated that the property was too steep to allow it elsewhere. Smith suggested the applicant consider converting the porch to storage space or moving it back on the property. Palmer said he felt this option would not be aesthetically pleasing or functional He indicated that the porch w as added onto the front of the house. Barbara Palmer said the added storage space would allow her husband to stand up in his existing workshop. Schroeder said he thought they were looking for storage space noting Staff thought such space could be located elsewhere on the property. Palmer asked where it could be located. Schroeder said there is adequate building pad and is opposed to adding to the bulk of the structure. McMillan said she preferred two structures instead of adding a third. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2254 noting an additional accessory structure would be more than what is needed. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 1, Smith. (Item #5 was moved to the end of the agenda as the applicant was not present.) (#6)#2256 JAMES AND MARY RIVERS 1442 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:07-8:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicants arc proposing changing the roof line of the existing residence. Replacement is necessary because of damage from snow accumulating in the valley in the roof. A variance is required because the house is located in the 0-75' setback. Staff recommended approval. The applicant had no additional comments. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#6 - #2256 James and Marv' Rivers - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved. Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2256. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0, (#7)#2257 DENNIS A. MEYER 4685 TONKA VIEW LANE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:08-8:20 P.M The AfTidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that although the memo indicates the need for both lot area and lot w idth variances for construction of a new^ residence, only lot area is required. The 0.69 acre property has 82% of the 140 ’ standard w hich is satisfactory'. GatTron noted that the survey, elevations, and plans are provided. The new residence would meet the 35 ’ front setback. 10 ’ side setback, and hardcover requirements. The northern two-thirds of the lot is w ithin the 500-1000 ’ lakeshore setback. Gaffron said the applicant was asked to submit a grading plan because of drainage to the south. The drainage runs to a property also owned by Meyer. The drainage issue needs to be resolved. The applicant is willing to work with Staff and City Engineer. Gaffron noted that the plan was revised to eliminate a height variance. Staff recommends approval. The applicant said he plans on building a larger home than his current one. During public comments, the neighbor to the west indicated that a fence line he has maintained has been determined to be located 8' into the Meyer property which includes the driveway. Meyer said there is an overlap of the plat and driveway area. He has no intention to remove the fence or change the perceived boundary. Berg informed him that this issue would have to be resolved by the tw o property owners. Lindquist asked if there w as any conflict. The neighbor said he had not sur\eyed the property when he purchased it. Schroeder said the boundary change would require a lot line rearrangement. Lindquist said the Planning Commission would only act on the application requested and infomied the neighbor to work with Meyer to resolve this boundary issue. Meyer said he was willing to work with his neighbor. 12 ORONO PLANNING C OMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#7 - #2257 Dennis A, Meyer - Continued) Shirley Bull, 4690 Tonkaview, asked if the v ariance was approved, if it would be setting a precedent for the neighborhood due to the lot size. Gaffron said the LR IB Zoning District requires one acre lots but the lot sizes in the Tonkaview neighborhood range from .39 to 1.61 acres. There arc 11 k*ts that are larger and 7 that are equal to or smaller than applicants, so he does not view the request as setting a precedent as it falls within the average. Bull noted that the applicant also owns 4655 Tonkaview, the lot to the south. She questioned whether the applicant was taking land from this property to add to the proposed lot to make it adequate in size. Gaffron said there is no intent to make a lot line rearrangement and the two lOts are separate lots of record. McMillan noted that the driveway on the west side would be used to access two tuckunder garages to the south. With five planned garages, she v oiced concern with runoff to the south from it. Smith asked if a drainage plan w as being requested. Gaffron said the drainage plan has been submitted but has not yet been reviewed with the City Engineer regarding continued drainage to the south. He questioned whether the north half of the house could be made to drain to the north but noted the lots across the road are all lower than Tonkaview and questioned how it would afTect the properties to the north. The additional hard surface will add to the drainage. Gaffron said a stormwater pond might be necessary. Lindquist said approval could be subject to drainage approval by the City Engineer. The applicant said he would be willing to do what is necessary. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2257 for lot area variance subject to acceptable grading and drainage plans approved by the City Engineer. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2258 GERALD A. WALSH 180 BIG ISLAND VARIANCE PUBIC HEARING 8:20-8:22 P.M. The Affidav it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the request is for a lot area variance. He indicated that the RS District ordinance was adopted in 1983 which defined combining a group of parcels as a Record Lot granting them lot area variances and the majority deemed buildable. The property owners were required at that time to file fomial documentation to acquire this variance. The applicant is ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#8 - #2258 Gerald A. Walsh - Continued) asking for this variance now that was granted for the other properties. The property in question has changed ownership several times. The subject property consisting of two ta.\ parcels is 100' wide, 280' deep, and .64 acres in area. Gaffron said staff recommends approval per the provisions of the RS district and legal combination to result in one tax parcel. The applicant said he had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Schroeder was informed by Gaffron that the RS designation still applies. McMillan moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2258. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#9)#2259 MARK AND LAURIE HEADRICK 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:22-8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron indicated that a letter was received from a neighboring property owner. Gaffron reported that the request is for side and front setbacks to convert a garage to a family room and add a new garage. The required side yard setback is 30 ’, which exists at 24.5' and is proposed at 5'. The required front yard setback is 50', existing at 38.6' and proposed at 36.6'. The current zoning for side setback was adopted after the house was built. The property is located in the two acre zoning district. Gaffron informed the Commission that the proposed two car garage addition will also include a mudroom, deck, and kitchen expansion. It would be located 5' from the north side lot line. It meets the 50' setback from the front. The proposal also includes a bump out to the front of the existing garage. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997(#9 - #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick - Continued)The 1 78 acre property has .4 acres of wetland to the rear. The house is located on an elevated portion of the property which drops off to the wetlands. The ' T?ie area is being considered for municipal sewer but at a cost of about $30,000 per unit. The neighborhood has suggested the cost is prohibitive and sewer installation is not scbedukd. Gaffron said the drainfield replacement capability is limited due to the topography of the property. The infonnation includes a letter of hardship. The main issue is rvith the side setback. The front setback for the 2'xlO' wide bump out is small. Staff feels the side setback request is extrem from 30' to 5'. He noted that the 1/2 acre zoning, Orono’s least restrictive distnct, requires .setback Gaffron compared the home’s location to the neighboring properties. It has the least Tep^on“ n hoLs in the neighborhood and he feels the sep^ation should -nhuned in dte two-acre zoning. He did note that the property is limited for location "f.®" asked the Commission to consider the addition approval with respect to the neighboring property location and asked for direction. Lindquist read the letter from neighbor, Tobin Dayton, into the record. The letter opposes the proposal. Headrick said thev have looked at their options noting the restrictions. They are requesting a kitchen/family roim addition. They were informed that foundation work to locate the addition Lewhere would be too expensive. They are also concerned with the aesthetics. Headrick indicated that the kitchen is situated in this comer of the house. The proposed garage is as small as possible for two cars. During public comments, Tobin Dayton said he was present to answer any questions about the letter noted. Smith noted that adding onto the other side and enclosing the deck kitchen. Headrick said the property drops off 12' at that location and fill is currently located there. Lindquist indicated that there are homes where no additions can be located. He saw ^ with a 5 ’ setback and felt the addition could not extend to that degree. Smith agreed. Headnck responded Uiat other properties in the neighborhood have received vanances. Schroeder said it would be less problematic to go for%vard towards the street with an addition. Headrick questioned whether a garage could be placed in front of the garage, in quis ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ont (#9 - #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick - Continued) would depend on how close it would be to the road and the setback. He noted that the garage is already closer than allowed, and he would have a problem with lessening the setback. Lindquist said he felt the only solution would be an addition to the rear. Mrs. Headrick said three contractors have informed him that the cost would be prohibitive to construct an addition to the rear. Smith noted that the Commission looks at applications individually and other neighborhood additions are in context with the neighborhood. Headrick asked if this home was not in context. He was informed that it was not in the scope of the neighborhood as far as the side setback is concerned. Mrs. Headrick asked what would be considered. Gaffron asked about an addition straight back behind the garage. Headrick said there would still be an issue of fill but less amount of fill in that location than elsewhere. The w orst scenario for fill is to the rear of the kitchen. He said Gaffron's suggestion could be considered. Mrs. Headrick said 3/4ths of the addition of the garage would require pilings if located behind the current garage. Lindquist said he would consider a small variance to the side setback but not a 5' setback. He explained that the Commission can table the application or make a motion. Hawn asked if the garage could be built on the other side of the house. Mrs. Headrick said the same problem would occur and it would have to be accessed through the living room. The Headricks asked the Commission to vote on the application. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny Application #2259. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2260 BENJAMIN MILBRATH 3265 CARMAN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:45-8:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#10 - #2260 Benjamin Milbrath - Continued) Van Zomeren passed out photographs of the property. The application is a request for ;,UP and variance to replace a retaining wall, which has been removed, in the 0-75' setback with a keystone type wall. A variance is required to remove a w alkway on the north side of the timbers. Grass will replace this area but the retaining wall will encroach into the side yard. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval. The applicant said his goal is to have less hardcover. Milbrath said the plan would allow the drainage to flow into the front yard instead of the neighboring property ;md aids in presenting a natural setting. Theie were no public comments. Hawn noted that the property needs relief as soon as possible. She noted that much of gravel under the deck has swept into the neighboring property and would like to see the gravel removed from the property. Milbrath said the gravel would be left there for now and removed once the walls are in place. He will replace the gravel with wood chips under the deck. Milbrath said the neighbor is pleased with his plan and the improved drainage situation. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2260. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren said the application will go before the Council at their July 28 meeting. Milbrath noted that he would not be in attendance. (#11) #2261 TONY EIDEN COMPANY 345 LEAF STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:52-8:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren said the application is for a lot area variance for a 1.77 acre property located in the 2 acre minimum LR-1A Zoning District. The applicant is in the process of purchasing the property owned by Tom Meyer. Van Zomeren said Staff is concerned with the lack of a proposed plan but the building pad as outlined should not create any problems. Van Zomeren said she would recommend screening from the Luce Line. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#11- #2261 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Tony Eiden had no comments to add. There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the applicant was satisfied with the setback requirements. Eiden said he was and would be able to meet them. Smith moved, McMillan seconded to approve Application #2261. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Item #12 follows item #16) (#13) #2264 JANET C. KIERNAN 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:54-9:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that an application had been previously reviewed and approved for reconstruction and additions to the residence in 1996. He reviewed that application and the new changes requested. The applicant had determined that it would be impossible to save the existing superstructure and is proposing a new residence. A one-stall addition to the garage would meet the setback. There would be an additional encroachment to the front setback and a new small encroachment to the side. The issue is with new construction being an opportunity where all the setbacks, especially the lakeshore setback, could be met. Lot area and width variances are also required. The one acre property, 187' in width, is located in the two acre zoning with a 200' width standard. Gaffron indicated that the property may be sewered in the future but eontinues at this time to require use of a septie system. Kieman noted the hardships on the property with the maple tree to the north side and the Indian mounds to the rear where a 50' setback is required. Kieman said to renovate the property would require an additional tw-o to three courses of block to create more headroom and a better foundation. During publie comments, John Ericson, 1620 Shady wood Road, clarified that the encroachment of the 75' setback would be allowed with a major remodeling but w'ould be required to be met if ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#13 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) new construction. GafTron said it i questionable v' hct the use of current footings would allow "grandfathering" of the current setback. Lindquist said the use of the current foundation would have to be clarified. Gaffron said from the staff standpoint, the application as presented is viewed as new construction. Hawn asked if the applicant considered a plan w hich w ould move the house back on the property'. Kieman reviewed her plans noting the designer, contractor, and inspector felt it would be more expensive to mesh old plans with new. Kieman said she had not considered moving the house back. She indicated that it would incur more e.xpense to have another plan drawn and she would prefer not to. Schroeder said it would not necessarily involve a totally new plan. Lindquist was infomied that all of the existing structure would be removed except for the foundation. Lindquist said he would recommend that all structure be located behind the 75' setback. Kieman asked if a 30’ side setback would be considered a problem. Lindquist said it was not from his perspective. I L was infomied that the existing side setback is 14.5'. Hawn noted that ihe property is verj well screened. Schroeder noted there were trees located on the other side. Lindquist noted the small size of the lot for the zoning district. He asked if the property is going to bfc sewered. Gaffron said it is the City's inten lo so as soon as all property owners involved arc on board. It has been detemiined that the co. ‘‘the sewer project is more than earlier anticipated. Ha .vn inquired about hardcov . calculations. Gaffron said they have not been included. He noted that the property was allowed 27.6% in the 75-250' setback and 2.9% in the 0-75’ setback, and the applicant intends to meet those requirements. Kieman said she thought the current plan proposes less than that amount. Lindquist said he would recommend all hardcover be behind the 75' setback. Scliroeder said the issue is the prior approval allowing the hardcover amounts as noted. Lindquist noted this application is for new' construction. Gaffron explained the necessar>’ changes to move all structure behind the 75- setback. Hawn suggested making the driveway more narrow and perpendicularly connecting it to the house. Kieman said the costs would then double. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#13 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) Kieman asked whether the patio could remain in front of the 75' setback. Schroeder noted the improvements with new construction are better than what would occur with remodeling. Smith said she would be concerned with allowing the patio. Schroeder indicated that t'*>* application could be tabled for further consideration or a motion could be made. He explained the purpose in improving the lakeshore setback and the status of new construction. McMillan asked if this was true with use of the existing foundation. She was informed it was. Kieman asked how much foundation usaee denotes new construction. GafTron W said it was not specified. He said the building pad would be gone and only the foundation left. He also noted that the building inspector has not yet tested the foundation and is not convinced it is all usable. He suggested tabling the application to make this determination. The side setback hardships were reiterated, being the trees, septic system, and Indian mounds. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2264. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for a short break.) (#14) #2265 ROBERT LUND FOR GRAYDON AND MICHELLE NEWMAN 1655 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:27-9:31 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Robert Lund. Van Zomeren reported that the irregular shaped lot is located in the LR-IB Zoning District. The proposal is to tear down the existing structure and construct a residence located partially in front of the average lakeshore setback. Staff recommended approval. The representative had no further comments. During public comments. John Ericson, asked if the new residence would be located behind the 75' setback. Van Zomeren reported that it would. 20 r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#14 - #2265 Robert Lund for Graydon and Michelle Newman - Continued) Smith asked why the residence w ould be located in front of the average lakeshore setback. She w as informed by f und that there are a large number of trees on the property' and the residence will be built to line up with viewing the lake through the trees. Schroeder asked how far forward the home would be. He w’as informed that the orientation of the home would change but would be between 8.^' and 85’ forward. It was noted that there is no way to avoid encroaching into the average lakeshore setback. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2265. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 (Berg was absent during the vote). (#15) #2266 RONALD AND ROBIN nO!lRMAN 190 CYGNET PLACE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:31-9:34 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomc^’en reported tliat the request is for variances to the rear and side yard setbacks for construction of a screen porch to the rear and a one stall addition to the garage to the east. The lots in the area do not meet lot area requirements and create long narrow building pads. The 30' side yard requirement is proposed at 28'. The 50 ’ rear yar is proposed at 46'. Van Zomeren said structural coverage is not an issue. There is a small front yard encroachment. Staff recommended approval. The applicant said the residence is located just barely into the setback and the proposal is the only alternative for an addition. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the neighboring properties were notified. Van Zomeren said they were. She indicated she received one call and sent out information to that person. She received no complaints. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2266. Smith asked if a new driveway would be built for the garage addition. The applicant said it would be widened but a pad is already located there. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (U\6) #2267 JOHN O'SULLIVAN FOR ADAM SMITH COMPANY 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 9:34-10:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a commercial site plan review for a proposed driveway from Shadywood Road through an easement. He noted the vacation and conceptual vacation of Navarre Lane. The proposal would grant approval for creation of an easement across and in front of what is the church building to enter the western portion of the site. A revised plan presented on this date shows a head-in entiy instead of parallel parking spaces. Gaffron showed the larger concept plan. He indicated that the concept plans briefly reviewed by Planning Commission last winter called for access from the Culvers' site to the church property all along. He noted that as proposed this would result in two accesses on Shadywood Road for traffic leaving the church site. The current proposal would add the southerly of the two accesses allowing traffic to take a left turn and then head south to the light. Gaffron said he feels another access is necessarv' for the Culvers site. He noted the unusual trafilc pattern on the site with its counterclockwise direction. GafiVon said the car wash stacking has not presented any conflict to date. He said the proposal adds both an in and out access and Hennepin County has expressed their support of the proposal. The City Engineer has suggested a right in and right out access only. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the proposed access on a temporary basis, maintaining City’s future ability to move the access to the north if appropriate when the church site is developed. O’Sullivan said there is difficulty with access during rush hour. He indicated that the work to acquire legal easement has been done and merging of the site plans are in process but months away from completion. He feels the proposed location is the right site for the curb cut. He disagrees with the right in/right out concept as the access would be the furthest access from the intersection than any other property. He cited the amount of traffic through the intersection. O’Sullivan said he has received the support of the Police Chief and noted the County’s favor of the plan. O’Sullivan said the County has no plans in the short term for a right turn lane. O'Sullivan said the proposal will improve the traffic flow. John Ericson said he thought the County would not approve a curb cut at that location. Gaffron read a letter into the record from Dave Zetterstrom of Hermepin County supporting the curb cut. 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#16 - #2267 John O'Sullivan for Adam Smith Company - Continued) Ericson commented that he was unable to obtain a curb cut when he requested it. O'Sullivan indicated that he has closed off one curb cut, had three approved, and currently has two curb cuts. Ericson asked if it would be a common curb cut for both businesses when developed. Gaffron said that would be the City Engineer's recommendation but not what is being proposed. O'Sullivan noted that he has 400' of frontage. Lindquist asked where the applicant is in the plan for development of the church site. O'Sullivan said it would be in the fall or winter at the earliest time. He said he would support the temporary location status but did not feel it would be the best option if only one curb cut is allowed. Schroeder asked if his objection is due to the elimination of the parking spots. O'Sullivan said it was. Schroeder asked how far north the access would have to be to gain a free right turn. O'Sullivan said it would not occur. O'Sullivan said the County told him he would have to make the best of the intersection as it is. Lindquist noted Navarre Lane was half vacated. Gaffron said it was vacated to the County road right-of-way. The remaining portion is conceptually vacated pending the church site development. Lindquist asked if the proposal can be accomplished with the vacation still being conceptual. Gaffron said it could as it was still part of the public right-of-way. Schroeder said he supports the temporarj' approval as it leaves options open. Hawn said she is concerned with the traffic flow on the site. She feels the curb cut would intensify the traffic flow. Hawn noted at the time of the restaurant approval, the applicant was required to install a railing ne.xt to the doorway, install a sign, and p'c.ce station markers for the lanes. She indicated this was not done and compounds the safety concerns of the site. O'Sullivan said the sidewalk reconfiguration resulted in the determination that no railing was needed. Hawn asked who made that determination. Gaffron said he was not involved. O'Sullivan said staff reviewed it and approved it. Berg said she typically has seen cones located between the lanes. O'Sullivan said the cones were not required. Hawn said she would have to review the minutes for the record. She had thought they were to be immovable and permanent. Hawn said she still has concerns regarding safety. She has viewed children running across the parking lot and noted there was no sign for stopping in the walkway. Lindquist asked Hawn what she would like to see done. Hawn showed where the sign and railing were to be located. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#16 - #2267 John O’Sullivan for Adam Smith Company - Continued) Berg said she does not see the need for a railing at this time. O’Sullivan said the situation was no different than at other businesses and found it difficult to regulate people’s stupidity as far as their safety goes. Schroeder noted the practicality of not having a railing with parking located in the comer. McMillan noted there is a 4 ’ wall. Hawn said she would like a railing in place as originally planned and approved. Lindquist questioned how traffic has influenced the lot. Berg said the Commission should review how the lot was configured and sec what was allowed by staff. Hawn said she would vote against the curb cut for safety reasons without minimal safeguards in place. McMillan asked how' far the curb cut was from the intersection. Gaffron said it was about equal distance. Smith said she agrees with Hawn but does not like to hold up the plans. She would like to see comprehensive plans for the site w ithout having to access the church property, which she teels intensifies tlie use. Lindquist agreed with seeing the comprehensive plan for the site. Schroeder said the use would be the same but allow for a right turn out onto CoRd 19. He would like to see "zebra" striping to suggest to customers that they walk farther down for safety. McMillan said the traffic flow would be increased down County Road 19. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the temporary curb cut with the expectation that it will be reviewed during the phase two construction. Approval would be subject to zebra striping in the crosswalk. Vote: Ayes 2, Schroeder, Berg; Nays 4, Lindquist, Smith, Hawn, McMillan. Motion denied. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#16 - #2267 John O’Sullivan for Adam Smith Company - Continued) Lindq Jst said he would like to see the whole layout. Hawn said she would prefer to see the whole plan and voted against the motion for safety. Smith cited safety and need for viewing the layout as reason for denial. Ga.ffron asked for a motion that would incur a positive vote outcome for better direction, Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny the access as proposed as safety issues are not addressed. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Berg, Schroeder. (#12) #2262 NED BUTTERFIELD 3745 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:05-10:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the request for a conditional use permit to change the grade of the 2.37 acre property, which currently slopes away from Watertown Road. The change would allow the creation of an area for a building pad as the property owner is discussing building a new residence or the site. The greenhouses on the property have been removed. The applicant has hauled in 100 cubic yards of fill but the applicant’s engineer estimates it will require an additional 2000 cubic yards. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval. She added that there appears to be no drainage problems. The applicant had no comments to add. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2262. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#17) #2268 ROBERT T. CALLAN 2995 DEER RUN TRAIL VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:09-10:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a front setback variance for construction of a new residence on a back lot. He reviewed the orientation of the residence noting it w ould be served by a private driveway outlot. By definition, the lot line abutting the access outlot is the front lot line of a back lot, resulting in the east lot line becoming the front lot line. This is inconsistent with the other lots on the south side of Deer Run Trail, all of which have their designated side lot lines as the easterly or westerly lot lines. The property owner’s intent is for this residence to face north. The back lot requirements result in a 75' setback where there would normally be a 30' side setback. The home will be oriented similar to the other homes on Deer Run Trail. One and a half times the normal side setback would result in 45’, w hich is the east setback requested by the applicant. Staff recommended approval with the condition that the house be oriented the same as the other homes in the area. The applicant noted that this will aid in buffering of trees for the septic sites. He wants to maintain the trees on the property. The variance will eliminate cutting into the hill on the west side of the lot. The applicant said the owner of adjacent Lot 5 would like to comment but was unable to attend. He will have the opportunity at the Council review to respond. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2268. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#18) #2269 CONLEY BROOKS AND GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1045 FERNDALE ROAD WEST SUBDIVISION OF LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 10:14-10:37 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) C alTron reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement for property on West f emdale Road. The existing substandard lot is proposed to be divided and attached to t\\o adjacent properties. Gaffron reviewed the division. The projjerty at 1045 Femdale Road West (lots 11 and 12) with an existing house will be split, with a portion added to the McCourtney property to the west and the remainder to the Brooks property to the north across the road. The house at 1045 will be removed. The portion of 1045 north of the road. Parcels H and E, will be combined with Parcels A and F. Gaffron noted potential difficulties identified by the submitted survey, including the separation of Parcel C from 905 West Femdale. He said this would have to be considered under a separate application. Gaffron did not know whether it had been used for hardcover calculations for 905. He indicated th?t there are docks on the small property (Parcel B) not shown on the plat maps and it is not known what properties they ser\ e. He noted there are discrepancies between the survey submitted and the Countv plat maps. Gaffron said the proposal adds lakeshore to property currently not having lakeshore. He indicated that a "Special Lot Combination" can be required if combination of two lots separated by the road is not allowed by the County. It would then require City approval to sell the combined parcels separately. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the subdivision with recombination of parcels as proposed. The applicant was questioned regarding his intent for the existing garage noting the existing residence would be removed. McCourtney said the garage is already located there, and he intends to replace it He indicated he would probably need other variances to do so. He asked if he would be compromising his position if he removes the garage now for reconstruction later. Lindquist said he would be in a better position if he left the garage in place for the time being. The other Commissioners agreed. McCourtney said he would come back before the Planning Commission with his plans in the near future. Gaffron said he would recommend removal but the applicant has the prerogative to keep it in place. He noted that the garage encroaches into the right-of-way and is in a dilapidated condition and would have to be removed at some point. He agreed that the applicant is better off leaving it in place for the time being. Lindquist noted that the setbacks would then be known. During public comments, a gentleman said he represented Robert Floyd, the owner of 960 Femdale. He asked what the criteria is for allowing a property to subdivide for greater access to the lake and how it reflects on the future for other property owners. Lindquist said the Commission reviews the applications case by case. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) In noting Parcels F and G as they currently exist in combination are substandard, GatTron said the City is better off if the lots are not sold as a separate entity, as significant variances would be required to build since the majority of the property is in the 0-75' setback. He indicated that the proposed split nearly meets the standard for 200' width and would require a slight adjustment to the west to ensure 200' width if that is an issue. Gaffron thought the plat map shows enough total frontage to meet that standard. Lindquist clarified that this is a special condition. He was asked if this decision affects the 20' strip of land in question. Lindquist said the deeds would have to be reviewed. The representative of Mr. Floyd said research was done, and he had a good idea who owned the strip of land. He said he would not want to have this application's decision affect other property. Hawn indicated that it would be difficult to say whether the application would impact other property. She indicated that the current application is clear in its intent and the Commission is only able to address the particular application at this time, not the other issues noted by staff. Gaffron informed the representative that he is welcome to present any information he might have to staff. Robert Floyd said he had a number of concerns. He said he understood the issue of non conformity but felt the desire to acquire shoreline would affect others. He asked what the criteria is for special conditions. He added that he is concerned w ith the larger picture and making a decision in a vacuum. He feels the decision will affect his property and his value and is inappropriate. He feels the Commission is opening a "Pandora's Box". Schroeder said he understood the applicants purchased the property and have agreed to divide it. He indicated that they have the right to a lot line rearrangement. Gaffron said the City looks for adjacency when considering such applications. He noted that adding to property across the roadwa> is more in question but the City has done so elsewhere. He noted that Parcel F is a separate parcel subserx ient to the lot across the street (Parcels A-E-H) which he feels is as good an adjacency as can be found. He indicated that would be a substantial amount of lakeshore with the rearrangement. Gaffron said if the Commission determines the need to meet the 200' standa.d, it can be discu.ssed. He did not know how this subdivision would affect other docks in the area. Robert Floyd said the combination would affect his lot. He said with rapidly growing lots, it is difficult to know how changes affect him. He wanted to know the rules of operation. He feels 28 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18- #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) there would be a lot line shown as 5’. Schroeder indicated that the overriding issue is one of property purchase. Berg noted that j>eople may purchase land and do a lot line rearrangement. She asked what the impact is that creates a problem for Floyd. Floyd said the ownership of Parcels B and D have not been determined. Berg said that determination does not affect this particular parcel. Floyd said he did not believe it was spelled out in the zoning code. Berg said she saw no negative result from this action. Berg informed Floyd that the Commission cannot hold off action p>ending a decision on parcels B and D as they do not know how that will address the issue. Floyd indicated that the lots were included in the evaluation. Berg said they were only referenced. Gaffron indicated there are other issues that are not discussable at this time. He said it was unfortunate that the suney work came in late which gave additional information that clearly needs resolution. Hawn indicated the Commission is obligated to act within 60 days on an application. Floyd said he thought there was an option of tabling the application to look at other areas of concern. Hawn said the applicants have the right to a decision. Schroeder said the outcome is not clear but he sees the first principle as being the elimination of a substandard lot. