Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-15-1997 Planning Packet
r c PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,1997,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Gabriel Jabbour ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1.7:00 p.m.#2286 Steve White 4355 Bayside Road Class I Metes and Bounds Subdivision - Public Hearing t 2.7:30 p.m.#2293 LGA Investment Group, Jim Waters 1003 Wildhurst Trail - Public Hearing A.Class III 12 Lot Preliminary Subdivision B.Rezoning C.Comprehensive Plan Amendment D.Street Vacation 3.8:00 n.m.#2294 LGA Investment Group, Jim Waters 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Public Hearing A.Class III 7 Lot Preliminarv Subdivision B.Street Vacation 4.8:30 p.m.#2298 Conley Brooks, Jr. & John Brooks 905/980 Femdale Road W. Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence pricr to or between scheduled public hearings. 5.#2279 & #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 6.#2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,1997 - 7:00 P.M. 7. 8. 9. 11. 13. #2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue Variances - Public Hearing #2285 John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances - Public Hearing « #2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances - Public Hearing t 10. #2288 Jason Theis 4108 Highwood Road Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing #2290 Elaine and Steve Silas 3235 Casco Circle Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing 12. #2291 Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances - Public Hearing Cl #2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances - Public Hearing 14. #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. 980 West Femdale Road Variances - Public Hearing 15. #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hills Road Variance - Public Hearing 16. Proposed Amendment of Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinances - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 17. Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of August 25 1997 and September 8, 1997.I r c c PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,1997 - 7:00 P.M. 18. Other issues for discussion. 19. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the August 18, 1997 meeting. 20. Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Public Attendance Meeting Date C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please hll out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER ■ LkJ /%Q0 i^Jnxu] 7irj, i22.‘r-i Ml '^<UuJ-kr 4l <^o u., B^AOe*//th s.|j 111 / '^Vv'An’¥>') '72'Z'i/',) ;. FK..I yLo \aj.-A r> V. u 1. U; / 7. l4Vik \.cAkoc\lr ^ ^ hxki 1 7 ^^4/ 6L/;f(oi^£>K UL 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 091395.4 TO: FROM: DATE: /. Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Senior Planning Coordinator September 11,1997 SUBJECI: '^2286 Steve )\Tiite, 4355 Bayside Road - Class I Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District:RR-1 A, 5 acre Rural Residential (north of Bayside Road). RR-IB, 2 acre Rural Residential (south of Bayside, north of 1/4 section line). LR-1 A, 2 acre Lakeshore Residential (south of 1/4 section line). Summary of Request Applicant proposes to split this 55 acre property into two parcels to create one additional building site. Parcel A, the building site, will be 26.0 acres in total area of which 18.8 acres is diy buildable. Parcel B, with the existing house, will be 29.1 acres in area of which 23.5 acres is dry buildable. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Subdivision Code Excerpts F - Park Fee Ordinance Excerpt G - Site Evaluation Information Class 1 Subdivision Status This proposal follows lengthy discussions over a period of months between City' and the applicant regarding its subdivision classification status. Staff initially concluded that a plat was required due to unusual factors including: this is a single tax parcel bisected by a County Road; the road effectively creates separate parcels on the north and south sides of it, and for zoning code compliance purposes the right-of-way boundary acts as a lot line; the road has never been formally dedicated in a plat; wetlands exist on the property and should be protected via the granting of Conservation and Flowage Easements. However, after discussions with the City Attorney, staff has allowed this to proceed as a Class 1 subdivision because it meets the basic definition of a Class I subdivision, i.e. "the subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots where each resulting lot meets or exceeds 5 acres of land, and each lot has at least 300’ of frontage on a public roadway which has been accepted and opened by Zoning File #2286 September 11,1997 Page 2 the City... and where no flexible zoning application or extension of municipal utilities is involved". Flexible zoning includes special or conditional use permits, variances, PUDs, and rezoning, none of which apply to the proposed subdivision. The applicant originally suggested that this lot split should be exempt from the subdivision process because the definition of subdivision exempts those separations "where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500' in width for residential uses..." However, it appears to staff that the wetlands at the south end of the property are likely at the OHW of Lake Minnetonka (although the 929.4 contour is not shown) and this may in fact be lakeshore property. Assuming it is, the lot width is measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback, and neither Parcels A nor B meet a 500' width at those locations, fherefore, staft' and the City Attorney have concluded that this split is not exempt but must at least be considered a Class I subdivision. Class I Subdivision Exempt from Park Dedication The City's park dedication ordinance. Section 11.62, applies only to Class II and III subdivisions based on the title of Section 11.62 "Parks and Playgrounds, Class II and III Subdivisions." Therefore, this proposal is not subject to a park fee at this time. If the property is further divided in the future via a Class II or III subdivisicn, park dedication would be required. Merits of Proposed Division The subdivision as proposed is potentially troublesome because the land north of Bayside Road is zoned for 5 acre lot area minimum, but the proposed dividing line leaves a 4.7 acre tract north of Bayside in Parcel A and a 7.8 acre tract in Parcel B. The westerly tract would be substandard (and the City would likely be requested to grant a lot area variance) if that tract was ever proposed to be platted as an individual building site in the future. The City should not place itself or the property owner in the position of needing variances for future use of this property under current zoning. Therefore, as a minimum the lot line should be moved to the east to make sure that there is at least 5 acres in the westerly tract Applicant would be well-advised to have a wetland determination completed in the southwest portion of that tract, and add acreage to ensure 5 acres of dry buildable. In the easterly parcel north of Bayside, a 0.3 acre wetland exists and staff would request that this wetland shown on City and NWI maps be the subject of a Conservation and Flowage Easement. On the south side of Bayside, each of the two parcels contains more than adequate area and width to meet the RR-IB standards for individual building sites. Each of these tracts has the potential to ba platted for 2 acre building sites in the future. Based on available maps and air photos. Parcel A is technically a lakeshore lot and subject to the •1 Zoning File #2286 September 11,1997 Page 3 pertinent ordinances. Parcel B is likely a lakeshore lot; however, the lack of a 929.4’ contour line on the survey makes this difficult to confirm. Note that the e.xisting detached garage on Parcel B was approved on the basis that the entire 55-acre parcel abutted the shoreline. If the proposed dividing line makes Parcel B no longer abut the lakeshore, then the detached garage on Parcel B will become non-conforming. Applicant should have the 929.4’ contour confirmed prior to final Council action. Existing Buildings on Parcel A Applicant has advised staff that the bam and other out buildings located in the northwest comer of Parcel A south of Bayside Road will be removed. Anplicant proposes to construct a new home on Parcel A in the near future. Site Evaluation Completed Applicant has provided information confirming that primaiy' and alternate drainfield sites are available in Parcel A for construction of a new residence. Issues for Discussion 1. How soon should the e.xisting farm buildings be removed from Parcel A? Note that the bam is about 2,000 s.f., and the other buildings are each less than 1,000 s.f All are in poor condition, and applicant has indicated he will remove them. 2. The applicant should be required to grant Conservation and Flowage Easements over the major wetland at the south end of the property, and over the smaller wetland north of Bayside Road in Parcel B. 3. The applicant should be required to formally grant to Hennepin County a road easement over the 66’ Bayside Road segment traversing the property, which has never been formally platted Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan indicates Bayside is a 'collector' road with a required width of 66'. Hennepin County staff have been asked to comment on this. 4. Are there any other issues for discussion identified by Planning Commission? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed metes and bounds Class I subdivision with the following conditions of approval: 1.Move the lot line so that the portion of Parcel A north of Bayside Road is at least 5 acres dry buildable. Zoning File #2286 September 11,1997 Page 4 2.\pplicant to grant Conservation and Flowage Easements over the large wetland at the south end of the property, as well as over the smaller wetland in Parcel B north of the road. Applicant shall provide legal descriptions for such easements. 3.The bam and other out buildings on Parcel A shall be removed with 6 months of subdivision approval, based on the dilapidated nature of those stmctures. 4.Subject to Hennepin County Public Works review, applicant to grant the County an easement for the 66’ of right-of-way for Bayside Road within the boundaries of the property. 5. 6. Because this is a Class I subdivision, the subdivision is not subject to park dedication. Prior to final Council action on the subdivision, applicant shall provide evidence that Heimepin County Public Works has approved suitable locations for an access driveway on Parcel A on both sides of Bayside Road, as well as for the portion of Parcel B on the north side of Bayside Road. 7.Applicant must have his surveyor define the 929.4 contour on the property prior to final Council action on this subdivision, to confirm the lakeshore lot status of both Parcels A and B. 8.Applicant is advised that the portions of Parcels A and B north of Bayside Road are not separately buildable, and any future proposal to construct accessory structures on those portions will be subject to further City review and approval. Options for Action 1. Approve per staff recommendation, 2. Approve with revised conditions. 3, Table ^or further information. 4. Recommend denial (state reasons). 5.Other. I I JJ. o O Q Application # .rx^ .P Date Received Amount Paid (.^A CITY OF ORONO - SUSTbrV^SION APflScATIOi^ -•^'' .7 /• ■> ^v- r PROPERTY LOCATION / ^ ^ y SiteAHHrP.. V-Tjr^ /fj. ./»rv rrj£^ Propert>’ Identification Number (PID) n(a ~ J/l ‘22 - / ^ ~ O^C3-------------_------- Please check one - Propeitj*' ^ abstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e r^NT-eu.^ Address / / 2. ( Tnl o__________________iV- CitJ' /^o / , K1)A/-------- Phone (home) I- rrjp Zip Phone (work) j£2Jti2=AJJ OW?^ER (if different than applicant) Name \^CH r<.p:-kl Address P.h. i?rur 11V Phone (home) City L<i.(ce. yv>A/Zip £ci£t Phone (work) t/7^ -.2AJ7 (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / VZ.--1 /2’^ ££U Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units / Other (specify)_________ Present Zoning District £J. PROPOS.AL _____ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites _Existing Units _New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites / Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) y Units per ^Z- f~Acres ^ Scj. Ft. Dry Buildable Land __Residential ___Other (specify)__________ 1 jx ri o fO>V #»>• * *^*«^. MIiVliMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMIN- 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. mAJm 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. / I ■ 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 penons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature _____________________________________ [)ate MLMMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FIN AL APPLICATION 1. Pa>-ment 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. *iasements, covenants, etc. 5. ‘,?ivelopers Agreemei.t and Letter of Credit. Zoning '' 'Ticial’s SignatUi e _______________________________ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees; _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & III) S250.00 ____. Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + S25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ I egal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class HI. Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lb. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lb. ft. x .50 = $ Request for Citv- to Accept Existbg 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 Re. iew (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x / new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all bformation required or requested by the Zonbg Administrator, City Engbeer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordbance. ^ y / Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date / / tins. Planninei SX- / Applicant must have ?ll submiiiah bto the City Office 25 days before the Plannbg Commission meetbg. Plannbg Commission meetbgs are he'd on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetbgs of the Plannbg Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetbg, please make ariungemenL<i to have an authorized agent attend b your place and to advise the Buildbg & Zenbg Office of this change prior to the meetbg. W.'f ...J LfSAL oerc^/fir/OA/ ' '* ^3^ qj- Northeast quarter of Section 6, Town ship 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCKFT that part thereof described as follows: . Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6; thence East along the North line of said Northeast quarter a distance of 514 feet; thence South 27030* Vest (assuming said North line as hearing Bast) a distance of 589 feet to the centerline of the County Road which extends across said Northeast quarter; thence Northwesterly along the centerline of said Count Road to the West line of said Northeast quarter; thence Northerly along said West line to point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survt. thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; ALSO EXCEPT that part of the West half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6 described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northeast qioarter; thence on an assiimed bearing of North-along the East line of said V/est half of the Northeast quarter j distance of 1167.98 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 513.35 feet; thence South 39°17'30" West a distance of 280.05 feet; thence South H°56'30" W»s a distance of 345.23 feet; thence Soqt-herly to the Southwest corner of the East half of the West half of said Northeast quarter; thence Easterly along the Sout.*. line of said Northeast quarter to point of beginning; ALSO EXCEPT that part of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 6 described as follows:. Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast qmrter; thence East along the Northerly line of said section a distance of 514 feet to actual point of beginning; thence deflecting right 117®30' a distance of 589 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 84; thence deflecting left along said center line a distance of 180 feet; thence deflecting left 81°19* a distance of 662.|| feet to a point on the North line of said Section 6;located 216,55 feet East of the point of begiruiing; thence West along said North line a distance of 216,55 feet to point of beginning (For purposes of this survey, two points or. the centerline of travel, distant 180 feet apart, have been assumed to mark the above-described centerline bouiulary); lf»L i f. i: 'M RUN DA11 Oe/20/97 BATCH 614PROP AODR CHNTR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR a*ten name TAXPAYER NAMC/AODR PROP ADDR OltKR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR aiCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/APDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER »IAM£/AOOR PROP ADDR OM4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN tOUMTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST58 Oi-117-25 24 0008 00570 NORTH ARM LA RAH SMITH ROSCOE S A HARRIET C SMITH 570 NORTH ARM LANE MOONO MN S5544 58 04-117-25 24 0014 00550 NORTH ARM LA M PENDLETON JON M PENOLETOtT 550 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 65564 58 06-117-25 42 0006 00058 ADDRESS UIIA.;S1RN£0 VICTORIA ESTATES HOM£0T#«RS VICTORIA ESTATES HOHEOHNERS C/0 THOMAS MAZER £60 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN SS564 58 51-118-25 45 0009 00058 ADDRESS UHASSIGNEO CITY OF OHUIO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN £5523 58 51-118-23 63 0015 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H F < E KNAPP NILIIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 85 CRISTOFORI CIK MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 58 51-118-23 64 0004 00050 CRISTOFORI CIR KENDRICK B MELROSE KENDRICK 8 MELROSE 50 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN FW 55359 58 06-117-23 24 001200560 NORTH ARM LA R D BACKERUO ADS BACKERUO ROONEY 0 A OlANC S BACKERUO 360 ARM LN N HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 51 0004 00460 NORTH ARM OR T J A S J MANNER THOMAS J A SUSAN J NAF«4ER 460 N ARM DR FKAJNO MN 55564 38 06-117-23 42 0007 U0058 ADDRESS UNASSICMEO VICTORIA ESTATES H0MEUFA4ERS VICTORIA ESTATES HQMEOMNLRS C/O THOMAS MAZER 560 NORTH ARM OR MOONO Mr! 55364 58 31-118-25 45 0012 00045 CRISTOFORI CIR 0 H A L N DUNCAN 04V10 H I LYNDA N DUNCAN 6576 RECEtCY U EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 5« 51-118-25 43 0016 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED . HILLIAH F KNAPP CITY OF ORONO 1335 BROtIN RO S OOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY 194 55325 TOTAL BATCH £14 00034 REPORT NO. P14354QI PACF 27 * <38 06-117-23 24 001500540 NORTH ARM LA JAMES R A ADRIENNE M MEXLSON JAMES R NEILSUN 340 MDKTH ARM LA MUUNO MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0005 00520 NORTH ARM OR TIMOTHY PELLIZZER TIMOTHY PELLIZZER 520 ITORFH ARM DR MlAJND F94 55364 38 31-118-23 34 0012 04440 BAYSIDE RO 0 C GMlNK.Iil A J A CAMERON q G MIFKIH A J A CAMCR0I4 4440 BAYSIDE RD map:e plain mn 55359 38 31-118-23 43 0U13 00005 CRISTOFORI CIR H F A E KNAPP NILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 85 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN FIT 55359 %V 38 31-118 23 43 0017 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H F A E KNAPP WILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 85 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN F»4 553S9 m«< DATE 08/20/97BATCHPROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR 0»PIER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NATE/ADOR PROP AOOR (DtCR lUME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR aPlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR IIENTKPIN CO<AITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONriERS LISTSB 06-117-2S 11 0004 04050 BAYSIOE RD GAM Ca»XLL GARY 0 CUMELL 4050 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN HN B5359 SB 06-117-2S 12 0005 00038 AOURCSn 'JNASSIOCO H F A E KNAPP HILLIAM F A EVELYN KNAPP 65 CRISTUFORl CIR NAPLE PLAIN MN 56359 38 04-117-23 13 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNTD VEOA INC VEDA INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE m 55354 38 04-117-23 14 0022 04045 BAYSIOE RO HAL BOON HENRICUS C A CORNELIA A BOON 4045 BAYSIOE RO ORONO MtT 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0026 00058 ADDRESS UU:^StCNEO H NICHOLAS BURKE £T AL H NICHOLAS BURKE 4105 BAYSIOE RO ORONO 55559 38 06-117-23 21 0007 04461 BAYSlUf RO M S JOHNSON A P P JOHNSON HARK A PATRICIA JOIttCON 4455 BAYSIOE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 1204360 BAYSIOE J A OLSai APE JAMES A OLSON 4360 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 0001ROOLSON 55359 SB 06-U7-23 12 U006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIOCD HILLIAM F KNAt'P CITY- OF OROI« 1335 8R0I<M RO S BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 06-117-23 14 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGtIED ALLAN E REZABEK ET AL ALLAN A SHIRLEY REZABEK 4185 BAYSIOE RD MAPLE PlAItl Mil 55359 30 06-117-23 14 0023 04105 BAYSIOE RO M N bURKE/S K SLATTCRY-BURKE M N BURKE/S K SLATTERY-DURKE 4105 BAYSIOE RU MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0002 04455 BAYSIOE RO HAP JOHNSON HARK S A PATRICIA P JOHNSON 4455 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 30 06-117-23 21 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIQIEO H S JOHNSON A P P JOHNSON MARK t PATRICIA JOHNSON 4455 DAYSIOE RD MAPLE PLAIN IW 50359 REPORT NO. PI43640L PAGE 2638 06-117-23 12 000400038 ADDRESS UNASSIOIEDH F A E KNAPP HILLIAM r A EVELYN KNAPP 85 CRISTOFUni CIR MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 • \ L I 38 06-117-23 13 0001 04245 BAYSIOE RD AVIS N NHITE AVIS N NHITE PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 14 0014 04080 OAYSIDE RO M J A M M HARRINGTON HARK A MONICA HARRINGTON 4080 BAYSIOE RD HAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0024 04125 BAYSIOE RO M NICHOLAS BURKE ET AL M NICHOLAS BURKE 4105 BAYSIOE RD ORONO Ml 55359 38 06-117-25 21 0006 04465 DAYSIOE RD BRENT A SHIANN JOHNSON BRENT A SHIAIAI JOHNSON «465 DAYSIOE RD MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 38 06-117-23 24 0001 00215 NORTH ARM LA C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL AMI PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MPLS m 55404 <UN OATS Oe/20/97 BATCH 5W IKMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QMftRS LIST REPORT NO. PI435A01 PAGE 2B ifCI ^ 5-555^. — "” C?Cuv\^cf 6 / I CERTIPf THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPhESENTAnOIT OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST L.tX'A \ '■•'Cv*. ........... k'm //C ; \ \ ''if: ^ •• • ■••'. Is»«-i - «*• •»* - T\ •. T.. ^ > \ \ r: • •. ’ % \ f :•• *•. i ^ . * .