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2269 as outlined, with the recommendation the e.xisting house be removed. The garage is not required to be removed. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. It was noted that the application will be reviewed at the August 11 Council meeting unless further infomiation is provided that suggests sonic alternative action is appropriate. (#19) #2270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY 4640 TONKA VIEW LANE VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:37-10:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 29 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#19 - #22'^ 3 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Van Zomeren said additional information is required for completion of this application and recommends tabling. The applicant would like the Commission to receive an overview to give them direction. The property on Tonkaview is considered a through lot, but no access from that through lot. The proposal is to build a garage requiring a conditional use permit due to the through lot status. The structure is proposed at 1200 s.f. where 1000 s.f. is the limit allowed. A height variance is required as the residence is lower than the proposed garage. V an Zomeren indicated that an oversized accessory structure requires a farther side yard setback than what is proposed and is planned to be located in front of the principal structure. Staff recommends tabling the application due to lack of suffic’ent suney information. Van Zomeren said she did not feel the lot size is a problem but would like to see the hardcover calculations included on a worksheet. She asked for Commission direction. Kenneth Hickey said the location was chosen due to the topography of the property. There is a large slope on the west side that creates runoff problems for the neighbor. They plan on angling the structure for a turnaround to oe able to pull straight in. Lindquist asked if there was a reason why the 1000 s.f. limitation could not be met. Schroeder said he would require hardcover information. He did not have a problem vvith a 10’ side yard setback. Hickey said the height is to create a loft area. The principal structure is only 13' high. The applicant said he is willing to adju.st the size to 1000 s.f. and a 20' height. Berg was informed the building would noi be hidden. She said she felt the height was a little high. Lindquist said a 25-26’ height would be satisfactoiy. Schroeder said he would probably not have a problem with that height but the neighbors should be informed. Lindquist moved. Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2270. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#20) #2271 CHAD NILSSON 3210 NAVARRE LANE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:46-10:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren said the application is for a rear yard variance to add one stall to the e.xisling garage. The property is a comer lot. The street, shown as "Brooks Ave" on the survey, has been vacated. The proposal calls for a 30' setback and survey is included. Van Zomeren said Staffs concern is that the property is within 1000' of the lakeshore and no hardcover calculations were provided. She is unaware of where the driveway will be located which creates hardcover. The orientation of the garage doors is also unclear. Van Zomeren said she sketched the stall in on the drawing and would like it to be shown by the applicant. Nilsson said the shed will be removed. The driveway will be moved more to the east and gravel added. He indicated the house is only 24.6' high and they will follow the house roof line. Lindquist informed the applicant that the City will require an approved survey for the stall and driveway. It was noted that the property does not meet the lot area requirement and is questionable whether it meets the hardcover requirements. McMillan was informed that the garage doors was planned to face the east property line but due to costs are planning on driving straight in from the north. The applicant said he will obtain a surv'ey with the driveway and garage located thereon. He was informed to include sidewalks in the sur\ ey if they are so planned. Lindquist said the survey 1 "eds to be brought up to date. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2271. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren said she will send a notice to the applicant. 31 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#21) #2272 WYATf MOE 1230 SPRUCE PLACE VARIANCE AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 10:58-11:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present and assisted by JoEllen Hurr. Gaffron reported that the request is for a lot line rearrangement with hardcover, lot area and lot width variances, and possible road vacation. Loma Linda is located to the west end of the property and Spruce Place to the south, adjacent to the property. The property consists of two tax parcels. The northern parcel includes the house and a triangular portion west of the vacated roadway. To the south, the small lot includes a cabin. The proposal calls for construction of a nev, house where the cabin is located which would meet the side setback, 75' lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback. In order to place the home where it is proposed would require a hardcover variance to allow 35.7% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback where 25% is allowed. The applicant is attempting to balance the lot size and variances needed to enable the lot to the north to be sold. Gaffron reviewed the sketches of the plan. He noted the issue involves the City road encroachment and property maintained privately into the park property. The proposed rededication and vacation would allow the unused park and road right-of-way to be privately owned, and the applicant would give back to the City the land where the utilities and City road exist, and create two long lots. Concern is with the proposed lot dividing line creating lots of equal area resulting in an equal degree of variances for area, w idth, and hardcover. Gaffron suggests the north line of Spruce Place after vacation be moved to maintain the shoulder. The City Engineer and Public Works Director must review and approve the extent of right-of-way vacation. Gaffron indicated that the lot standards for the property are one acre with 140' width. The two tax parcels have been assessed for sewer. The issue is where the lot line is drawn. The 75-250’ hardcover is proposed at 19.4% for the property to the north and increasing from 10.9% to 34.7% for the southern lot. Lot coverage by structure is satisfactoiy. Gaffron said StafT recommends the vacation as proposed but it might require some "tweaking" to maintain the sewer easement and right-of-way. He noted if the vacation of the park area were to be split three ways, it was unknown how it would be divided and who would get what. He recommended conceptual approval of the lot line rearrangement with .6 acres in each and access to the north lot from Loma Linda. A driveway serves both lots but he suggests an ultimate 32 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#21 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) separate access to Loma Linda to the northern property. Gaffron said it is critical to know what portion would be divided between the two lots. He suggested the applicant make formal application for a vacation and include proposed lot widths. JoEllen Hurr said the current building lot is veiy small, and the applicant's intention is to create two lots. The survey show's that the applicant owns the land where the road is located. Tlie” felt it was a good opportunity for the City to get the road which is needed. Hurr said Parcel A includes wetlands. She saw no reason to make the lots identical and would like to maintain a narrow strip on the shoreline. The location of the ditch delineates what can be done and can’t be built over. Hurr suggested a conseiv ation and flowage easement be taken on the property to the rear. She feels there is no need for access from Loma Linda with the driveway currently existing. Hawn asked if there would be a garage for the new home. Hurr indicated there would be. Hurr reported that each proposed lot is two times the size of the lot to the south of the property. Lindquist asked how' wide the lots would be. Mr. Moe said they ar** 60'. Schroeder \\as informed that the lots to the south have received variances. Schroeder asked what is currently happening with the cabin. Hurr said it is a buildable lot and sewer has been paid for. Schroeder asked what could be built there now. Gaffron said it would involve adding to hardcover. Hardcover percentages would be lessened by the rearrangement but a variance still required. The proposal is for a 2200 s.f footprint home. Hurr indicated that the house is similar to the house to the south. Hawn said the plan was conceptually good but questioned what occurs until the vacation is approved. Hurr said the applicant is asking for conceptual approval in order to gain an idea of what can occur. Lindquist said he saw the situation as a win-win proposition. Hurr agreed. She said the applicant was not made aware of the need for a width variance when application made. Gaffron said staff did not have survey and was unable to catch all of the requirements due to that. Hurr said the applicant does not want to have more than .62 acre in each lot. With e.xtensive drainage noted, she asked if Commission would approve the angle to the rear. With the right-of- way, it would possibly be reduced to about .55 acre. She asked if there was concern with conceptual approval. Gaffron said that would be satisfactory with direction regarding the size of ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#21 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) the lots where the lot line should be drawn. He asked what the Commission directed as far as hardcover. Lindquist said the hardcover noted should be satisfactor>'. He would like to see lots closer to equal size. Hawn said angling of the lot line should be satisfactory and did not believe the shoreline should have to be changed. Schroeder asked if the applicant would end up having more hardcover. Gaffron indicated that other lots in the area average more than 25% hardcover. Schroeder questioned whether the cabin lot would be considered new construction. Hurr said it would but the lot was two times the average size. Hawn was informed by Hurr that the side yard requirements would be met. Variances for lot area, width, and hardcover would be required. The hardcover would be at about 35%. Lindquist thought the plans showed good progress for the property. Mrs. Moe said they would like to build this fall and asked how the vacation would affect this time frame. She was informed that application for vacation was required and the application amended, which could be before the Planning Commission in August with review of the lot line rearrangement. Approvals could be received at that time for variances, vacation and lot line rearrangement for Council review at their August 25 meeting. The earliest time frame for receiving building approval would be September. Hurr indicated that the property is handling the drainage. She also noted that the applicant is aware of the sewer lines. McMillan was informed by Gaffron that the vacation would be a separate hearing but can be done together with the park vacation. He indicated that the attractiveness of the application is the vacation and rededication over the actual roadway. Dave and Linda Walker, who live south of the Moc's, said they are in support of trading of the land as they are currently cut off from Loma Linda and virtually landlocked. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2272 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 34 A ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#22) #2273 MORGAN NELSON 3145 JAMESTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 11:23-11:30 P.M. The AfFidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for lakeshore setback for construction of a gazebo on the property. The proposal would not meet the 150' setback from a Natural Environment Lake but meet the average lakeshore setback and is in line with adjacent homes. The side setback is met. The change in code from 75' to 150' setback occurred in 1992. The variance would be 19' at 13 T from lakeshore. The gazebo would be located off of the driveway. Gaffron said the Commission could recommend the gazebo be placed on the other side of the property to meet the 150' setback. The applicant said it makes sense to place it where it is planned. Nelson indicated that he will be proposing an addition to the home for the south side in the future. Hawn asked if the applicant spoke with his neighbors and how the gazebo would affect their views. The applicant said he showed his plans to the neighbors, who signed the acknowledgment letter but did not specify whether they were for or against the plan. Gaffron indicated that since the neighbors were not present to voice an objection and did not send a letter of objection, he assumed they did not object. The applicant was questioned as to the location of the gazebo. Nelson said he w anted it near the driveway to preserve his views. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2273. McMillan asked if the DNR was notified. Gaffron said the DNR is notified of the agenda as a whole and would probably indicate a self-imposed hardship if they had responded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, McMillan, for lack of a hardship. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#5)#2255 RICK RICE 2700 KELLY AVENUE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 11:30-11:30 P.M. The applicant was not present. r.indquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2255. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#24) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 23,1997 AND JULY 14,1997 It was noted that the Council was concerned with approval of the Rahn application due to the structure location in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback but approved the resolution with a 3/2 vote as the remaining portion of the property is in the flood plain. Gaffron indicated that the Council asked the developer of the property on Saga Hill, Jim Waters, to reconsider plans noting they were not in favor of changing the zoning or serving the entire area with sewer. (#25) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No other issues were discussed. (#26) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 16,1997 MEETING Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 16, 1 .'‘97. Vote; Ayes 6. Nays 0. (#27) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JULY 28,1997 AND AUGUST 11,1997 July 28 - Lindquist August 11 - Hawn ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn at 11 :35 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Ch i I / ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#18 - #2269 Conley Brooks and Gerald McCourtney - Continued) Gaffion reported that the application is for a lot line rearrangement for property on West Femdale Road. The existing substandard lot is proposed to be divided and attached to t^o adiacent properties. Gaffron reviewed the division. The property at 1045 Femdale Road West (lots 11 and 12) with an existing house will be split, with a portion added to the McCourmey nroperty to the west and the remainder to the Brooks property to the north across the road. The house at 1045 will be removed. The portion of 1045 north of the road. Parcels H and E, will be combined with Parcels A and F. Gaffron noted potential difficulties identified by the submitted survey, including the separation of Parcel C from 905 West Femdale. He said this would have to be considered under a sep^te application. Gaffron did not know whether it had been used for hardcover calculations for He indicated that there are docks on the small property (Parcel B) not shown on the plat maps and it is not known what properties they ser\ e. He noted there are discrepancies between the survey submitted and the County plat maps. Gaffron said the proposal adds lakeshore to property currently not having lakeshore. He indicated that a "Special Lot Combination" can be required if combination of two lots separated by the road is not allowed by the County. It would then require City approval to sell the combined parcels separately. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the subdivision with recombination of parcels as proposed. The applicant was questioned reg?uding hj*4«t^t for the exisUp^g^age noting the existing residence would be removed. McCourtKey said )he garageXalready located there, and he intends to replace it. He indicalecihe-wcmitr probably ne^ other variances to do so. He ^ked he would be compromising his position if he remo^he garage now for reconstruction later. Lindquist said he w'ould be in a better positlorri^ left the garage m Place for ^ The other Commissioners agreed. McCourtne/said he would come back before the Planmng Commission with his plans in thgjiear futi^^- Gaffron said he would recommend removal but the applicant has the prerogam e to . place. He noted that the garage encroaches into the right-of-way and is in ^d would have to be removed at some point. He agreed that the applicant is better off leaving in place for the time being. Lindquist noted that the setbacks would then be known. During public comments, a gentleman said he represented Robert Floyd,^e owner 0^96® Femdale. He asked what the criteria is for allowing a property to subdivide for Boater acce the lake and how it reflects on the future for other property owners. Lindquist said the Commission reviews the applications case by case. (f ID U«ID«vu»OnONOOMCM*M> Hw««xnC<w«)i MmMc c» •ctNd lp»no«r *«W1U» 0»f*» S*^ i<wh dntf Th« part <* f» ixnamad ¥tE Mannaiaiw Cairay, I*it»ic iii. irt«ti I In aa«Bt^ e( •« northarty aMnaa pa O II aa ioOB»iar «i«i r a part acovad e iaa5 top. SI »<a aaaMrty «na of tad XI OMONO OnC>iANO Spancar »«ar«ja •« «*»crt Lot XS leau R rtii t IKWr CONIOtJR WltNUM. o 00 CQ CQ =»*; Tunwn __ QM UK ----- racTwc __ HMMHOtl < mtrnm-t i V)U»f CATCH ftASW i MWTwrr stMCtt —■ HIATfflMiM ------- STOMi* sew* ------- lMTt» sewex ----- SAAtTAHT V*Vrt ----- ffUCf ------ lo«t LOCATION MAP \f| MtDtNAl , ■k ^'1 h \ WMatiU rwpw* »«« t rtihwiwA m My 10. I9«7 ^ M iwfhulolaty w «Hifc « dH Caf^ af ^ngMiwn MtoMliM MmmH Mwm, 1K7 F«d R«faHt Tlw H naUr bmn *r t^kmd mi wm iA hwwmihii I d»m4h • mmm ARilyvH itf At ^inWAAiw ftwlt md hyimlt%y DA.nMeA 'wmimd itnmdmm wett amk»i nutdimwi •urvaym pm Aagt md ' %HlMd Dduietnm n«Aan m4 m x««MHiaii tdmt *t pm fm ««rr «il»«A**HHly MT>ry«d S> M«r4« md AuattaiM liK All umAiii—l tmdmd* ««i<e c ImmIM Mxatthfif to* (ht wnhwtonniHi mi fet* ■ WtihM* md »iiytiii llAfcliMi af A* I AiMd HMM If W^fOB% hMmmim 7%n t Ca^^dm m d W««Mb «f *• IMMi iMMt 4l.«r»T Cmdm M. Mmv arf YmA m !«^!i TlMoughiMi A(« MttMiM (awMdift*’ '•mimi fvfw at Am w«* ddmvm\am md 'X tredm fyptt m fiM* m pmmdmm* Pn« pwadi€t»0nd WMt lAvhlM MMla M> Md «« lltaM an te pmfpoal i MliMMMrv ptal M Bmhh a 0ir«i^ t town A. 0 «U f a* dmm am da l «> i»f Ot im wtitaH iMvcMory md art MfuUAtd iMdir dw Ciiy • am land mdmmm mpmrn tmtimy Jram Md» w to ai h^k T) (mi fra* At hmrndmtt af ( tfy-Mf^ato wdlatoi nmtrt* UmdC mt mi dxiwn m At wcilaBd ui^nraor. md irto* hm w to npidmi mdm -*w .irdMMKt All fito wffiaUi at wMH » MftilMdR H A* C octn of tiviAMn uMtot «ac«K» 404 oT ito Ona Waer Act aU to Ac MwnHatit C mtA Waaihad Uuma a LuM CMtorawaK ( m aoi'^ uala the «e0aki < <n«r>atvwi A4l <W( A> Ajiy ftlbc^ or drauM^ of wMarali nnald rvquiic » pa«M uala ctoh af dH«H|toiH<Hy ptofram il««« A aU D a« HlMraMd m* mmmh D v rUM.to! aame towA ton* wafaai* (PCItoTAAIfc Cavalar H Type toaUtm MBtoton* manp) i(HMi i m4 C at HMparaih Ikuitt ptiiatoiw twf ttnrtaad tmdtmM iflJiAnOlA Cvetoa YO Type \ mmmdh Awtoid flaWtowlato hartwaed forcai fttoia f » ai ratwtotdk piwaifity flrtrtdtd MumaMato kMtoen Cmdm T?pt 5 tpcti wmt poM) Witot IMm »ti tMaucMtOy rwavMt* at mta md wpa«r«plMc patitiBW MfiMi *M • «MtW* taatlty t*mmi m *it irnmmm hHac wwiva Mn awarat TlM pR^awt «iMni3M« hat tom totignto ta htolh amid Attmf ar *wm« wr af ito wtotMdi aa dw praMct tat Haavmt. tot topaytohi mi dutototoea ef nadatoi wtdM toe «n ptictodt Hnei caaplMHit «tto totl to > i ■ toe utoy pet oaw oftoa la to* a 4 I tmm tot aiia«t hmat a* a aa tator m • amp toapt a aecapMd hy tot wui*| hta*. y«d a toHaatp The drwMWid walw Lot I «iH Itt it* *m 71 toa »oa itaa C. tontta IIMa C It «a t Chy datuMMd mtotid md mmdd am ht K*toH a tot iawtoiM aihato I tor laa 1 aid ^ mmM tot H aU 42 fca tom tot i twiCMla-i af iaan t re^actimly to «« aa pewiMt a tocat tot toaaAad at 1^ 2 any fatoa frvRi i«a f witot* fl aaftactoni on tot pwpoad hacM pad « ate tot amj pottoMc linn------ for tot toimaav toa wli atee* ton toi H da totafitld anc tattd iMt tot pttpoaad tnvraay aii taptat tot pltfitta* af Ad md ia«w£ Iha pf^BtBd toatfitto hKtiK* tor La Y A Ntofl to-raaaa petd to peopeetd MMwdtoahr Mato tf ■«* t l«i i tot Wiwttwi a* Mtapr a( naufl totn tot panpiaad Whrahtad Coan nto-dt ac Thia pend ... tot efti.ayatod hem at atiaint «pml prto toa wa ttofwaad atotn Ratoi E wet kiasTKttK cHayttad IV (nirpi^M nf tot pimd ty a preMct taun E (hat waa tMtlny Mnpatn ftnm tutaattoi fowMOf efTtot (ui-Ot ta Oa pxjptnati awMi«iBum r«pur*> iwitoar a Satinm 404 para* hum tot V% Aiaiy Cat* .f Enpaten na • W(. A \A«tittal Rtplactmaa Pha approval from tot MmiHhaht Cm* toaartM) Ottvat Ito antoiaM n m tot pracaM of ihtoiw>n wniMi fawaaiut^nct tmm emh iftm^ KaAnwtg toa ton ii da <«m Vanancet froa tot riejp I Y li.M( dtanfteM ««»a.A mt kamt mtuetaad for ( ..Ht 2 a* Y to adtr to ptcMtot da 4»v«4apatoht> torw iitB «Yuit avutduifr toe w«l«id 6U III* tmld It nrrttfy to C«*p^ «ah tot atotrt m**«rem«ii |ii fi oM S Q«sp- >■55| Is Tl!