*• I * *- •'Wti 11}i\ >^^rn 00 \vr -- T :;.........•■■ ' . iVi* . ' A' ■_;•• .. ■•■■ ^0"'C27 ■■■ ■■'......' • • \ /p-.' . \ . . .Jty' y •• r f................. \ • /"7 m m m m T3 oocz -i ■< \4»> (/) Hm o ■n omno -H3 o > -Hm 2 (/)mo ;H o o•n m C/)o •H > O) I 3E ?-15m ^ Vj Iro 04 -nO;d 10 00 0:> r!in muum% marr "fKxssr^ ifwmr »C«iBf cmifT IHAI t»M ^AM VtCrCAfOl M*V«K»» »MJ ■ipun •AS MV^AJKO BT l€ (M IMXB MT OMCI tHAl I AM A 0U.T lCr*«C0 MOilSSABlAl iNCMm 1M«* uc iA»s or i»c sfAii ci iB«csoiA jf^yy 0*1* —tiJt'.tT __w* I Cl MI MA«*a PROJECT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR STEVE WHITE ■wf f-n-ff r^if00 r^. COFFIN k GRONBERG, NC. CM Engiwrx Laid Simyon, Land Pkmn 462 Tonarock Aven*, Lm l<*e, IM 5U» 612-473-4UI Vi !!«: i •.: r • » » !:;;l Jm 1 ' * * i A. ///V / / .•{•* k ': /•? Iv '&■ / 0 I V ;/ r# rt % A.^MCf^r00g^\V\• « %/t •• V'' \'' \\'% % t % •% •» « %% * ♦\ y I 11 ( I» %« «it %««*» *\ /%»• «.4«aa«/« » • %'7 % %« %% 'V / • • - • • •- -*:.V *. \\\ . \ Vv •>... .''tl'- —* *• ....... --•* . _____•' •. » *. V \\% » % •\ *t 5t "X \ r\ */ « •y 1 I ••.V 9 « I I ■N -»*k • M // A -s / / • • • • r /$ • • • * • .*' .' ' \ ■'. \ ......................... ---/ #101# \ \ --------H____ ,' •' .' ' *•. '•. N. ---------------- • I »•••••"*-. S '* *> ***•« / / / .-....~A \ ''......-i t g « t \C. • • 0 0 *00 J^jCjt * 0C0tf ^ '\ \ ---------*!---. V il F '\‘'S # *• .•k *v.. K'l ;Xv'.\mi » I \ . • •» * » V » ' -■* i • .• \ \ Jr' \V. •* *\* * * * v*%* V** **V. vtf'''% ^A-o.V \ •••--■'•'xVv 'A'V\-v\K>'' — •\ \ w.r.- .\. ■,• v ’.v.v .'.V” \ \.‘V.\:v.s.\'N -'V'' y.vN- \ \t \ \ / / .A' % : r . .';VI * "•* " • - A \Y' \ ,\ N ll/0f* /0400 00 Aft % I #//rr 4*f0f ’iJ \ I1 \ Ufi rid»/C V cs \ \ ' 7V *; 1 »t f0t. Oftf-U ^ 299t 4£tk,t j0^fl /000, 00 0f€ '•i 0* /rr. -----JVk —I---- .%• Vy /M# €s»0*0» 00 004* • 0f*/l 04 00f% 00fftY4 0ff0t. €-tty-}j. 30 *00»00m 0$ Aft Vf A 5 11.'J3 2. The subdivision is a division of property previously combined for tax purposes; or, 3 The subdivision consists only of the creation or alteration oi a public or private easement for any purpose. b. "Class II Subdivision" - ^?o=eL%%'°2s»b\ish"ed "in “thfs" Spirr'^/ it Veets all of the following criteria: 1. The subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots, both of^hich have acres (217^800 square feet) o rnadwav which has been less than 300 f«\|V/tSrc!tTor'^o? a priv^ °P«" ?ra«^ or’vehi/ular'*us^e pUrsuant"^ to an easement between persons or between persons and the City; and, 2. The subdivision does inyol''.® vacation or dedication of public roadways or extension of municipa Utilities; and, 3. The subdivision does not involve any flexible zoning application; and, 4. The subdivision may include the creation of outlots and easements for access, open ISnservat^on, etc. in addition to the two buildable lots. c. "Class III Subdivision" - A subdivision shall be a plat ‘'hi®*' includes, ^ut Is not Irmr e^^ , a subdivision which meets one or more of the ..oilowing t-i. more buiilable lots; or, subdivision involves a flexible zoning application; or# 3. The subdivision involves the vacation or dedication of a P^bUc^roadway^^ involves the extension of municipal utilities. 67. "Temporary Improvement" - subdivision”'^ maintained by a subdivider during construction of the subdi 68. "Tract (or Subject Tract)" - j^Q^ned or oarcels of land comprising all the co^^^^uous land ow ^ controlled by the subdivider and included in whole or p subdivision. (4-1-84) ORONO CC ^25 I r I I t I 1 I L I 1. The subdivision results in three or j I I I [ [ [ r § 11.03 i « ( 63. "b;2bdivider" - Any person who (1) has an interest in land, who causes it# directly or indirectly to be divided into a subdi\ision or who (2) directly or indirectly sells, leases, or develoos, or advertises for sale, lease, or development, any interest, lot', parcel, site, unit or plot in a subdivision, or who (3) engages directly or through an agent in the business or selling, leasing, developing, or offering for sale, lease or development a subdivision or any interest, lot, parcel, site, unit or plot in a subdivision, or who (4) is directly or indirectly controlled by or under direct, or indirect common control with any of the foregoing. 64. "Subdivider's Agent" - Any person, firm, corporation, or realtor who represents, or acts for or on behalf of, a subdivider in selling, leasing or developing, or offering to sell, lease, or develop any interest, lot, parcel, unit, site or plot in a subdivision. 65. "Subdivision" - The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation o streets, roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations: a. where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in site and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size tor commercial and industrial uses; b. Creating cemetery lots; c. Resulting from court orders, or the adjust ment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as long as each of the two resulting lots meets the requirements or tne Zoning Chapter of the City Code. 66. "Subdivision, Classification". a. "Class I Subdivision" - A Class I Subdivision shall be exempt from platting by the City and shall be permitted subdivision by metes and bounds <3escription described y a Registered Land Surveyor if it meets one or more of the folio g criteria; 1. The subdivision results in no more than two buildable lots where each resulting lot meets or exceeds five acres (21‘'',800 square feet) of land, and each lot has at least 300 feet of frontage on a public roadway which has ® and opened by the City or on a private roadway open to travel or vehicular use pursuant to an easement between persons, or D persons and the City, and where no flexible zoning application or extension of municipal utililties is involved; ORONO CC 424 (4-1-84) _ _i SEC. 11.62 SUBDIVISIONS. § 11.62 PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, CLASS II AND III F Subd. 1. Lands For Public Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 462.358, subd. 2b, the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land with the City of Orono as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, or development of any land previously divided by plat, metes and bounds, or any other means, must convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this Section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. ) Subd. 3. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers # shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area, or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council, as set forth below: A. Residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. B. Commercia1/industria1 zoned land. Dedicated requirement of 8% of the land being platted subdivided or existing let of record. Subd. 4. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the oubdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would other wise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. L [ r [ [ [ [ [ ORONO CC 471 (4-9-90)r r r 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ] ] ] 3 3 3 ] ] § 11.62 Subd. 5. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of this Code shall be the land pre-development value to be determined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following: A. The City Assessor fhall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. B. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: 1. Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. 2. If the City disputes such appraisal aunounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified^ — — — —— tr s.-------------------------------------------------------------------- — —c —ji ^ real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal ab fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdivider. 3. The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time of preliminary subdivision approval is granted as long as there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. D. Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the cash contribution per lot be less than ?500.00 per lot or $300.00 per dwelling unit. ORONO CC 472 (4-',-90) a # ) S 11.62 Subd. 6. Development of Land Previously Platted. (Repealed per Ordinance #89, Second Series, adopted October 8, 1990.) Subd. 7. Future Subdivision. Any land which is further subdivided, divided or replatted or applied for such subsequent to May 1, 1990, shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon that land if the subdivider can prove that fees where previously paid. In no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. Subd. 8. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of the Code. Source: Ordinance 82, 2nd Series Adopted: 4-9-90 (Sections 11.63 through 11.69, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 472-1 (4-1-84) ! i i \ I Se^Tl c . r s • V/' : /*•! • •• , y < •/ / / 7 I ' I ' /' • ^ JI • (/ # '' • .*»■/** •# Tr^‘*r • ■ no-* •*» 8WEDLUN0 iSl ilM Swedlund ■’Si Septic Service September 10, 1997 Steve White VCI Capital P.O. Box 375 Long Lake, Mn.55356 Re; Septic System Sites at 4355 Bayside Road, Maple Plain Two treatment areas have been located at the above mentioned property address (see attached). Both sites will require mound septic systems. Both areas have a 3% slope and appear to be old pasture or feed lot areas. Grasses in the area are con sistent and seem to be undisturbed. Colors do vary in the Munsell Book but is probably due to animal usage over a long period of time. The house location and size are not determined at this time, although there is a large area to work with. A completed ,design will be required before building can begi'’h. J Swedlund Septic Service • 9520 Laketown Road • Chaska, MN 55318 • 442-5855 > STATE CERTIFIED < SEP-15-1997 13:48 FPOfI hOII CTV PLfELIC l-OFl S TO 94730510 P.02 Hennepin County .A)i EijujI C>J>f>cfEunft> Em{.'ti>yer September 15, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Steve White Subdivision, CSAH 84 Mike: As we discussed, the applicant should provide, via easement or dedication, an 80-foot corridor along this segment of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 84 (40 feet from and parallel with the existing centerline). This action will accommodate any future upgrading and provide for utility Installations that are expanding regularly. Access win be limited to one per site. However, none will be permitted along the westerly 300 feet on the south side of CSAH 84 due to the limited sight distance through the "S" curve. Thanks for the timely opportunity to review this proposal, and please call with further questions or discussion. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom, Transocrtation Planning DKZrmvr Department ot Public Works 1 520 Avenue Svouth Hopkiru, Minnesota (612)930-2500 F.A.X:(6l230-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 RicrdiJ Pjp'." TQThlL P.02 . % - # - ^ r ♦ - “iT-— • r i mi«.«•.». <Mr'» ^ . #./i/■ *jS>\ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator September 11,1997 #2293 LGA Investment Group, Inc. - Various Properties at North End of Wildhurst Trail - Public Hearing for Proposed Preliminary' Subdivision Including: A. Re2»rung B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and MUSA Expansion C. Right-of-Way Vacation D. 14 Lot Preliminarv Plat Zoning District:LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered (11.6 acres) RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered (14.8 acres) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map (Including Parcel Identifying Names) C - Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Draw-ings (Sheets 1-5) E - City Engineer Comments » F - DNR Comments (Wr- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ G - Utilitv'Company Comments ^ ' ) H - Public Notice I - Septic Testing Excerpts J - Comp Plan Excerpts , K - Plaiming Commission Sketch Plan Minutes - May 19, 1997 ? lU L - Council Sketch Plan Minutes - June 23, 1997 Pertinent Facts:Total site area;26.39 acres Proposed right-of-way area:1.46 acres Outlot A:1.50 acres Outlot B:4.83 acres Total gross lot area (1 acre lots );14.39 acres Average net lot area (12-1 acre lots);1.08 acre Average net lot area (2-2 acre lots):2.05 acres ■t L Proposed Rezoning Applicants propose to rezone the 10 acre Morgart parcel (See identifying names. Exhibit B) from RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, to LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. In prior disciussions with applicant, the basis for this request includes: » • —* - • ■ «.iM *%- 4. ik * •. - * . ^mmS. Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 2 - :. - - -Jlj . • • . ^ 1 •J. *v. A.This property is only marginally developable with septic systems due to steep slopes. Rezoning to an urban density coupled with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow installation of municipal sewer. B. Development of this site at an urban density, while developing most ot the Sollner property at a 2 acre density rather than the 1 acre density it is currently zoned for, allows a more efficient development in terms of reduced road and utility lengths and costs. C. The proposal limits the ultimate length of Wildhurst Trail, which already e.xceeds the City's 1000' length limit for dead ends with no secondaiy outlet. During the sketch plan review. Council suggested that rezoning is perhaps only feasible if the result is no more buildable lots than would have been created without the rezoning. This conceptually suggests that the dev eloper must show adequate evidence of how many lots could have been developed under the current zoning, by showing a realistic plat layout and providing on-site sewage treatment system site evaluations for the properties not zoned for sewer. Absent such information, staff would offer the following density analysis: Van Sloun Gross Total Area 4.8 ac. Zoned RR-IB 2 ac. (Septic) Maximum Estimated # of Lots Per Zoned Density 2 "Realistic" Estimated # of Lots* 2 Sollner 6.8 ac.LR-IB, 1 ac. (Sewer)6 5 Morgan West 10.0 ac.RR-lB,2ac. (Septic)5 3 Morgan East 4.7 ac.LR-IB. 1 ac. (Sewer)4 3 17 lots 13 lots *Based on excluding area for roads, stormwater ponding, etc. and staff estimated septic site potential. In staffs estimation the Morgan 10 acre parcel likely could only support 3 lots with septic systems due to the extremely steep slopes in the southwesterly half ot that site. Staff estimates, then, that the total 26 acre group of parcels could realistically support 13 total lots under the current zoning. While the applicant proposes 14 lots, it would be critical to **♦ • . . 9. X Jtm'i£t. Zoning File #2293 September 1 1, 1997 Page 3 confirm the ultimate use of the Van Sloun property. If that becomes dedicated open space (either subject to a permanent open space easement or deeded to the City for park purposes) then there may be some justification for the density transfer for 13-14 lots. II. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicant proposes that the City amend its Comprehensive Plan by expanding the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary, and extending the City's urban ser\'ice area to incorporate the Morgart 10 acre parcel. The basis for this request includes: A. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required in order for this property to be rezoned to urban densities. B. A MUSA amendment is required in order for the sewer to be extended to the property. C. The property is only marginally developable without sewer, and the rezoning would result in a more efficient development with greater opportunities to provide blocks of open space. Applicant has suggested that the City could view this expansion as merely a trade-off in sewer units from the Sollner property to the Morgart property. However, it can be argued that for properties that realistically could have contained 8 sewered lots and 5 unsewered lots, the proposal yields 12 sewered and 2 unsewered. The numbers don’t balance; the issue is not one of sewer capacity but of expanding the MUSA to accommodate new development. Such an expansion is in conflict with a number of goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, in the overall planning policies: "3. "4. URBANIZATION WILL Nilt BE EXPANDED INTO THE EXISTING RURAL AREAS. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan and therefore the urban service area will oq I be expanded into the rural service area. Urban serv ices will n^i be expanded into the rural service area." THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Serv ice Area (MUSA) is fixed by the various elements of the Community Management Plan, and is legally described as shown on Map #6." ADDITIONAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR ONLY IN THE DESIGNATED URBAN SERVICE AREA. Additional urban de% elopment -4 .j Zoning File #2293 September 11,1997 Page 4 will occur in the urbanized areas consistent with the capacities of the existing urban services and at limited densities consistent with all environment constraints." The Comprehensive Plan's "General Land Use Policies" starting on Page CMP 4-12 include the following; "1. THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (ML^SA) IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) and sewer service area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map #6." In the "Urban Land Use Policies" on Page 4-18, the plan states: "9. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono's Communin' Management Plan is nol a staged growth plan. The urban servdce area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban serv ices and facilities will nS2l be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas." Finally in the "Rural Land Use Policies on Page 4-20, the plan states: "4. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono's Community Management Plan is HQl a staged growth plan. The urban service area will be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban serv'ices will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainage ways will not be overloaded with stormwater nutrient pollution." Excerpts from the goals and policy sections of the Comprehensive Plan have been attached to this review as Exhibit K. Given the apparent conflict between this application and the Comprehensive Plan, how might the City justify granting the proposed amendment'? Statf would otter two possible alternatives: A. Change the policies to allow such a change, i.e. amend the Comp Plan to est'iblish a strict set of criteria by which expansion of the urban area might be allowed; or Zoning File #2293 September 11,1997 Page 5 \ B.FinH that the applicant's proposal has so many compelling characteristics that expansion of the urban area for this development will be a positive move, enhancing all the characteristics the City is intending to preserve by its current policy; i.e. find that it meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies, if not the ler :t. Alternative A in staffs opinion is a more appropriate method than Alternative B, because Alternative A establishes parameters for change, rather than appearing to single out this individual property for change. Alternative A would avoid setting a precedent, where Alternative B may open the door to developer requests. Under Alternative A it would take some time for the Ciw to develop appropriate criteria for change. Under Alternate B. the City might act more quickly on this individual application. Developer requests for MUSA and Comp Plan amendments to accommodate new development in Orono are rare. The last one was Sugar Woods nearly 10 years ago. as noted during the sketch plan review, that had a unique set of circumstances related to proximity to an adjacent city, annexation threats, etc. In order for the developer to proceed with this subdivision, the Planning Commission and Council must tlrst conclude that the Comprehensive Plan and MUSA boundaiy amendment is appopriate, as well as the rezoning. The applicant has submitted a proposal and will make a presentation Monday night in support of his proposed amendments. 111. Right-of-Way Vacation Applicant proposes to vacate the system of undeveloped roads and alleyways within tlie plat of "Mount Home Park", which vas dedicated when the plat was filed in May 1895. These roads and alleys have never been opened by the City. Area utility- companies have been notified and their input requested regarding the vacation. No responses have been received as of this writing. A portion of the right-of-way to be vacated could conceivably provide public access to Lake Minnetonka, depending on the actual location of the 929.4 contour which is no ‘ shown on the preliminary plat drav\ings. Staff has requested DNR input on this vacation request, since the City's e.xperience in the past has been that the DNR commonly opposes vacations ot right-of-way that provide public lake access. Xpplicant ’s submitted plans indicate that there are overhead power lines in the westerly portion of right-of-way to be vacated, as well as a municipal sewer line. Plans show that drainage and utility easements will be granted for the existing sewer line within Lot 1. The Zoning File #2293 September 11, 1997 Page 6 remainder of proposed sewer lines will be within the public road right-of-way to be dedicated. Applicant will need to deal with the utility companies regarding the necessary casements for existing lines, or move those lines to locations not needing special additional easements. Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacations in conjunction with this subdivision if it is approved, subject to review and comment by the DNR. IV. Merits of Subdivision 1 he proposed subdivision includes 14 lots as follows: Twelve 1 -acre density lots abutting a proposed public road. - Two 2-acre density lots served by an easement (not outlot) driveway. The 2 acre lots are located in what is currently a 1 acre zone, and these 2 acre lots are proposed to be served by septic systems, for which site evaluation reports have been submitted (see diagram on sheet 4 of 5). The subdivision also includes 2 outlots as tollows: Outlot A is 1.5 acres in area, abutting Highview Lane north of the DNR- interest park property. Outlot B is the Van Sloun 4.8 acre lot abutting Highview Lane north of the tax forfeit Cit>’ park property. Applicant has not confirmed his intent for Outlots A and B. Note that for park dedication purposes. 8% of 26.4 acres = 2.1 acres. The Park Commission has not reviewed the current proposal and has not made a recommendation os to whether the City should require land dedication or a park fee. The following are some general comments, concerns and issues regarding the proposed subdivision: 1. J. Both proposed cul-de-sacs are intended to be public roads. Applicant notes that they extend no further north or west than the existing Wildhurst Trail cul-de-sac extends eastward. In the sketch plan review', it was noted that Wildhurst Trail is already excessive in length (approximately 2200' from the e.xisting cul-de-sac to County Road 19 with no secondary access). The current proposal does not include a connecting route betw'een Wildhurst and West Branch Road, or to any other potential secondary access. Outlot A is situated where it would be an added buffer to the DNR interest portion ■• -... ■#»< . *.4. • ia Zoning File #2293 September 11,1997 Page 7 4. 7. 8. 9. of the park. Lot 9 is proposed at 2.00 acres, but includes a private driveway easement. The City normally does not accept such easements for access across a property, but requires them to be platted as outlots (Section 11.31 Subd. 5). Also, the location of that private driveway in Lot 9 leaves little room between the driveway and the proposed septic system sites for house construction. The driveway should be an outlot. It should be relocated through a different portion of Lot 9. Lot 9 should contain 2 acres all on one side of the driveway, not split by it. Although these are 2 acre lots in 1 acre zone, their use of septic systems suggest that they should probably be developed to meet all of the 2 acre zone standards. The proposed driveway from the westerly cul-de-sac to Lots 9 and 10 extends over Lots 8 and 11. Again that driveway easement should be an outlot. The area of the outlot must be excluded from the attributable areas of Lots 8 and 11. Lots 4 and 7 contain a stormwater basin, and easements to accommodate that pond appear to have been correctly excluded from the net areas of Lots 4 and 7. The stormwater pond appears to be in the location that would take most of the natural drainage, and appears to be appropriately located. Please review the City Engineer's comments regarding drainage. The City will require its standard 10 ’ perimeter and 5’ interior lot line drainage and utility easements. Sheet 3 of 5 indicates the location of proposed houses on each lot, and their orientation. In Lots 6. 7 and 8, construction will involve the creation of a defined house pad. and in those lots the house locations will have only a minimum of flexibility. For the remaining 1 acre lots, the standard front and rear, 10 side, 35 side street setbacks would apply. For the two 2 acre lots, staff would recommend that the standard 50' front and rear. 30' side setbacks be applied. The orientation of Lots 9 and 10 as to what is front, side and rear is unclear. The City will require a Conseiwation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands in Lots 1,2 and 3. It appears that it will be critical to determine the 929.4 contour for defining the lake shoreline, specifically in relation to the vacation request. Lots 9 and 10 meet a 200' width standard for lots in the 2 acre zone. Lot 3 has a defined width of 120 ’ measured along the 35' setback curve, or 142’ measured in a straight line from side lot line to side lot line at the front setback line. However, Lot 3 is ftmctionally 160' in width and if it is concluded a variance is required, it is staffs '* r *9 ".rm I r.. • * m j. ;V»,. Zoning File #2293 September 11,1997 Page 8 « . •* 11. 12. 13. 14. 18. recommendation to approve one. The same applies for Lots 8 and (perhaps) 11 -- .aor ai - — Septic testing has been submitted for Lots 9 and 10. The proposed layout appears to accommodate two mound system sites in each lot within the lot boundaries and meeting the required setbacks. As noted eculier, the proposed private driveway and potential requirement for a 35' or 50' setback from the driveway depending on how these lots are considered, leaves limited room for construction of a residence between the driveway and the septic sites on Lot 9. Existing structures on the property are intended to be removed. Applicant proposes islands in the cul-de-sacs. Tlie City Engineer has noted that the Citv usually discourages islands in cul-de-sacs. If islands are to be used, additional right-of-way must be provided. The City Engineer notes that the proposed driveway for Lot 11 makes use of the private driveway serving Lots 9 and 10. This will have to be revised since the City code only allows two users of a shared driveway; the third user triggers the need for development of a road. The Engineer notes that grading plans will be required for individual lots prior to building permits. A proposed driveway location for Lot I should be shown. .Access to Outlots A and B should be discussed along with the intent for future use of those properties. Bot’i ' . tlots currently abut undeveloped Highview Lane which is not proposed to be vacated. The City Engineer has noted that storm sewer design should include provisions for controlling runoff at the south end of the site, and should be submitted to the DNR and MCWD for review and approval. The City Engineer has provided an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee as part of the developer's agreement. Staff Recommendation Plannimz Commission is advised to consider the rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment first, as a separate^ issue from the vacation and subdivision layout. If there is sufficient support for these changes, the subdivision and vacation request should be reviewed. To avoid a 'chicken or egg' scenario, pplicant should be allowed to make his presentation in support of his proposed ►Zoning File #2293 September 11,1997 Page 9 amendments based on his subdivision proposal. Staff is on record as stating that development of the Morgart 10-acre site at its zoned 2-acre density will be difficult unless sewer is provided. This can be said of many properties in the rural area which have had to develop with lot sizes of 3, 4 and 5 acres due to lack of septic sites. The only unique characteristic that differentiate*; the Morgart site from other rural properties is that it is adjacent to sewered property on 3 sides. Planning Conunission and Council will have to determine whether this proximity and other factors are so compelling as to warrant the requested zoning and MUSA amendments. If Planning Commission concludes that the amendments and the subdivision can proceed, review the 18 items noted above and any others of importance. Provide applicant with direction as to how the plat drawings should be revised. Table for further review or send this on to the Council for action subject to appropriate conditions. ch . * J F #22 1 Appiicadoo ff <s?^*93 Date Received" A - " «rS Amount Paid (3 */oti CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address m*> Wildhurst Trail, Orono Property Identification Number (PID) See Attached Please check one - Property____abstract or torrens?■S' Attach legal description to application.5TO. APPLICANT Name 3ames Waters, Vice President Rj 8 Address 10700 Old Connry Road 15.//1 5 0 Phone (home) 938-3657 City Plymouth, MN Zip 5544 IPhone (work) 595-95 1 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) City Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one)See Attached EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land ____ Acres Wet Land -2) Acres Total, all parcels y' Residential; no. of units ____ Other (specify)______ RR-IB and LR-IB PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes __ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) __ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Umts >/ I 2 New Units I 2 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size < i Units per__[ Acres 4 3.560 Sq. Ft. Dr>' Buildable Land Proposed Use (check) 5 1 n*" le F,tti ! v Residential _________Other (specify)_________ •f MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATION ' 1. Payment of fees (refer to "appUadoa fees* listed below. 2. Completed ^iplicatioo fonn. . . 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners witfain 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepbi 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 Officiafs 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 fonnal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning OfficUrs Signature ______________________________________ __ Date---------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Applicatia. ^Class I & II) S350.00 l£.raia ..^Preliminary Subdiv^. -o Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) y/2- ^*7% ___ Final Plat Applicatior. ' .UiS ill) $200.00 ___ Legal Review and Fdtog: ______Subdivisi *%ly 575.00 Subdivii-..« w nents and covenants min. $200.00 723*. Park Fees (to be deten d per Section 11.62) Legal and Enginecrinf .view Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class HI Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvcmcat Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600^00-^$.50/lincal ft.;‘lin. ft. X .50 - S Proposed Public Roadsr$9007(;^$JO/lineal ft; lin. ft. x .50 - $. Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mam Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ^Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 $25/stub ^ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 T32S- SSS' On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x______new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc Fees A/ U Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) * v Vacation Assaeioted with CubiirvijiuwS 100:00 . f PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit 3^. r<r (V O'. , City AtThe applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator. City Engin w, Planning Commission and Coimcil necessary to process this application and fiirthcr agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordin»»«. \/7///^-------------_________________________ n.,. JiJt - f 7 ____________ Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Applies, mun have a,: into th. City Office 25 days before the Planning Commiasioti meeting, place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change pnor to the meeting. #2293 4 m ^ • ‘*r^ - M ^ i4^■A • • -" - r % Application HI Area Zoning MUSA PID t.and Owner 6 + Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min.Yes 0711723220007 0711723220008 Barbara Sollner-Wcbb 10 Acres RR-IB 2 Ac. min. 5 Acres LR-IB I Ac. min.Yes 0711723210016 0711723211002 0711723210006 0711723210007 Harriet J Morgan Barbara Solncr-Webb Harriet J. Morgan 17200 Melbourne Dr., Laurel, MD 20707 1003 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 <*- —w------L ^>.m.'.>: *" ■bi ■ ■ ] <« 1 'j ( .S. | ,,t. -i -----------------Ww ^ --------------; I .'•x-x :-;; : 1: lx-: '■xi;- •■ x l*,---! ' ■' jrrrrrr^—•-.n.-» ___3L f?') .It* .• .V I^Kvr L f x;rx>. «• w I = ' ai\v ^•‘*r \ r-^l rrw. • ‘.;*afe&'( Cj ,r* » « r'4* /.r t,'•^*. / ♦x'«y^ ! *> • fc. . "yty ^ ✓ K %V > «•f- .^’4 C‘<^ 3.• ,}r Iji tO>]XAY:22V 15 ^ *i) , / t ^ . i;-' --V^. »'—<i’r • ^r \ air RUN DATE 09/02/97 BATCH 503 3B 07-117-23 12 0003 PROP AODR 00993 HILDHURST TR ONNER NAME HILLIAM A GILLQUIST TAXPAYER HILLIAM A GIllQUIST HAME/ADDR 993 HILDHURST TR Tj • HOUND MN 55369 'J PROP ADOR 38 07-117-23 21 0002 09505 HEST BRAtCH RD OHKER I4AME HARRIET J MORGART TAXPAYER HARRIET J MORGART NAHE/ADDR 1003 HILDtiURST TR MOUND MN 553fa9 38 07-117-23 21 0005 PROP ADDR 00999 HILDHURST TR ONNER NAME M H A N C NIMERFROH TAXPAYER MARTIN H A NAN C NIMERFROH NAME/ADDR 999 HILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 21 0013 PROP AODR 01001 HILDHURST TR O OHNER NAME NANCY L FERRELL TAXPAYER NANCY L FERRELL NAME/ADDR 1001 HILDHURST TR •MOUttt) HN 55369 0 38 07-117-23 21 0016 PROP ADOR 01003 HILDHURST TR OHNER NAME HARRIET J MORGART TAXPAYER HARRIET J MORGART NAME/ADDR 1003 HILDHURST TR 0 MOUND MN 55369 Q PROP ADDR 38 07-117-23 22 0011 *00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGF<ED OHNER NAME RICHARD B HA14ai4SON TAXPAYER RICHARD B HANKINSON ©NAME/ADDR 1575 COPELAND RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ■1 Q •f • n HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 3S 07-117-23 12 0009 00805 FOREST ARMS LA J A 4 E S FRETHAM JAt«S A ELIZABETH FRETHAH 805 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND m 5536<» 38 07-117-23 21 0003 00995 NILOHURST TR R C LAVERE A J A LAVERE RICHARD C A JULIE A LAVERE 995 HILDHURST TR HOUND FM 5536<* 38 07-117-23 21 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HARRIET J HORGART HARRIET J MORGART 1003 HILDHURST TR HOUND MN 55369 3t 07-117-23 21 0019 0<505 WEST BRAtCH RD DAVID LEVY DAVID LEVY 9505 HEST BRANCH RD ORONO HN 55369-8277 38 07-117-23 22 0007 00038 ADDRESS UFFASSIGNEO BARBARA SOLLNER-HEBB BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB 17200 MELBOURNE DR LAUREL MD 20707 38 07-117-23 22 0016 09701 HEST BRANCH RD ROBERT L A CAROL L TRAPP ROBERT L A CAROL L TRAPP 9701 HEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55369 REPORT NO. PI935401 PAGE 7 38 07-117-23 12 0011 00825 FOREST ARMS LA M 0 PARKS A K L PARKS MATTHEH 0 A KAREN L PARKS 825 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0004 00997 HILDHURST TR C E BOEHM A H A C BOEIBt CHARLES A MARY ANN BOEHM 997 HILDHURST TRAIL MOUFK) MN 55369 38 07-117-23 21 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HARRIET J MORGART HARRIET J MORGART 1003 HILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0015 09955 HEST BRANCH RD JANE E KLINE JANE E KLINE 9955 HEST BRANCH RD HOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 22 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BARBARA SOLLNER-HEBB BARBARA SOLLNER-HEBB 17200 MELBOURNE DR LAUREL MO 20707 38 07-117-23 22 0017 09735 HEST BRANCH RD B A V VAN SLOUN BRUCE P A VIRVE L VAN SLOUN 12809 FOREST MEADOH DR MlNt'JETONKA MN 55305 1 . t i . •* » I % J • i) €> ^® I i » i •Ill » I 3 3 ) 9 RUN DATE 09/02/97 BATCH SOS PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NATffi/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NA^C/AODR PROP AOOR OH»«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3 3 3 3 O o G PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR mm •ft 38 07-117-23 23 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGT4ED CITY OF OROrA) CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 23 0029 00036 ADDRESS PEt40ING HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND C(»4VEYANCE PENDING CITY RSLN 83511-ALSO: HENN COf^ERVATION EASEMENT 38 07-117-23 26 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STEVEN G SIGAFOOS STEVEN G SIGAFOOS 2900 CASCO POINT RO HAY2ATA MN 55391 38 07-117-23 26 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 HENT4EPIN COUf4TY PROPERTY INFORMATIOr4 SYSTEM PROPERTY OMr4ERS LIST38 07-117-23 23 0022 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF 0R0T40 P 0 BOX 66 TOTAL BATCH 503 00030 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 26 0030 01065 WILDHURST TR MICHAEL V MCKENI4EY MICHAEL V MC KENNEY 1065 NILDMURST TRAIL HOUND MN 55366 38 07-117-23 26 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY Mf4 55323 38 07-117-23 26 0065 01006 HILDHURST TR RAI CONST OF BLOOMIf4GTON ir4C RAI CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC 1687 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA HN 55391 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 838 07-117-23 23 0025 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-k:3 26 0031 01055 HILDHURST TR CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 26 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 2' 0066 01076 HILDHURST TR RAI CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC RAI CONST OF BLOOMINGTON INC 1687 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 I ? » f I I I ; , S n o “ iaio?i I®"|i 5 i •» r- S X JT oS oS 5m 3> P §= ^ O 2 ^ S?gS "2«ow (II oo H 5lg-^ **8-2 • ““2 9S*si (II H "O<0 m- O ^ V H I 1 1 I I i I I I I — CftaiKIOtOk Kl OB fsj KJ fo — c«c« Ki ® p K. V KJ — OI — f3u> to NJ o> cn oOB tn (Oto to to ■n f'* -n 'n *n T’ 71 9 kt T ir> N O » O 01^ U ?: " > fi fi^ 6 £ - - • j I I fj iifsmg S g s g g a .• / JVCI / 111M V I s U I i/m I : ‘ //' §4''- 15 I y y / / /‘ / -V' .'i A / •' vt rn O ? / y X> ^ ’ ' '' *■ //f ^ / 8 /;;.• / /i y- yZ -''^ ■'. ‘ / ?!Va . ■ / y /yzy /'.' / 4- .-a-H r ,' L - / / -li / / ( i I040J. // // / / /.- / // /, '' ■’ ' •*0A^A/M/y77^~A’i!'_// //;/ u p?/ • ^ » / . / ^ ^A— II ^ * • * —.■ • . '.' /' / z' ; !! ■ *3 stjt t;/ / 1. ‘S)“ • i- J S yTip' \* \THi-- / ;!S / \ ‘ \:V>/ y- 11 \JifNJi ;i L '\. : »3 " . / \ \ If/W liNf ' Sfil < •'/. •\ '^,Vi.;/ ■- '1%-i- y/'v \i|-n* VY' t Yt •./Y;- - /- \\ ^ <'■ DC.'r-'V 99 9 99.90 '• . h \.. J ^ C •. vyv_ I, > / I i . • I ^0* i \\ > \ J : i \ ‘ * » I ■t -(I M ? i3« i i ff » 1 sesi o 9 «? Ui K <0 C u> o *nS S<cn ® ts5- ^ (H <0 III §2 T):do rno H 39 p S| g s >o ;? 39 O ^ cn NJ V4 Lnu Ioo CO X rirn O ~n ui CO 2 » 9 > §ir * Si > Dm s i h . ( . * V ooc. NO. sst; 722M7 I m hn ^ ► A j i!!»*tinafisg <tifc 11 « a 5; • •si S I = w « «q!2(n oo H ‘2-2 ‘"w 30 0 3a o ^ L—J 8 6 - I 8 !3 !3 i i d 3 i.i;! I ^ 1 i E It'g ? s ^ I A !i! 8 !i! »i i i i i S s! 3 8 i / / / y y /'/ l! rfij ?i i> ; %v / y y.V/^ \ / V y' V //// "7 ^ '///#/7//.' « A,'/?//iy (4'‘ / '“-r'V- /yy-!::ss.v 1. I _9 so -—- iv» ^ * • u / f /f / / — —r • V N ^ •• e 10^ *P fii !i . ^ ^ S,» itii :s i l! i»S3:5: Ifs V . •!’/ f. y •■ ■ V«-- .'V '\ \ \ N. \a'^v Vo-,. V4_L N y'\ ' V ■"...V. * m i ..... s v-\V\ \ ----- " / / •\l S V r §(/• :i u\ V. ill;!? I ! »i|!2 ■ IS ■f Z <m (A Hsmz H V o 3 O n>—t oz m (Ao H > Vs, /" U) 2 3D Oc*m 0 -H 2p o» M •nJ LH U4 1 CD Oczo > 3 •< (A C 3 <m •< Ot Im q Z3 PI ' I ij •■•••.! • ••• • • • - • • • •ii-j o X I<1! m f tsa» Jl* n > Z m // • • t •••• • • • « • t ^ ♦ •••• ••• •• • •• • • •••• »_• • * •, •• • V I..*; ; r • V.***. ••• /;••••: NO(r«rOi garden lane I iOOl^*/c V.V; **•>•*.* *•*. •••. *V .• If li “3 uUifV A 0 wa«<w4 UAm4 mI K« r\A> r 4»S00 I»«ori5-o®'f NCNniotrc _{____ 722 §J_____________________ C a U mENI PTI mK •■} MMtt « liMU l« IM «•«»« m ,wi I »« • lEil WlMk.a «••». *AU « ~l r - •ML««apl PiA «K »M'M» — A UlMat RU HE >M««M — —___• I z D .r,i. • ••. •• I IS .i. S' ! ! m A* 4i n > / / \ \ \ c* •> .** ..C:. •., •**1; \ \ %hr'yIr . soi'ooErw ^ « j • ••• i’-: :*•. • A ^ • • ^ •:C PL^E * • A^ • ...I*: . • / : :•. • * • •• * « • . . ;.\i. .'•i • ;;;•;, i^; .■y—•>1 >1•<m • • • • I .**. •• j A • •• V**CA# A • A • • A • i •• » »•’ 53 . .. H<7f ■- — , - # . _ .A---------------------- .; ,.•; J. < soi*ioo«-w, •'» ’ ■ ni 0 , 10000 «M . I ^ — IMI» ------ A " *s I «iHI---------------------------1---------:S5------------------------------ J ,__I •"'= ■'•! C . Pi„:;i • A -- < II «\ ^iRANOV^W R.ACE-® - 5 •» I • ^ *; “ —----------------------------—1 mI [y.y sH W f I I A N 0 I ™ I I • ra I.i \ \ y ------ • • • »_____ I I .X: *■. ..* A* A** •a ^ *: 11 11 ;i.i*; sortyorw ,, Mi,4; '•* l^i .* I U .in i ,/ ^ r il! I *lii I! f Jf* ic ^5 j -.t;:/H III til fi ‘r K ^ii !(l i|l i? .'j2 I; 111 ill *• .‘I; ilsijlj l| (I'41!iliih: !l« ii Ijli li |f! Iff !I 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Botene. AnderUk ^Associstes, Bk. i% An Affkmstiee Actio/\/TquAl OppomMBty Ofnptoyor PrmapAts. Otto G. Boneuroo. F£. • Josepn C AndertUi. PE • Mjrvm L SorvM PE • Richard E. Turner. PE • G*enn R. Cook. PE. • Rooert Q. Schunicht. PE • Jerry A. Bounlon. PE • RoOert W Rosene. PE and Susan M, Eberfm. C PA.. Senior Consultants Asiociste PrincipAts. HoMirard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R. Pfefferfe. PE. • Ricnard W Foster. PE • Oavid O. Loskota. PE- • Rooert C. Russek. A I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Raucmarm. PE • Ted K.Fieid. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. P.E • Mark (L Rolfs. PE • SiO^ P WifHamson. PE*. LS. • Rooert F Kotsmich Offices St Paul. Rochester. NSTirimar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl Sqitember 8. 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Boa 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: Wildhurst Trail Site Plat File No. 139-2293 u* * . wO' Dear Mike. Wc have reviewed the preliminary plat prepared for LGA Investment Group on the proposed Wildhurst Trail Site, a fourteen lot (and two ouUots) subdivision of PID Numbers Of -117-23-22-0008.07-117-23-22-0007,07-117-23-22-0017 and 07-117-23-21-(XX)2. located south of County Road 151 in the northwest quarter of Section 7. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Utilities: The proposed sanitary sewer design appears acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Final plans should show service locations and elevations. Part of the area to be served is outside the current MUSA boundary. 2. Streets: We usually discourage islands in cul-de-sacs. A minimum of a 45-foot radius to the face of curb and 110 feet of right-of-way should be provided if islands arc used. Final plans should include a typical street section based on a geotechnical analysis of the site. The driveway for Lot 11 is shown on the shared driveway for Lots 9 and 10. The City Code allows only two units on a shared driveway. 3. Grading: The proposed grading plan appears acceptable. Due to the steep topography grading plans for individual lots should be prepared prior to issuance of building permits. Where will the driveway be located for Lot 1 ? There should be some discussion regarding future plans for and proposed access to Outlets A and B. 4. Drainage: Storm sewer design should include provisions for controlling runoff at the south end of the site on Wildhurst Trail. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnesota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. Storm sewer and ponding and calculations should be included with the final plans. The storm sewer should be designed to minimize velocities at the pond inleL 5. Easements: Drainage casements should be provided across all drainage ways and ponding areas. Easements should be provided for any existing utilities within the areas to be vacated. 6. Financial Guarantee: We have attached an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this maner. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /cyr>t > Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono \X/pst Hiahwav 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 Development Plan Review APPENDIX COST ESTIMATE WILDHURST TRAIL SITE I >?■ Site and pond grading Stabilization fabric Aggregate base, CI.5 100% cr. Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41 bituminous wear course Concrete curb and gutter 8' PVC sanitary sewer Connect to ex. sewer Standard sanitary manhole 4" PVC service wye 4“ PVC service pipe 12" RCP storm sewer 18" RCP storm sewer 12" RCP apron 18" RCP apron Standard catch basin Catch basin manhole Random riprap Silt fence Sodding wM" topsoil Clear and grub Landscaping________________ Total +50% Financial Guarantee Requirement TOTAL FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIRED 139GEN4.WB2 C.Y. S.Y. TON TON TON LF. L.F. EACH EACH EACH LF. L.F. LF. EACH EACH EACH EACH C.Y. L.F. S.Y. LS. LS. * — * . jr% ^ - - City $3.50 1.00 10.00 28.00 30.00 6.00 22.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 50.00 20,0.> 20.00 30.00 500.00 1,000.00 700.00 1,200.00 75.00 3.00 3.00 000.00 5,000.0n ^... • - j"xrvT T-f. . fllll4,1 4,500 2,200 480 360 2,600 920 1 4 12 360 105 705 1 1 2 6 12 1,000 3,000 1 1 • • •$14.i 4,500 22,000 13,440 10.800 15,600 20.240 1,000 6,000 600 7,200 2,100 21,150 500 1,000 1,400 7,200 900 3.000 9.000 10,000 5.000 $176,630 88,315 $264,945 N- CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crjstal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-73*57 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, September 15, 1997 7:30 p.m. on the matter of application #2293, a proposal by James Waters of LGA Investment Group, Inc. for preliminary approval of a Class HI 12-lot residential preliminary subdivision of property located at and adjacent to 1003 Wildhurst Trail and including th^ following tax parcels identified by PINS number: 07-117-23 22 0007 07-117-23 21 0006 07-117-23 22 0008 07-117-23 21 0007 07-117-23 21 0002 07-117-23 21 0016 The proposed subdivision involves the creation of public roadways and the extension of municipal sewer. As part of this application, the applicant also requests the following approvals: 1. Rezoning of PINS 07-117-23 21 0002 from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential to LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2. Comprehensive Plan .-\mendment to incorporate PINS 07-117-23 21 0002 within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (\1USA). 3. Vacation of certain public rights-of-way dedicated within the plat of "Mount Home Park", Hennepin County, Minnesota. All persons wi.<5hing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed subdivision is available in the City offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of August 30,1997. 1 •J*1 ( \Yv ^rvr**»u \N:-'VtvC W^'-^- >'\' \> \/-----------------------:/ \ \ \ v \/ ®P*/colo!:ort Teiti ^4-V/\ \ \ \/ -'v3 Bo**^* / > '*-“'^ \ / SC0l*«-4iijl -cVi4^ <T^v^'»vs ov»trr?o^oH. r^ .Tp4TfC*.S.'0 -m>4^s Q Bench Mork Note* ThJi system is lobe cortilwcltd to fned lilt KCnnesola Pofly ’ioA Contid A;ency Chapter 7080 & £/Ocal Ordinance Check all underground ut.illtles - £i.M - PRCFcRTY <~c.J rl S-P testing INCr Oev^d Core*-l/ir/lP, PH. 6i2 • <97-3566 • ^ T i I ^ --I - CITY OF ORONO COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PART II CHAPTER 2 *•• • - • »»i GOALS AND POLICIES Any plan is necessarily a compromise of ideals and reality. What Orono is today has been shaped by its locatxon, history* geology and past population. What Orono becomes tomorrow is dependent upon how Orono's citizens manage their social and economic decisions in the years ahead. THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THIS PLAN HAVE MET THE ‘I'EST OF TIME IN ORONO. The basic premise of maintaining distinct urban and rural neighborhoods continues a hundred-year tradition. The commitment to environmental preservation was early, has been supported by Regional, State and Federal policies, and remains uppermost in the list of priorities of Orono's residents. The interreliance of lake-area communities for shopping and commercial needs, for housing variety and for provision of basic public services is both historic and economically practical. THE FOLLOWING GOALS AND POLICIES, BOTH IN CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION REFLECT THE BASIC PHILOSOPHIES OF ORONO. Goals and policies affecting the entire city are grouped in an "overall" category. In addition, more detailed goals and policies are separated under their appropriate "urban" or "rural" classification. Finally, each separate CMP chapter has detailed goals and policies relating to that particular subject. OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES ORONO'S PLANNING GOALS 1.THE FOREMOST GUIDING PRINCIPLE AND GOAL OF ORONO'S PLANNING IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LAKE MINNETONKA, ITS WATER QUALITY AND ITS RECREATIONAL ASSETS. This goal continues a commitment established at least twenty five years ago. It includes preservation of the associated marshland, wetlands and natural drainageways as the only practical, cost effective way cf preventing flooding and of filtering out the nutrient pollution from storm water runoff. CMP 2-1 AND PQLTrTF<^JUNE, 1980 EXISTING URBAN-RURAL LAND USE PATTERN ON A PERMANENT ■mm 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TO MAINTAIN OUR LOCAL CHARACTER AND IDENTITY. ^KES^'^C^EKs'^ natural resources INCLUDING ALL STMP' SLOPES ' WETLANDS, WOODLANDS, GROUND WATER AND TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR ALL CITIZENS. TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. CITY AT DENSITIES CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN. ^EvirSF^LRV?CErfT^J^TMlf®^^^'^ providing AN ADEQUATELic.vt.ij Ur SERVICES AT MINIMAL COST TO THE TAXPAYER. ORONO*S PLAtJNING POLICIES 1. 2. 3. 4. mwn ^o S^wa ?“sSed "''''l®w '’"otect and enhance the lakeI’li IN we.! UN watershed. Lake Minnetonka has local and regional significance as a vical ingredient in human experience and m the quality of life of all Orono residents. No development will be permitted that would have a detrimental effect on the Lake. URBANIZATION WILL NOT BE EXPANDED INTO THE EXISTING RURAL AREAS Orono s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan and therefore the Urban Service Area Will no_t be expanded int'' the Rural Service Area. Urban services will not be expanded into the Rural Service Area. THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) is fixed by the various elements of the Community Management Plan, and is legally described as shown on Map No. 6. ™ DESIGNATED URBANoiLKViCE AREA. Additional urban development will occur in the urbanized areas consistent with the capacities of the existing urban services and at limited densities consistent with all environmental constraints. CMP 2-2 I I. • ♦ GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 4.- ^ I I J1 1 ] I I 1 1 I 1 5. ADDITIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR IN THE DESIGNATED RURAL SERVICE AREA. Additional rural residential and quasi- agricultural development can occur in the rural areas without taxing the limited capacities of existing rural services. Rural development will occur at limited densities consistent with self> supporting on-SLte sewer and water services and with maintenance of natural amenities, open space and other rural community characteristics. 6. NATURAL FEATURES AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS WILL BE PROTECTED BY ORDINANCES BASED UPON EXTENSIVE INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND ESTABLISHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINES. Natural resource information will be used and evaluated in review of all land use developments. Ordinance provisions will be reasonably established, fairly interpretted and strictly enforced. 7. HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS, PLACES AND SETTINGS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND PRESER’^ED. The character of Orono receives much of its identity from our unique historic developments. Programs will be established to identify and help preserve this heritage for future generations. Where necessary, special consideratio”s will he made to encourage retention of signifijant public or private amenities. 8. HOUSING PROGRAMS WILL BE PURSUED TO PROVIDE SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR ALL CITIZENS. Housing opportunities will be provided for 'itizens of all ages and income levels. Rehabilitation programs will be stressed to increase the livability and energy conservation of the existing housing stock. 9. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WILL BE PROVir'ED AND IMPROVED CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL SERVICE NEEDS AND WITH A COORDINATED PROGRAM OF AREA-WIDE IRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES. Transportation planning will be sensitive to local land use and environmental concerns, and to local service needs. Levels of maintenance will vary between urban and rural areas. Alternative routings and alternative transportation modes will be explored. 10. PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES WILL BE COORDINATED BETWEEN THE MANY INTERRELATED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. Orono will continue to pursue coordinated services with the County, with adjacent municipalities, with the school district and with specialized districts such as lake conservation, watershed or joint powers districts, all for the purpose of providing consistent, high quality services at affordable cost to the taxpayer. CMP 2-3 I -■» ^ fiOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 11. ORONO WILL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A LOW PROFILE GOVERNMENTAL PRE.'ENCF EMPHASIZING INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN RESPONSIBILITY RATHER THAN OVER-INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. Where there is benefit in a concerted public purpose, Orono will rely on professional staff and consultants to handle matters in an up to the minute manner. But Orono also recognizes that the individual citizen often can do for himself more quickly, efficiently and at lesser cost, things that in other areas are left to government by default. It is here that the strength of the Orono citizens has its most direct benefit in maintaining our rural, small-town vitality. 12. ORONO WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE ACTIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN POLICY FORMATION AND POLICY ADMINISTRATION. Local meetings have always had the friendly, open-door characteristic of New England Town Meetings. Communication with the residents, both on general matters and on specific neighborhood development proposals, will continue to be a priority policy of this Plan and of this City. 13 IT IS ORONO'S FIR.M CONVICTION THAT THE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OUTLINED IN THIS CMP ARE CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND ARE UNDENIABLY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL ORONO CITIZENS, BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE. This Plan emphasizes full use of existing public services and facilities without leap-frog expansion of unnecessary services into rural areas. This Plan reinforces regional plans for emphasis on the center city. This Plan reinforces the national concern for energy conservation through halting of suburban sprawl , through retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing structures, through coordinated transportation planning and through emphasis on natural rather than mechanical solutions to storm water and waste water treatment. This Plan emphasizes reliance on and efficient use of natural features and exis*'ing services rather than arbitrary duplication of efforts between competing municipalities. This Plan is built on understanding and acceptance of Orono*s unique location and environmental constraints. Working with these factors will improve our quality of life: ignoring them would destroy it. ■ I t I i t I I I I I I I I I I f I CMP 2-4 i r URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 — ¥:jsf URBAN COMMUNITY GOALS 1. TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND SMALL TOWN CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOODS. . rt*,? J I 1 I j 2. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCE, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL FACILITIES TO SERVE ORONO'S URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENTS ALIKE. 3. TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS WHILE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING DIVERSITY OF HOUSING AND SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES. 4. TO PREVENT OVERLY DENSE DEVELOPMENT OR ANY EXCESSIVE DEMAND FOR SERVICES WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT LAKE MINNETONK/. OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS OR DRAINAGE AREAS. 5. TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES AT A LEVEL CONSISTENT WITH SMALL TOWN URBAN REQUIREMENTS. URBAN PLANNING POLICIES 1. FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CAREFULLY INTEGRATED INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. No new development will be permitted to conflict with or adversely affect the established neighborhood character. 2. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AND SOCIAL CENTERS THAT COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING AVAILABLE SERVICES. The City will favor those developments oriented toward local neighborhood needs, recognising the integrated service area of all adjoining lake-area communities. 3. PRIVATE LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO IMPROVE THE IMAGE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODT. Programs will be pursued to encourage maintenance and upkeep of all properties and to promote the rehabilitation of older or under-used properties. Commercial areas will be encouraged to provide a coordinated approach to identity, aesthetic and neighbor hood appeal. 4. URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono’s urban neighborhoods are located very close to Lake Minnetonka, therefore any urban development has the potential for direct adverse impact on the Lake. Storm water runi..ff control, erosion and sedimentation are particular concerns requiring rareful design attention in all new urban developments. In addition, particular care will be taken to preserve open spaces, wooded areas and solar access. CMP 2-5 r«rs^. f I URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 5. URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILI^.’IES AND SERVICES. New development will not be permitted to exceed the existing capacity of local roads, utilities, parks, police and fire prot*?''tion. Where development within the urban service area requires local extension of roads or utilities, such extension will be the full responribility of the developer, not the general taxpayer. 6. HIGHER LEVELS OF PUBLIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE URBAN AREA THAN IN THE RURAL AREA. The greater land use density and the greater number of residents combines to require more intensive levels of public services. Police, fire, and ambulance calls are more frequent Roads, parking lots and playgrounds require more maintenance. Public sewer and water is necessary because of population density and proximity to the Lake. All of there factors combine to increase the cost of government in the urban portions of the City, which increased cost will be paid by the urban users of the services without subsidy from the rural residents. RURAL AREA GOALS AND POLICIES RURAL COMMUNITY GOALS 1. TO .MAINTAIN THE RURAL CHARACTER OF OPEN SPACES ND CLOSENESS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 2. TO RETAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RURAL COMMERCE SUCK AS FARMING, ORCHARDS, GREENHOUSES, STABLES AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WHICH REQUIRE LIMITED SERVICES BUT RELATIVELY LARGE AMOUNTS OF OPEN SPACE. 3. TO RETAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF .ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES. 4. TO PREVENT THE ENCROACHMENT OF URBAIi DEVELOPMENT OR ANY ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD IN ANY V.*AY ADVERSELY AFFECT LAKE MINNETONKA OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS OR DRAINAGE AREAS. 5. TO PROVIDE ONLY THOSE PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO SERVE A TRADITIONAL RURAL COMMUNITY SO AS TO LIMIT THE FINANCIAL BURDENS ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE LANDOl^NERS ALIKE. I I I I I f I • ^ • •. -r TT_ •% ; - -A —-.^ RURAL PLANNING PQLICIFS JUNE, 1980-- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. •• % *k• •* . FUTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE GUIDED SO AS TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE LAND OR ON THE EXISTING RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. Rural developments will be permitted only at rural densities and only where the land i <; capable of self- supporting the necessary on-site sewer and water services. Care will be exercised to ensure that no new development encroaches upon its neighbor’s open space activities. RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE PRESERVED FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND QUASI—AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Commercial services will continue to be provided in the urban areas of OJ^ono and adjoining municipalities. No new commercial or industrial activities will be permitt 1 in the rural service area except those quasi-agricultural uses that do not require central sewer or other urban services. RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono's rural land includes major or minor drainageways and wetlands all intricately tied to Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, each rural development require particular care to prevent encroachment on these vital resources and to ensure protection of the soil vegetation and drainage patterns. In addition, consideration will be given to protection of woodlands and special open vistas having general public benefit. RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN BE SERVED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AIJD SERVICES. New development will not be permitted if it requires the extension of urban services into the rural area, rrivately constructed and maintained roads and recreational facilities will be favored over require ments for additional public facilities. Buildings and structures must be located and designed for rural levels of police and fire protection. Rural residents cannot expect the same level of services as provided to the more concentrated urban a.reas of the City. SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDEPATIOuS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE PARTS OF THE RURAL AREA LOCATED ON LAKE MINNETONKA ISLANDS. It is impossible for the City to provide island residents with normal public services such is police, fire, ambulance, sanitation or transportation. Therefore, all of these needs must be met by the individual property owners who choose to develop land cn the islands. Because of these physical limitations, the City has -determined that private island development must be discouraged, and may be permitted only in strict compliance with all applicable performance standards. CMP 2-7 - ^ «* 4*..*. ^ - rrV^ T • - COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STRATEGY JUNE, 1980 PLANNING GOALS " “ ' ' 7 ' 1. TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, NEEDS, ISSUES AND ASPIRATIONS. 2. TO FORMULATE AND MAINTAIN LONG-TERI'l GOALS FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY GROWTH AND MANAGEMENT. 3. TO FORMULATE AND MAINTAIN POLICIES, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY GOALS. PLANNING POLICIES 1. THE CMP IS DESIGNED AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR CITY OFFICIALS, STAFF AND CITIZENS IN THE CONDUCT OF BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CITY. 2. THE CMP IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE EFFECTIVE AND COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION METHODS TO PROPERLY BALANCE PRIVATE INCENTIVES AND THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 3. THE CMP IS DESIGNED TO HELP COORDINATE THE VARIOUS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS SUCH AS REGULATIONS, ORDINAl^CES, PUBLIC PROCEDURES, PUBLIC EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY TAX POLICIES. 4 . THE CMP IS INTENDED TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT TO BE USED ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. 5. THE CMP IS INTENDED TO BE REVIE^VED, AND UPDATED IF NECESSARY, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. CMP 2-8 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 _~^ I AND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years. LAND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2. TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3. TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A VARIETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO’S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. 6. TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACI ITIES AND SERVICES. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map No. 6. 2. ORONO'S LAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan. /and use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or explo:.tation. CMP 4-12 I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. 6. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization 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 Mn. 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 development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 «W -i- •. LAND USE JUNE, 1980 ssatsi 7.DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow j.ggtrictions , to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 8.NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical informationi soil analysis# drainage clans# vegetation plans# erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project# whether public or private. o •ORONO'S LAND USE PLAN KILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spacer will be provided in each neighborhood and on each loc f.o prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, inducing open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND O^^NERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require ments of the Community Management Plan. future development MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance eighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, pj.gggrving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. CMP 4-14 1 i LAND USE A" : JUNE r 1980 $ i I i i I I i 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT, Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general 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. 14. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the aeveloper. 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 fire 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. 15. ALL PHYSICAL I.MPROVEMENTS 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. 16. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land 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 • r • V' J^, «l«• - •- <• •• *fr . LAND USE JONE, 1980 ^ If the individual development's density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive t public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT'S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be of such size, character and location that it can be saf yly used for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE MAJORITY OF ORONO'S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono’s urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Mi.nnetonka. CMP 4-16 I I I L. I I I < * - t. .V LAND USE 2. 3. 4. 5. JUNE, 1980 Air ar:.r»r LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono*s urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono*s residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. 1 THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake’s neighboring industrial development. CMP 4-17 V I AND USE JUNE, 1980 T-'iS 6. 7. 8. 9. 'SMC - *n? COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers be requirsd between different land uses. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residentxal uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PU FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono's community Manaqement Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will no^rurax -- - - - -- - - ^ be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open'space, minimum yard setbacks, and maxi.mum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values all urban residents. CMP 4-18 I 1 2 I I I I i I I I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 Tr«w 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIM'.T THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out 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. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land us? for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUASI AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. Jtl I I RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDITIONS. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water uable, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. I THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will be maintained a a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE. Orono*s soil, topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water, surface water or the public health. CMP 4-20 I I 3 I i _ I I I I I 1 I I J I •i 3 ! I ! • ■' m. w'jv AND USg JUNE, 1980 7.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. J 8.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 improvement maintenance, so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. 9.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 marsh lands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. Public open space 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. 10.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 land use • •JUNE, 1980—^’ 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS WILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In additioni the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas# including minimum setbacks# green belts# clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono's rural shoreline as seen from the lake. THE LAND USE PLAN MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY: THE DESIGNATION OF ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The detailed location of the dividing lino (the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluation of each of the elements of this Community Management Plan. Environmental concerns, historic land use patterns, and the availability of sewer, transportation ard other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actuc.1 MUSA line location. Orono’s Urban Service Area identifies those portions of the City that have been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro politan Council's Development Framework Guide. Orono's Rural Service Area identifies those portions of the City that do not have urban services and are not planned to have urban services. Orono's Rural Service Area is intended to permanently accommodate General Rural Land Uses an housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council, and as distinctly different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally described and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14, 1980. This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the broad-brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan Counci Orono's MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and Ian use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono's MUSA line location direc affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City. MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the basis for land use zoning decisions. CMP 4-22 minutes of the ORONO planning COJvIMISSlON meeting HFI .D on may 19,1997 k ^ I----: (#16 - #2239 rim Waters - Contmucd) Gafifron noted the following areas requiring direction: 1) Garden Lane is a ^lic right- of-way so would become a public ro^ 2) the public road would extend to the cul ^sac as it is in a sewered zone; 3) drainage and grading would require the apph^ to work with the City Engineer and Schoell and Madson and conader off-site ponding reqiming permission from the MCWD. Gaflfron said there were no designated wetlands on the pu berty. The lots would use private weUs. The developer would pay to mnsewe^o the lots •' addition to connection chaigcs. Drainage easements would be r^t^ed Parle impacr> require discussioa Gaflfron questioned how access is to be gamed to Hennessey propenv. McMillan suggested a private driveway. Gaflfron mdicated this option ^ be appropriate as it would require going through the open space. A possible swap of land has been suggested as a way to solve the Hennessey lot problem. McMillan asked that the sketch plan be reviewed by the Park Commission. Gaflfron was informed that the Planning Commission had no concerns with the subdivision as proposed. (#17) #2240 JIM WATERS, LG A INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., WILDHDRST trail - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Tim Waters was present. Gaflfron reported that this proposal includes three groups of property, the Van Sloun, two Sollner lots, and Morgart property, totaling of 28 acres. A portion of the property is zoned LR-IB, one acre, and a portion is zoned RR-IB, two acre. The MUSA line follows the zoning boundary. This presents an issue with possibly changing the comprehensive plan to change the two acre to one acre zoning and the need for a MUSA amendment for sewering the two acre properties. The proposal calls for a 17 lot subthvision with acres average per lot served by an extenaon road from Wildhurst Trail. The proposed road would extend north and west, with a driveway serving the back of a few lots. Gaflfron indicated it could be argued that this would result in through lots with two parallel roadways and requiring a conditional use permit for accessory structures. The use of Highwood Lane to Garden Lane and Wildhurst is not a safe access option due to steep slopes. Gaflfron indicated that the lots generally meet the 200 ’ lot width requbement for two aae zoning. At an average of 1-1/2 acre lots, this would place a lirge number of homes m an area vvhere homes have not previously been located. They would also be located near the park land and might possibly change the nature of the park. minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on may 19,1997 (#17 - #2240 Jim Waters - Continued) Another issue is the length of the road system. There would be one way in to the hom« with no additional way out creating a possible puWic safety issue with the cul-d^sac and Wildhurst greatly exceeding the lOOC limit There is a possibUity for a connection to West Branch, though it is not the applicant's intention. If this connection is not permanent, it possibly could be used by emeigcncy vehicles. There are also topography issues to consider. Lindquist questioned why the need for a long driveway with parallel roads. Gaflfron smd it was due to the steepness of the property. Waters indicated that he and residents would not desire front walk-outs. A change would require retaining walls and loss of trees. Aesthetically, this proposal would give the impression of traveling down a country lane as the homes to ’the south would not be viewed until you swing southward. It would also give the impression of two acre zoning according to Waters. Lindquist asked for comments regarding a road to West Bi^ch. Waters referred to drawing C-2. This option shows a development not requiring rezoning. While it proposes the development accessing through Garden Lane or Highview, it does not address the issue of the passive park and low traffic. Waters says drawing C-1 addresses these issues while maintaining the country feel of the property. He noted that Wildhurst access would increase the length of the cul-de-sac by 1800'. Waters said an approach from West Branch would be satisfactory if a lot is not lost. He indicated he would provide an easement. If service vehicles are an issue. Waters said it would probably require a hard road surface. Waters said it could become a service lane only. A gravel road could be used down Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey lot. Lindquist noted the problem with both one acre and two acre zoning. He felt establishing all one acre zoning might not be accepted by the neighbors. Gaffron indicated the re zoning would change the number of lots by only one lot. He indicated the zoning change would be sewer driven, not neighborhood driven. Gaffron said it was his opinion tlut the property is undevelopable with septic systems as there are limited sites. He feels it is logical and reasonable to bring this property into the MUSA and not change the zoning. McMillan said she would consider possibly exchanging lots but did not feel it would be a good poUcy to do as suggested. She inquired what the gain would be. Gaflfron said the gain would be the ability to develop the property. He noted lots 12-17 (Van Sloun and Morgan properties) without sewer are not buildable. If changed to sewered lots, there would be 4-5 lots on the Sollner property, possibly two on the Van Sloane property, 2-3 on the Morgan propeny, with three additional lots to the east. Schroeder noted that this assumes the Met Council will agree with changing the MUSA line. « * minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on may 19,1997 (#17 - #2240 run Waters - Continued) V^aters indicated that drawing C-l was not rdevant but C“2 is rdevant. The issue then becomes sewer. He suggested a communal septic system. Gafifron mfbrmed Waters that he did not bdieve the City would approve that scenario. McMillan said she is concerned with increasing the density. Gafifion agreed that the number of lots have been increased to 21-22 lots. McMillan did not believe the Council would recommend adding the property to the MUSA. Hawn asked the applicant if he would consider clustered housing noting it would create an expanse to the park land and still allow for expensive housing. Waters questioned whether people would purchase this type of housing. He noted it would still require modification to the MUSA. Chris Morgan, noting the history of proposals over the years for the properties, smd the MUSA boundaries currently do not make any sense. He did not believe the added housing would increase the drainage to the ravine. Gaffi-on stated that the key to this application is a change to the NfUS A John Hasselbalch, Realtor, noted problems with a roadway to the park land. He felt it was logical to make the lots one contiguous developmem winding down Wildhurst Trail. The land to the east is steep. Access to the west would require condemnation and there are no plans for access to the north. He noted the Morgart property is cut off fi-om access to the north because of wetlands. McMillan asked if the sewer units arc available. Gafifron said the capacity or number of units is not the issue if the MUSA change is approved. Berg questioned whether there is the potential for the Met Council to approve such a change. Gaffron indicated there was as it is based on merit. Gaffron suggested the property be visited during the Park Tour. Gappa said he would make that arrangement. Schroeder and Smith said they both would like to see clustered housing. The application will be reviewed by the Park Commission on June 2. Stoddard asked for additional information regarding history of the MUSA. The application will again be presented for review on the Planning Commission ’s June 16 agenda. ___Mf MINUreS OF THE ORONO FLAl^G CESSION ■ jC^'L. meeting HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 « ------- SKETCH PLANS (M3) #2340 -Jm WATERS. TRAIL - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Tim Waters was present. connection to West Branch Road. Sketch plan 3 involves the creation of .9 lots tC^”ssrssf rezoning for derisity. and a comprehensive plan amendment. . . « « _____tv^ 9 W Sketch plan 4 involves 2S smaller clustering format with o^ space homes would be closer together. Sewer would ?r;:r;;VaioCSvTpur=^^^^ ^ cor^dor. West Branch Road. waters said he found the clustering oXl« '’'“^sT kc^Io wS Bi^ch S He noted diere would not be room for flenbility clustering as shown m sketch plan 3. Waters said sketch plan 3 preserves open be"crS^ on the south, along the road *'*' Ck®S a^:“reservation of dense wo^ed areas .d slopes would be preserved. He suggested conser\ auon easements be consider d.preservea. ne ----------- Watets said this plan also allows for more 'lo West Branch Road would be preserved. Access to the allow elimination of the problem vdth access to “ p,„ 3 „ould "e^rprehensive plan amending, the layout makes sense. r:.v#cr r:r • • •♦- 19 minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on JUNE 16, 1997 \ ui-t ^'^'>40 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued)>* • # ■ ^(^13- GafflonshowriLbdquist.heb»nKU:y^ofU.e^^^^ • GaffcJD said the property would have to be withm the MUSA for the plan to wont. I Stoddard, and Simth agreed that there were problems with sketch plan 4 as presented. There were no public comments at this time. Waters reported having attempted to contact Irene Silher, a no avail. Lindquist agreed that it is important to receive neighborhood mput. virKfillan M she saw the hieecst obstacle as being whether the Coiinal would r "J—g the co^trehensive plan and applying « ^USA ttm^to^^^ She acknowledged the impacts of development whhout sewenng whtle notmg the highe density required in sewered areas. Lindquist responded that sketch plan 2 that involves two acre zoning would concerns Gaflfron indicated that this plan calls for 16 lots averaging 1.68 acres. Gaflfr said he does not believ e all of the lots could supply septic sites with the steep topography. Schroeder indicated that sketch plan 2 would include seven 2.acre zoning but not septic requirements. He questioned how m^ lots could Gaffron indicated there were about 14 lots that could provide sepUc no mg could not. McMiUan noted that running sewer to the property at this density rai^t not be economical Schroeder indicated that the cost concern would be a problem tor the developer to consider. Gaffron indicated that if no change war made to the roning a^ the propertiea were sewered, sketch plan 2 would work. If sewering is not possible, sketch plan 2 would not work. Schroeder asked Waters what would happen if the Counefl did not recommend a amendment. Waters said he would ask for direction and felt a development along the lines of sketch nlan 7 would work. He noted that the road would probably be as presented m sketch plan 3 and sewering would go up to the MUSA portion with the two acre lots not having connection rights. He would provide septic sites where possible. McMillan questioned whether the sketch plan could be sent to the Council without a direct recommendation. Lindouist suggested determining the opinion of the home owners in the area about sketch plan 3. He tbels it would not make sense to by-pass the two-acre lots from sewenng. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#13 - #2240 Tun Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Waters indicated that the use of sketch plau 2 would not require a PRD. Lindquist and Smith feh sketch plan 3 made most sense. McMillan said she preferred either sketch plan 3 or two acre sepUcs. She did not support mhdng two acTC and one acre zoning. T mrtqiiigt said hc fcH all of the lots should be sewered or not be sewered. Waters said he would need to speak with the City Engineer. He noted that the septic systems would not serve the public. McMillan said she was concerned with removal of trees and creating more traflSc. Schroeder said the perimeter buffering h remine-Scent of Sugar Woods in maintaining the trees. He saw sketch plan 3 as having similarities to the Sugar Woods development plan. He would prefer less lots but understands the economical ramifications. Schroeder said hc would prefer 16 sewered lots versus following the MUSA boundary. Stoddard indicated that this would follow the concept presented in sketch plan 1 wiA MUSA and 17 lots. Schroeder agreed but said he would prefer to see more clusteri^ and open spaces as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters acknowledged that more is accomplished under sketch plan 3. Stoddard inquired whether there would he demand for homes shown in sketch plan 3 versus sketch plan 1. Waters said he feels that plan would work and cither plan would sell. He felt the difference came to tree preservation and sewer in the street that would not be used in the immediate tuture. McMillan noted that three lots in sketch plan 3 were less than 40,000 s.f and asked the reasoning behind it. Waters said the lots could be enlarged by diminishing the outlot, but he was trying to create more common areas with walking paths and eliminate creating one riparian lot. He does not wish to see a boat dock but possibly a fishing dock only. Schroeder indicated that a homeowners association might request such a dock for boats. Gafifron said the Shoreland Ordinance would prevem that from occurring. Schroeder asked if Waters was considering walking trails. Waters said he would not want hard surface trails. 21 -r « t nr minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 #2240 Tun Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) ...... Smith questioi^ what "undisturbed areas" were and how they would be controlled. Waters said this could be done through conservation easement, association regulations. ’ of restriction desired. Smith said she would not >^t to see baU fields or uses that would deviate from the open space concept. Lindquist said the controls could make that determination. Smith said other applications where such int^ons were made resulted in other uses. She requested controls be placed that would maintain the open space. Lindqui.«st received confirmation from Waters that he would meet with the Council and the homeowners in the ar^. G^on asked for clearer direction regarding MUSA, zoning, clustering, noting the Park Couimission’s review indicated requesting park fee or land would depend on the plan. Lindquist said he preferred all of the property be within the MUSA under a PRD. McMillan questioned whether accessory structures should be allowed. Schroeder indicatred that two acre zoning with sewering could accommodate accessory structures. If a PRD was used, the City could insist on covenants. Gafiron said the developer could be asked to restrict the use in the PRD. Schroeder said he preferred the p.ropertv- all be within the MUSA, use of clustering concept at a density level less than 19 lots (preferring 14 or 15 maximum), trails tied in to the surrounding area, noting sketch plan 3 as the preferred plan. Smith .said .she agreed with the comment.s made bv Schroeder and Lindoui.st As a second choice. Smith said she would recommend all lots be 2-acre zoning with both MUSA and non-MUSA. She would like to see controls placed on the open spaces, undisturbed areas, outlot, and stormwater pond. Schroeder questioned whether the 1 acre lots could be required to be changed to 2 acres. Gafiron said such a "downzoning" might create potential problems, getting into the issue of a "takinii". Stoddard said he preferred all lots be within MUSA, with sketch plan 3 preferred with one acre minimum lot size. He supponed sketch plan 1 if all were within the MUSA at general 1.5 acre lots sizes. Stoddard said he appreciates the clustering concept. Gaffron noted that the Council will review the sketch plan at their uocoming meeting. .. I 22 mbwtes of the regular orono city council meeting HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#6 - #2233 Walter Holzer - Cootimicd) Flint said due to the peculiarity of the principal structure height resulting'in the need for a height variance, he would support the proposal Goetten indicated that this could be said of any variance’ application. Flint responded that the appUcant could increase the size of the home and, thereby, not need the variance for the accessory structure. Jabbour agreed that a 3-step process could be taken to result in the same as what is proposed. Holzer noted that the cost would be a factor in that process. Jabbour said he did not feel the of the ordinance is to prohibit an application of this type. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3916 granting a height '/ariance to allow the accessory structure to increase the maximum height to 30’ where 11'6" is required based on the existing residence. Vote: Ayes 2, Nays 1, Goetten. (#7) #2240 JIM WATERS INVESTMENT GROUP, XXXX WILDHURST TRAIL - SKETCH PLAN FOR SAGA HILL Jim Waters presented a handout to Council containing the background information and benefits of his proposed development. Gafifron noted that the sketch plan review is normally performed only at the Planning Commission level but due to the urJqueness of the application including a proposed rezoning, the sketch plan was brought to the Council for direction before formal subdivision application. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for property north of the newly acquired Saga Hill park property. Two subdivisions are being proposed, one of which is to the south of the park property. The southerly subdivision includes the Sollner and Soskin properties. The Planning Commission expressed their support of the proposal with a road and cul- de-sac as presented in the sketch plan review in May. The northerly subdivision, which is being presented tonight for sketch plan review, includes the Van Sloun property, the Morgan property, and two lots owned by Sollner. The Van Sloun property is in the two-acre zoning outside the MUSA boundary. TTie western portion of the Morgart property is outside the MUSA in the two-acre zoning ■while the eastern portion is in the one-acre LR-IB zoning district and is in the MUSA. The Sollner property is also in the one-acre zone and inside the MUSA boundary. The proposed subdivision would require rezoning and sewering of the properties as noted. MINIJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COIINCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,19^7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Contimied) Ga^n indicated that the Planning Commisston reviewed four concept plans. After review of the first two plans in May, the Commission suggested the developer take a clustering approach to housing, which subsequently resulted in two additional concept plans. The Planning Commission generally supported sketch plan 3 with 17 lots averaging one acre in size, which would rerpiire rezoning of the two-acre zone properties The topography of the two-acre zoning properties is not capable of supporting septic systems, and Gafhon indicated Staff feels the property should be sewered in order to be developed- The plan provides for open spaces and undisturbed areas as well as an extension of Wndhurst Trail and potential future connection to West Branch Road. The proposed plan would result in the need for change in the MUSA Soundary, rezoning. and amendment of the comprehensive plan. Sewer would probably have to come from " Wildhurst Trail. The applicant would ask for sewer only if the property would be considered for rezoning. Jabbour ideated that the applicant would be in a better position if he would make the presentation to the full Council as a 4/5th majority vote is required for rezoning. Jabbour said he did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to divert from the Chys MUSA policy. Jabbour said he does not favor changing the MUSA boundary, rezoning, or making a precedent by allowing these changes in order to make full use of a property. Jabbour indicated that his opinion is not necessarily in reference to this application but as a general rule of thumb. He said the City would receive many requests for rezoning and sewering if such a precedent was set. He cited an example of property' annexed to another city in order to accomplish desires of an applicam Jabbour said the City should adhere to the present policy. Jabbour indicated that the Council is planning a work session to discuss the future including sewering but the critical mass needs to be considered. He noted that a development by Lundgren Bros, was denied for higher density housing within the sewered area. Gaflfron noted that he had informed Waters of this occurrence when this subdivision was initially proposed. Jabbour said he is concerned that the Planning Commission would consider such policy changes when the other proposed subdivision was denied on a property that did not include steep topography. Goetten informed the applicant that the Council has spent a number of years re\iewing the issue of sewering noting the selection of ten hot spots which have received Met Council approval. She indicated that concessions are sometimes required by \Iet Council of the City when such applications are made and does not want to make any further applications for sewering boundary changes at this time. Goetten said the fbcus is on proceeding with the selected hot spots first. Goetten also noted that the number of lots for this proposal is excessive for the location. She does not recommend lots under two acres with the topography. Goetten said she is unaware of the opinions of the absent Council members. BaNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCH MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 a# (#7 - #2240 run Waters Sketch Plan - Contimied) FImt voiced another concciu He said he has difficulty viewing this application as a PRD without the Sollner and Soskin properties. He would Bee the entire area looked at as a* whole. Gaffion responded that the proposal did consider the whole area for the PRD. Flint questioned what control there would be on the Sollner and Soskin properties and what impacts would be felt on the entire area by the subdivision. Jabbour asked Gaffiron if Staff agreed or disagreed with Flint. Gaffion said he agreed that the Park and Planning Commissions need to review the whole area comprehensively. He indicated that the Park Commission has not seen the most recent plan. They saw the plan for the Sollner property and the first draft of the northern area. Gaffion said the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the southern property but did not find it necessary to pass the sketch plan for that area on to the Council. Gaffion said the Planning Commission felt the properties required sewering and a PRD to achieve the open space amemties. Gaffion said the applicant could provide reasoning for the plans and Staff sees the proposal as viable. Jabbour asked Gaffion if Staff is satisfied with the southern plan in terms of number of units and density. Gaffion indicated that the subdivisions could be considered together or separately, and that the southerly plan would meet density requirements. He noted there are issues regarding density with the northern plan. Jabbour if there is a mechanism by wluch to deal with the subdivision as a PRD. Gaffion said there was as long as the property is sewered and Council found adequate reasons. Jabbour asked if the PRD could occur without sewering. Gaffion said no. Goetten asked about the status of the property being considered for a park. Waters said he has an option on the two Sollner lots. Waters said he understands that the full Council is not here and understands the reservations regarding the concepts. He asked to be able to discuss briefly why the particular approach has been taken. Waters noted when the City acquired the Saga Hill park property, ail of the land that was within the MUSA was considered prime property for development with the platted right- of-way access to the site. With the creation of the park. Waters said the City desired to gain access to the park and limit access through the park. He said that in effect landlocks the two parcels within the MUSA, the Sollner lots, both zoned one acre and eligible for sewering. Waters said some benefit could be achieved by providing access to the park via Garden Lane to the Sollner property without making the park become a through .street. Waters reviewed the sketch plans presented. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 _ • - • • (#7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) / Waters indicated that sketch plan 4 would require clearing of land which was adverse to the desire of preserving open space and trees. Sketch plan 3 preserves the topography according to Waters whh large lots averaging nearly one acre in size, with tbe dexibility in spacing of the homes on the lots. This plan wouU allow for undisturbed zones and buffering for the park. Waters feels this plan would provide a high quality development with minimum impact. Waters does not feel that sewering is an issue in the right location. He feels the plan addresses the public health issue noting mound septic systems are damaging to wooded areas due to space needs. Waters said the plan would provide for 19 lots and a right-of- way easemoit to West Branch Road eliminating the need for the long cul-de-sac on Wildhufst Trail. Waters said the property could be developed regardless of the issue of rezoning noting the one acre parcels are within the MUSA for sewering and the two acre parcels could remain as such. He felt a better development than this could be gained. He indicated that a change to the MUSA boundary would be modest and be an administrative change. He believes the boundary is atypical at best, and a change would be sunilar to other modifications to the boundary made in the past and in keeping with the current neighborhood. Jabbour noted the applicant’s sensitivity to the issue of preserving the park area but felt there were more substantial issues with the application. He indicated that the park land did not have to be bisected but could be. He said the main issue is with the sewering of other properties within the City. Jabbour noted that other property owners are also requesting sewer with similar reasons wby their properties should be sewered. Jabbour said he would "ot favor changing City policy to accommodate one applicant. It would be a major change in how the City operates if the policy was driven by one application. He cited the e.xample of the length of time and discussions regarding sewering of the ice arena which was supported by all agencies. Jabbour indicated it is an honorable goal to change the MUSA in order to eliminate bisecting the park land but not if it involves changing City policy. Jabbour asked for Staffs recommendation. Gaflfrcn indicated that the City's polic>' is long standing. He noted that rezoning is rarely considered. Gaffron said he believes in order to develop the property, it would require sewering or no development should occur. He noted that other similar requests could occur from properties abutting the hot spots for sewering. He did note the uniqueness of the property and design of the MUSA boundary at this location. Goetten asked how the MUSA boundary was originally detennined. GafBron said it followed the 1975 rezoning. r f’V*- S MINiriXS OF THE KIXnJLAR ORONO CTTY COUNm MirinTNC HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 FBnl s»aid he does not understand how the plan would solve the problem Staff expressed nsardii« a connecdon to West Branch Road. Flint said there would still be no accew. Gaflfron said a future potential expansion would be present. As proposed, there would now be a 7/8th mile bng roadway from Wildhiust requiring a secondary ouUet. FImt said the road would be near CoRd 19 and West Branch Road. He could not approve a p^ increasing the amount of additional traffic to Wildhurst and the cul-de-sac that would be caused by the development and chan^g the overall look of the area. Flin^uesUoned how a PRD could be approved without this problem of access solved. Gaffion mdicat^ that a possible consideration could be access to Kghview. The appUcant is providing for future potential access expansion. Gaffion said he previously posed many ot these same questions to the applicant. Flint noting the configuration of the properties questioned the division of the \ an Sloun property with access through existing West Branch Road. Gaffion said that access was intended to serve only one house on that property due to the number of other homes located off of this potential private road. Flint also noted the DNR grant application made on the SoUner property. Jabbour indicated that this was a moot pomt. Flint indicated the Morgart property could be accessed from Wildhurst Trail. These examples according to Flint show that there are other options for development. Gaffion said many discussions regarding access to these properties have been held over the past year. He noted the high cost of providing access to tlie Soliner property trom the north. Flint said this option would provide access without overriding the City ordinance and eliminate impacts on the neighborhood. Watets noted that another alternative would be to develop Garden Lane. Jabbour informed Waters that it would be the responsibility of the developer to make the improvements to the roadway and maintain the road as a private road. Gaffion noted that the SoUner property is in one acre zoning and the responsibility of the developer to provide road development. He said Waters expects to subdivide the SoUner property. Jabbour indicated that even if the Council would decide to change the sewer poli^, t ey would request maintaining the two-acre density. Waters asked if a proposal with sewering of two-acre parcels is viable. Jabbour said he was not suggesting that. minutes of the regular orono ctty council MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 {W7 - #2240 Tim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) ----- Gafifron said sketch plan 2 presents a scenario with the two-acre zoning Morgart and Van Sloim properties. He said there is a problem with septic, however, in that there is no location for septic sites due to steep slopes on some lots. While noting the review is an informal discussion only, Jabbour acknowledged the interested parties in the audience and asked for public comment. Jim Stephenson, who resides on West Branch Road, said the property should not be developed into 19 homes considering the density and grade of the area. Sandy Rasmussen said she appreciated ihe Council's comments. She asked the Council to rebate their vision for the Ciiy, suspecting accountability and nealth of the community were factors. While noting the plan’s effect on the economic health of the community, Rasmussen felt there were other issues that bmd the community together citing protection of the environment and open space. She noted that Forest Bay and Saga Hill are big and are examples of what the City is all about as well as examples of its vision. She indicated the community can be brought together not only by these issues but by threats to sensitive environmental areas and pollution to endangered lalces. Rasmussen said a variance to the MUSA boundary would have a high impact on the community. She indicated the City was not only fortunate to acquire the park but recognized the large grass roots effort by the community in that acquisition. She said she hoped the developer understood this. She said she would be interested in hearing what the vision and mission is of the City. Jabbour said the vision and mission of the City is summarized in the Comprehensive Plan and invited her and others to read it. He noted that page me recognizes the need to preserve tlie natural resources. He noted that the rights of individuals must also be upheld by the majority. Jabbour said the developer should be allowed to develop the property within the current ordinances. He indicated that the City does not normally grant variances to subdivisions. John Hasselbalch, the listing real estate agent for the property, said the environmental concerns are addressed by sketch plan 3. He indicated the current plan would bisect the park. Hasselbach said development of the area adjacent to the park will resuk in trees being removed if septic was allowed. This plan, Hasselbach said, eliminates the need to bisect the 6-7 acres of wooded open space and eliminates tree removal. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEE'l'lNG H»■'« ■«> UN JUNE 23,1997 (#7 - #2240 Tim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Kathrvn Kasprick commented on developing the area to gain access to the pane She said she understood Jabbour's comments regarding development but noted the economic costs to the City of the development aside from sewering, citing maintenance and fire protection. With the rationale of determining how the property is to be developed, Kasprick questions the economical feasibility. She asked that the CouncU continue to show sensitivity to the issues. Jim Waters thanked the Council and indicated he would take their comments under consideration. (The meeting was recessed from 8;24 to 8;i3 p.m.) (*#8) #2242 WAYNE A. JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVIEW AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3917 Goetten moved. Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3917 that grants a front yard variance of 15.94'. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#9) #2243 JOHN D. BLACK, 4030 DAHL ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3918 Van Zorneren reported that the application is for replacement of an existing deck with the addition of a 12*xi8’ room with a screened porch underneath. The proposal requires variances to average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and Imrdcover. The Planning Com-mission supported the lakeshore and average lakeshore variances but requested the hardcover be capped at 3.9% or 555.5 s.f. as existing in the 0-75' setback. The applicant is in agreement with mamtammg this level of hardcover. Van Zorneren noted that the resolution contains a typographical error and will be corrected. The error relates to the 12‘xl8' room size. Goetten asked to review the plat and clarify the locations of the additional structure. Van Zorneren reviewed the survey and indicated that the topo^aphy makes the lot look like the structure is further back from the lakeshore than what it is. Goetten reiterated that the Planning Commission recommendation includes that no addiiionai hardcover is allowed in the 0-75* from what exists. . • Blank noted that the improvements could not be viewed from the neighboring properties. Black indicated he is satisfied with the resolution as presented. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3918 with no increase in hardcover in the Q-75* setback. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays t). 3 To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date:September 11, 1997 Subject:#2294 LG A Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision & Street Vacation - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. Sewered Minimum Lot Area Required: 1.00 acre Minimum Lot Width Required: 140’ Summary of Request Applicants propose a 7 lot subdivision of 8.89 acres primarily located between Wildhurst Trail and undeveloped Garden Lane, also including a parcel west of Garden Lane. This property has been informally known as the ’Sos.,in Property' and also includes the Sollner Lot 90. The application involves the construction of new public roads, vacation of a portion of Garden Lane, and creation of new building sites as well as stormwater facilities and municipal sewer. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Plan Sheets 1-4 Submitted August 29, 1997 Initial Grading Plan Submitted To Meet August 22, 1997 Deadline City Engineer ’s Comments Planning Commission Minutes of May 19, 1997 Staff Memo and Selected Exhibits of May 16, 1997 I. Right-of-Way Vacation Applicant proposes vacation of a 60’ x 325’ segment of undeveloped Garden Lane, replacing it with a 50’ x 400 ’ segment of new public road offset approximately 100’ to the east. Th vacation will allow for two building sites on the west side of the road. (See Exhibit D) Garden Lane was dedicated as right-of-way in the plat of Tonkaview Gardens in 1921. While an old farm road exists within the right-of-way, the City has not opened nor maintained the road. The City has no existing utilities in the portion of Garden Lane to be vacated. Staff has requested confirmation from utility companies as to their current use of the right-of-way and/or the need for easements. No responses have been received as of this writing. #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst TrailGarden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 2 'Fhe proposed rededication of roadway is intended to serve the plat as well as maintain access to the City park lands. It does not appear to limit access to the park or to the Hennesey property to the north, which would likely need to construct a driveway within Garden Lane if that lot is to be developed for residential purposes in the future. The proposed vacation appears appropriate subject to the provision ot a parallel roadway that does not limit future access to the north and west. Th^ proposed road, as long as it meets required design parameters (See City Engineer's comments. Exhibit F). appears to accomplish that. However, staff has a number of concerns regarding the proposed cul-de-sac location, as well as the location of the proposed stormwater pond, which may result in changes to the proposed road and therefore the extent of the vacation. See further discussion on this in the subdivision review notes below. II. Subdivision Review Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan for this property in .May 1997, and applicant has made a number of revisions based on Planning Commission comments. The current proposal includes 7 lots averaging just over 1 acre in area. Each lot appears to meet the City's minimum 140' lot width requirement. Lots 1 and 4, Block 2, each contain drainage easements in excess of those perimeter easements normally granted. Applicant must confirm that those two lots contain at least 1.00 acre in addition to the expanded drainage and utilitv easements. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 are cul-de-sac lots with natural walkouts to the rear. Lots 1 and 5, Block 2 are proposed as walkout lots to the side and rear respectively, although on Lot 5 the walkout status is created by tilling in the front yard. Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2 are proposed as "lookout" lots, both being on essentially flat ground. However, Lot 1, Block I is proposed as a walkout lot on property that is essentially flat, and proposes as much as 4-6' of fill to the front in order to establish that walkout. Stormwater Facilities All lots will be served with new public roads to be constructed by the developer. A significant portion of the new road will have curb and gutter and a storm sewer system that directs virtually all of the road runoff to a stormwater basin to the norh, proposed to be located at the upper end of the major ravine that drains eastward to Forest Lake. Also, a significant portion of the watershed draining through the ravine along the south side ot Lot 4, Block 2, will be redirected to the north. This will help in alleviating runoff problems experienced by the property owner to the southeast, and will help protect the integrity of Wildhurst Trail. 1 #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail'Garden Lane - Preliminar> Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 3 The proposed stormwater facilities will provide a general benefit to the neighborhood by reducing the rates of flow which impact downhill properties via thr two major ravines. However, staff has great reservations regarding placement of the stormwater pond within the upper reaches of the ravine. Although the Cit> Engineer's comments during the sketch plan review may have suggested some runoff rate control facilities at the head of the ra\ ine, staff did not e.xpect that the southerly leg of the ravine would be turned into a stormwater pond. The unique natural features of this ravine within a mature maple/basswood'oak woods make it a much more fragile environment than the similar v oods west of Garden Lane where the stormwater pond was initially proposed (See Exhibit E). It appears to staff that the pond was relocated specifically in response to City policies and Code requirements which generally do not allow lot area credit for areas within drainage easements (Section 11.41, Subd. B(4)). The area of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 would have been only 1/2 acre under the initial plan. Lot Standards Each of the proposed lots is subject to the normal 35' front and side street, 30' rear, and 10' side setback requirements of the LR-IB district. Subject to certain lots being shown to meet lot area standards, each lot appears to have suitable area for construction of a single family residence meeting setback requirements. Note that Lots 2, 3. 4 and 5, Block 2 and the rear 1/4 of Lot 2, Block 1, are all in the shoreland, mainly in the 500-1,000' setback zone. Portions of those lots in the 500-1.000' zone will be limited to 35% hardcover. The easterly 1/3 of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 would be limited to 30% hardcover. It is anticipated that there will be no need for any hardcover variances to build on these lots. The northerly ravine area within the property boundaries is not in the designated Shoreland district. City Engineer's Comments The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat proposal and made a number of comments regarding utilities, streets, grading, drainage and easements, and has estimated the cost of road, sewer, storm sewer, and stormwater pond construction for purposes of a financial guarantee to be posted as part of the developer's agreement. To summarize the Engineer's comments; 1.Sanitary sewer will be extended by the developer to the site from Wildhurst Trail. Final plans will need to show surface locations and elevations. Due to the steep bank, it may be necessaiy to put sewer down the center of Wildhurst rather than on the shoulder. 2.Applicant must confirm that the streets meet the design, speed and radius standards and a typical section included on plans. The City should determine #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 4 whether the northerly cul-de-sac is appropriately located. The proposed island in the easterly cul-de-sac will require additional width, right-ot-way and pavement unless the island is omitted. 3. Erosion controls must be in place before any site grading, and additional erosion measures will be needed along the steep slope between Lots 3 and 4 where sewer construction will take place. 4. Applicant must provide confirmation and calculations showing that rates are controlled so that post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows. This plan requires MCWD approval and should also be submitted to the DNR. 5. Easements should be provided for any existing utilities in the area to be vacated. General Issues for Consideration and Discussion 1.The initial plan submitted by the application deadline included a stormwater pond in the north half of Lot 1, with an easement protecting the length of the ravine in Lot 1, Block 2. Because the stormwater pond requires an easement that cannot be attributed towards buildable lot area, a revised plan was submitted on August 29 that proposes a stormwater pond within the south leg of the ravine. The obvious intent of this change is to allow two conforming building sites west of the new Garden Lane. From staffs perspective, it would be inappropriate to construct the stormwater pond within the upper reaches of the ravine as proposed in the current plan for the following reasons: 2. a. b. c. d. Results in the removal of numerous mature trees. Results in a total change in the character of the ravine area. Has a negative visual impact from the adjacent park land. Forces the location of a single family residence within 10-20' of a neighborhood stormwater pond, on a lot that is intended as a walkout towards that pond. It appears to staff that this is not an environmentally friendly design, although from an engineering standpoint it may function to serve its intended purpose. The proposed temporary cul-de-sac extending into the DNR interest park propert>' is problematic in that while the City likely has a right to put in a driveway access, it does not have the right to place a cul-de-sac within that property. It is staffs opinion that the cul-de-sac should be moved further east to not encroach the park property, and perhaps should be pulled back to the southeast side of the ravine drainageway, where #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 5 it will still abut both Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2. ITie replacement right-of-way for Garden Lane should still be dedicated to make the full connection as shown, subject to meeting road design standards. 3. The Park Commission has not yet re\ iewed the proposed plat to determine whether land or a park fee \vill be required. Eight percent of the 8.89 acre area ot the plat would be approximately 0.7 acres, which could encompass most ot the ravine in Lot 1, Block 2. This would potentially leave Lot 1. Block 2 short of acreage of approximately 0.1 acre which mich be picked up by moving the easterly cul-de-sac further south. However, relocating the stormwater pond into Lot 1, Block 1 effectively eliminates one lot, making this a 6 lot plat. It is staffs impression that it may not be possible to get 7 lots out of the property and still accommodate a stormwater pond on the site as well as maintain the integrity of the ravine in its natural state. Note that the property exclusive of proposed right-of-ways (after the vacation) has 7.92 acres in which to accommodate the .5 acre necessary for stormwater pond, the potential .7 acre needed to protect the ravine via easements or dedication as park, and 7.0 acres for 7 lots. The numbers don't quite add up. The site appears to be 1/4 acre short. The applicant has attempted to rectify this by placing the stormwater ponding in the ravine. In staffs opinion, this is not a good plan. 4. Does Planning Commission have any additional concerns regarding this plat proposal? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Subject to Park Commission and Council approval, the City should protect the ravine by having it dedicated as park. Subject to review by the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a stormwater pond should be established per the initially submitted plan within Lot 1, Block 1. This will likely eliminate one lot from the plat, and may result in a revised proposal for vacation/rededication of Garden Lane. The temporary cul-de-sac should be platted as a permanent cul-de-sac and relocated to the southeast of the drainagevvay at the head of the ravine. Applicant should provide the infomiation requested in the City Engineer’s review of the preliminary plan. #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 6 5. Applicant should provide a new site plan that accommodates these revisions, and confirming that each lot contains one acre area exclusive of drainage easements necessary' for the stormwater pond and ravine areas. 6. Planning Commission should address any comments by the public and any concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the proposal. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per applicant’s proposal. 2. Table for revisions per staff recommendation. 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. dt O , v. , ** Q-;/ ; CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISTON APFWATION ^ •'I Application # ^ Date Received ^ 7 Amount Paid A PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddrcss _______nil Wildhurst Trail Property Identification Number (PID) See Attached Please check one - Property abstract or torrens?8 Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT 3 im 'Waters, Vice President Name LGA Investrnent Group. Inc. >« CL Address 10 700 Old County Road 15, //150 Phone (home) ^38 City P1 vmo u t h . MN Zip55441 Phone (work) 59 5-951 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Arnold M. and Renee Sosk 1 n Address 600 South Hwv 169 Phone (home) City Plymouth, t\lN Zip 5542^hone (work) (attach list if more than one) See Attached EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.\ Parcels Development Size 8.5 + Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ LR-IB PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ______^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units 7 New Units 7 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size ^ Units per _Acres 43,560 Sq. Ft. Dry BuildableLand Proposed Use (check) Single Fami ly Residential _________Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMLNARY 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). ^ - 37 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official’s Signature _________________________________ Date______________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature________________________________________Date_____________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Totals Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) ><*7 LOTS __ 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 11 Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: t/' Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _ lin. ft. x .50 ■= $_____ Proposed Public Roads^S9D0^+ $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. x .50 =• $ iaOO Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 iig^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 PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit Va^iaiu^ $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) :i '300. to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney,The applicant hereby agrees Planning Commission anc^Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. "■ " •'____ Applicant's Signature Owner’s SienatuHa— Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Conunission 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. f ^ 297r. n ' 41 O ft f r • ' ;i iL;s^ >jj«1 Applicatioii M2 Area Zoninc MUSA Pin l.anJ Owner 7 Acres LR-IB 1 Ac. min.Yes 0711723230025 Arnold & Renee Soskin 1.5+ Acres LR-IB I Ac. min. Yes 0711723230019 Barbara SolIner-Webb J yM i-?^’*'’ «* » ; ;:>'V;?::->' \ \yil-^ ■ /by.■ 'of^ jv I V /R*;xJ / /xA , f 2? 4—N H Qs>j:^o>cn 4kV. -OlV*IM \i9 i*sWi... jfij.occ ..j?a__JSSL ^7- 117-23-23 [:::;-;-x-:-x-:-?(^- t‘X%’!v'.'*'t-. k»» •••••••-••fx::;:-::-;:i:;ii:;:; • • mmm • •••••••» « • • • .i' ;;X;Xv!vX;|^.;i;Xx'vI yyyyy ’ yy. . ‘. y-yyy.y] >:>>:;>;-Xv::x‘:*x-::^••••••••«•« • *'• •*•*• • •*• •••■•••] ** *“ #••«••••*-•••« «•#*••#••• •• *•••••••••■ *• ’•• •••••••« .•]• •«••••••• ol-l(7-Zi'2H ■ ^ s,tyMy 2 _ J_ _i?i... *1 2 C) *■»>. V.*'.0 >• * •. ' V 4\V \V.* \ - ’X*,.. V* j * LI ds g IX) Vv’ . , ifl/K-'-'-s:-! v;.wV^C,i;^ :i ft “ • • “ • •.J' • • y^'yC' ^9 '-'X I'lfc'- ■ \ 4-'I I '■(• *SJ 07- 117 -23 -31 i RUM DATE 09/02/97 BATCH 504 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAT^AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AHDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST SB 07-117-23 23 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STEVEN F VALEK STEVEN VALEK BOX 3B6 SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 07-117-23 23 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB BARBARA SOLLNER-NEBB 17200 MELBOURNE OR UUREL MO 20707 38 07-117-23 23 0022 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 23 0028 00038 ADDRESS PENDING STEVEN VALEK A JOAN VALEK STEVEN VALEK A JOAN VALEK 4720 TONKA VIEH LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0023 04475 FOREST LAKE LANDING RAY D HURLEY RAY DONALD HURLEY 4475 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HAROLD 6 CANT RALPH NINTON PALMER 4750 TONKAVIEN LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO ORONO 66 CITY OF CITY OF P 0 BOX CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 23 0025 01181 HILDHURST TR ARNOLD M SOSKIN ARNOLD M SOSKIN 802 EDGEMOOR DR HOPKINS MN 55305 38 07-117-23 23 0029 00038 ADDRESS PENDING HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HEM^PIN FORFEITED LAND CONVEYANCE PENDING CITY RSLN t3511-ALSO: HENN CONSERVATION EASEMENT 38 07-117-23 24 0024 04475 FOREST LAKE LANDING RAY D HURLEY RAY 0 HURLEY 4475 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 10 38 07-117-23 23 0012 04750 TONKAVIEN LA HAROLD 6 CANT RALPH HINTON PALMER 4750 TONKAVIEN M0U8) MN 55364 38 07-. 17-23 23 0021 00038 CITY OF CITY OF P 0 BOX ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO ORONO 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 23 0026 04720 TONKAVIEN LA STEVEN F VALEK STEVEN F VALEK BOX 386 SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 07-117-23 24 0007 01186 HILDHURST TR B D RASMUSSEN/S J RASMUSSEN BRIAN D t SANORA J RASMUSSEN 1186 HILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0027 01146 HILDHURST TR LYLE E PAHN ETAL LYLE E RAHN 1146 HILDHURST TRAIL MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR 38 07-117-23 24 0029 01085 HILDHURST TR 38 07-117-23 24 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 07-117-23 24 0035 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ONNER NAME H A SCHULTZ ETAL CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO TAXPAYER HARVEY A SCHULTZ CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO NAME/AODR 1085 HILDHURST TR P 0 BOX 66 P 0 BOX 66 MOUND MN 55364 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 \ 1 0 *RUN DATE 09/02/97BATCH SOAPROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONhSR NA»C TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OIHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADt;R HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTSB 07-117-2S 24 0036 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSIGNEO RAO HENNESSY RICHARD L HENNESSY 7520 BLOOMINGTON AVE C RICHFIELD MN 55423 38 07-117-23 24 0043 01131 HILDHURST TR J A C CULLITON JOHN H A CINOY L CULLITON 1131 HILDHURST TR HOUR) MN 55364 3B 07-117-23 31 0026 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ROBERT L BIRKELANO ETAL ROBERT L BIRKELANO 1298 HILDHURST TRAIL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0038 01261 HILDHURST TR SCOTT MICHAEL HENNESSY SCOTT M HENNESSY 1261 HILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0004 04735 TONKAVIEH LA STUART V HHITHAN STUART V HHITMAN 4735 TONKAVIEH LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED DENNIS A MEYER DENNIS A MEYER 4680 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 003704455 FOREST LAKE LANDING S H A H J ERIKSON SANFORD A MARGARET ERIKSON 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0044 01134 HILDHURST TR A T A E DARROH ANOREH T DARROH 1134 HILDHURST TR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0036 01214 HILDHURST TR GARY H WELSH ETAL GARY H HELSH 1214 HILDHURST TRL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0040 01297 HILDHURST TR TODD S SIEGHART TODD SIEGHART 1297 HILDHURST TR mound MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0027 04635 TONKAVIEH LA A M NASSET A N L NA3SET ALISON NASSET/NANCY NASSET 4635 TOMCAVIEH LA M0U4D MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0043 04640 TONKAVIEH LA KENNETH J HICKEY KENNETH J HICKEY 4o40 TOFKAVIEH LA MOUNO 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1138 07-117-23 24 003804465 FOREST LAKE LAMHN^ JON D BLACKSTONE ET AL JON D BUCKSTONE 4465 FOREST LAKE LANOINC MOUNO m 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0015 01270 HILDHURST TR JAR STASIK JAMES STASIK 1270 HILDHURST TRAIL HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0037 01200 HILDHURST TR DAVID J KRUSKOPF A HIFE DAVID J KRUSKOPF 1200 HILDHURST TRL MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0003 04725 TONKAVIEH LA EAT CHRISTIANSON EARL A TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4641 TONKA VIEH LANE MOUNO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0028 04655 TONKA/IEH LA DENNIS A MEYER DENNIS A MEYER 4680 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0045 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J Q DOLEZAL A J A ROSTAD J D DOLEZAL A J A RCSTAD 4650 TONKA VIEW LA HOUND MN 55364 RUN 0AT6 09/02/97 HErMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SS401 PAGE 12BATCH S09 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 07-117-23 32 0046 04650 TONKAVIEH LA J 0 OOLEZAL A J A ROSTAD J 0 OOLtZAL A J A ROSTAD 4650 TONKA VIEH LA HOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0047 04690 TONKAVIEH LA NAS BULL HILLIAH A BULL 4690 TONKAVIEH LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 005704755 TONKAVIEH LA R L BRONN A K M JENAL ROBERT BROHN/KATHERINE JENAL 4755 TOMIAVIEH LA HOUND MN 55364 PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 07-117-23 32 0063 00038 ADDRESS UNASSlGtCO TOOD R COURNEYA TODD R COURNEYA 4620 TONKAVIEH LA ORONO MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 504 00040 CQ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRO^TY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. O • DATE X mC '*>4 .0 . / C m 3}o<n o oo 3Do *0 P“ >z ti* <4ii IIa i If / / / 1 §a ’oa 1 1 |0 °I.J 1 pi s T 1 o 11o1 1 I ‘^r %. Ill !P ^ 1111 II1 1111 1 111 HIddilddaa.aas'-Q !;6 / d d d a 1 S H ««« HI »A *li!r > • / Wi / \ ? -‘J ; ♦ / ■ / ^ ^ \ O \ ' V ' Ko \i \ ^ » >'• ^ T\ U (j 9a j-^ ’'ct JU tj "A J-^ '. 4-? A 1 7 • 1 . N:,. o m # A ........V >x ,*' I I-------- — v„, .050-rJ:^ 'Insouvo /'^.-|:;J„\ '•}/! '/////r \ \ ''! I '' • ■ / y/ '- ...V ip J////} x\ mM0 '^.HJ ^/ j. y/ // V \ \ \\ V.\ A(V\''|.\ -4 V-\— ^ ■A wy+j^-^ ^ V JOOQiJuujjarjn idu^ y//^- / % \ \\ \ \ I 4 :vv 7' *'l ♦. 'i. \V * ' s m s 1 ' Hia a 2 I I / C t/) s: “D VQ O mo •H zo o> fO vjcnu Io S’ - ? to s» u If ( 5 «! \ \ / / V. r I 5 V ili I i ^ s V. ’3 « >- ocm 5 o > z <m (/) m z (/) T) O mo •H Zo C3) N) vjcn z zm o § o Oz 7^ > Zzm (j)O %J ti X • • 'At o 1^10 f *s I garden: g Nor27ocr« 5 Q1 117 « ,r.:Hi U A K I.; ri No» _ lai 'A 8^=5 G A R D:E N -M ^ Nocrijocrt \ 361 69sooruocfw /v>./ / // //A; (/) X m m ^00 ^5?tJ> * !•1 r; o • o n r_Ui%% r» • • <3 ^aa?.<j® 11 O-iO ui- • ■fl ” 2o • *'in?s a ^ • slv “i 3a*:'* j 3 -: e ?3S..2 5s;|3,!.l* > 1^1 ? jp • • n g i J2 ,|8 S .S I • 5 i i ?. ♦ » J Q 1C *J • • 3 .• » I/I !» o•n S* X'X’K* ? rVr? ^ a ;* 5 ® ?'i?r (/) X m m ^4? ««» U '-{S i.. ?SS 9.- *’"8-5 S? J*i ^ * 8 wi*;*:Mia - 2 2 U IB i i5- •4? i-5 fi?s— j?a s'l. S Im< f s I5? « ip W1 ,5. j? j? •a ? i/>no nT a-t-l r» n 5 iis|“ 0» o “-8ajO o • •“ J ;?2l "5? -n r» O 3 8> i.j? ’s 8^*5m ■iUi jS*'«• .,4 4 ■i ( NOTES EGATE Al AND Bl bHOWN C KTCH BA N. MAIN- A IS PA HPEETS ONO -s5 I • « a B ij=|5 i§01T „x ® U o» ai" S* J *3^ . O o MM!4«SS 5S-*3 s:- ^ m O * fsssi 5S 8 / Bone^rroo Rosene AnaerUk ATKJ AsfOciAret. tnc >s An Affirmative Action. BcfuAf Opportunity Bmptoyer PrincipAh Otto G Bon^stroo PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PF • M^^vin L Sorv.^M PP • Richard E Turner P£ • G'cnn R Cook PE • Robert G Schuncht. ®E • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • RoOert W Rosene PE and Susan M EDerim. C PA. Senior Consultants Asiociare PrincipAti Howard A Sanford PE • Keith A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Potert C Russes A ! A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann PE • Ted K F.eld PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfl. PE • Sidrscy P 'Viiiiamson. PE . L S • Robert F Rotsmitn Offices St Paul Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud mn • Milwaukee Wl 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects September 8. 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Garden Lane Site Plat File No. 139-2294 Dear Mike. We have reviewed the preliminary plat prepared for LGA Investment Group on the proposed Garden Lane Site, a seven- lot subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Heathercroft and Lot 90. Tonkaview Gardens, located west of Wildhurst Trail in the west half of Section 7. There are several issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Utilities: The proposed sanitary sewer design appears acceptable hrom an engineering standpoint. Final plans should show service locations and elevations. The sanitary sewer along the west side of Wildhurst Trail will be difficult to construct due to the steep bank along the roadway. The sewer may be easier to install down the center of the roadway, and replace that section of pavement. 2. Streets: The proposed street location appears acceptable. Final plans should include horizontal and vertical curve data to verify the streets meet the requir^ 30-MPH design speed and 275-foot centerline radius. Final plans should also include a typical street section based on a geotechnical analysis of the site. The temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed as part of this project. A portion of this cul-de-sac is on City property. The City should determine if this is appropriate. We usually discourage islands in cul-de-sacs. A minimum of a 45-foot radius to the face of curb and 110 feet of right-of-way should be provided if islands are used. 3. Grading: Additional erosion control measures should be included between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 for the sanitary sewer construction. All erosion control measures must be in place prior to any site grading. 4. Drainage: The outlet structure in the storm water basin should be sized to provide rate control so that post development flows do not exceed pre-development flows. Storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plans. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnesota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. 5. Easements: Easements should be provided for any existing utilities within the area to be vacated. 6. Financial Guarantee: We have attached an estimate of the cost for the site improvements and the amount of the required financial guarantee. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /<>yr7 F Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MM 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 Development Plan Review City of Orono GARDEN LANE SITE■M rmmmm m PRICE QUlA.v • W ■■m Site and pond grading Stabilization fabric Aggregate base, CI.5 100% cr. Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41 bituminous wear course Concrete curb and gutter 8" PVC sanitary sewer Connect to ex. sewer Standard sanitary manhole 4" PVC service wye 4" PVC service pipe 12" RCP storm sewer 15" RCP storm sewer 18" RCP storm sewer 12" RCP apron 18" RCP apron Standard catch basin Catch basin manhole Random riprap Silt fence Sodding w/4" topsoil Clear and grub Landscaping C.Y. S.Y, TON TON TON L.F. L.F. EACH EACH EACH L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. EACH EACH EACH EACH C.Y. L.F. S.Y. LS. L.S. $3.50 1.00 10.00 28.00 30.00 6.00 22.00 1.000.00 1.500.00 50.00 20.00 20.00 24.00 30.00 500.00 1,000.00 700.00 1.200.00 75.00 3.00 3.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 4.000 4.500 2,100 460 350 2,600 1,150 1 6 7 000 175 175 165 2 1 2 5 12 1.500 3.000 1 1 • • • •III! $14,000 4.500 21,000 12,880 10,500 15,600 25,300 1J 9: 350 6,000 3.500 4,200 4,950 1,000 1,000 1,40D 6,000 900 4.500 9.000 10.1 5.1 • III • • • Total +50% Financial Gue '•antee Requirement TOTAL FINANCIAL . UARANTEE REQUIRED $171,580 85,790 $257,370 139GEN4.WB2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 \ (#15 - #2241 Kyle Hunt and Partners - Continued) Hunt infonned McMillan that the 14'x24' garage stall would be set back somewhat from the other two stalls. Other remodeling is currently underway. Hunt said he could be flexible with the location of the garage stall. Mr. Bowman indicated that the current garage is 36'x23* and could provide for tandem vdiicle spacing. He noted there is also a shed on the property. Hunt indicated that the tandem area is a tornado shelter where the applicant plans on adding a 3/4 bath. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2241 for lakeshore setback for construction of an exercise room under the existing deck. The third garage stall is not recommended for approval. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLANS (#16) #2239 JIM WATERS, LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC, WILDHURST TRAIL - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Jim Waters was present. Gaffiron reported that the proposed seven lot subdivision under sketch plan review is comprised of two parcels, 7 acres and 1-1/2 acres in size and located in the Saga Hill park area. The properties are owned by Soskin and SoUner. Access is proposed from the undeveloped platted right-of-way known as Garden Lane. The topography of the lots favors access to the west. Building sites include two rear walk-outs. Lot 2 requires 1/2 acre dry contiguous on the southeast side of the ravine. Access to the park areas is required to the north and west. A cul-de-sac as shown would present a problem with primary access to the Saga Hill park. The City will require access to the 9 acre park parcel to the west from Garden Lane and to the open space park property which straddles Garden Lane to the east. GafiGron indicated that the City Engineer expressed concern with drainageways impacting the neighboring properties. He suggested drainage be directed to the northerly ravine for less erosion potential and potential development of aNURP pond. Gafifron said the City would not be served if Garden Lane is vacated and presented options in the Staff memo. The property is one acre sewered with sewer possible from Tonkaview Lane but most likely from Wildhurst Trail. / / / / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19,1997 (#16 - #2239 Jim Waters - Continued) Jim Waters said he would like to provide an opportumty to solve issues for the dty. He suggested access options F-1 and F-2 as proposed by Staff are reasonable. He indicated how the road would be terminated is open to discussion and design. One sketch proposes the road extend to the Hennessey property and the other to a parking lot for the park land. Waters said he prefers Garden Lane for acerss. He noted all lots meet minimum requirements, the development would have mimraum impacts, and provide access to the park land. Waters said the development meets the desire of the property owners. Lindquist noted that the proposed access would include a cul-de-sac between lots 1,2, and 3 with the Garden L^e easement remaining. During public comments, Chris Morgart, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, said this plan makes the most sense of all ideas that have been presented for the properties while solving access to the park land. He supports the subdivision. Smith noted sketch F-1 refers to direct park access, F-2 shows a temporary cul-de-sac, and F-3 relates to potential park dedication. These plans were generated by Gafi&on to assist in addressing adjacent or nearby lots of record requiring access. Gaffron asked Commission to consider whether the Sollner property should be included in the subdivision and whether sewer should come from Wildhurst Tr^ and how to assess the lots outside of the sewer system noting the proposed lots are within the MUSA. Srrath said she supported Gaffron's suggestions regarding access and temporary cul-de- sac. McMillan said she would like to see the park access developed so the purchasers of these lots will know that the road will extend into the park. Waters agreed ^at it would be best to accomplish this up front. McMillan mquired of the time line for the stormwater management plan. Gaffron indicated that it would require another 4-6 months. Schroeder questioned whether the Park Commission should recommend taking land instead of a fee. McMillan noted the ravine would be protected anyways as there would be a drainage casement over the ravine. Waters indicated he would review the lots for size. Lindquist noted the cul-de-sac could extend to the edge of Lot 1. McMillan agreed that this would allow for a turnaround. minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on may 19.1997(#16 - #2239 Tun Waters - Continued) P"Tut‘the iSdhion .0 coonecion Ctog«. SIrSIS iL bL suggested as a way to solve *e Hennessey lot problem. McMlUan asked that the sketch plan be reviewed by the Park Commissioa Gaffion was informed that dte Planning Commission had no concerns with the subd'.vision as proposed. («7) #2240 JIM WATERS, LGA KVESTMENT GROUP, INC, WILDHURST T^V - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Tim Waters was present. Gaf&on reponed that tins proposal includes three groupr slopes. Gaaon mdicated that the lots generally meet the 200 ’ lot width n\nn At an averaee of 1-1/2 acre lots, this would place a large number of homes “r^et h^r^e no. previously b;en located. They would also be located near dte park land and might possibly change the naUire of the park. To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Michael P. Gaflron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16,1997 Subject:#2239 Jim Waters/LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail - Sketch Plan Reviev^ for Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1B Total Area = 8.5 ac. + Application: Applicant has filed a sketch plan for a seven lot subdivision of two parcels comprising approximately 8.5 acres located within the LR-IB zoning district. The purpose of the review is to consider the seven lot plan that includes two cul-de-sac roads. Planning Commission should review the pertinent sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to determine whether the subdivision conforms to requirements of the Code, as well as to the City's park plans for the area. The following ordinances are pertinent to the review: Peitineut Ordinances 1. 2. 3. Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6,7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. Section 10.24 - LR-IB zoning district standards. Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations) - Specific sections are as follows; A. Subdivision 16 (G) - Steep slopes. B. Subdivision 16 (J) - Topographic alterations/grading and filling. C. Subdivision 16 (K) (I -5) - Stormwater management. D. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover limitations. E. Subdivision 18 (A-D) - Subdivision/platting provisions. Lbt of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Application Location Map, Including Park Properties Applicant's Sketch of Proposed Subdivision Sewer As-Built and Sketch Letter from City Engineer Tom Kellogg 5/15/97 Staff sketches of park access concepts for discussion Review of Proposed Plan The proposal incorporates not only the 7-acre Soskin property east of Garden Lane but includes the Sollner 1.5 acre lot to the west. Access to the subdivision is proposed via Tonkaview Lane and the #2239 - Sketch Plan May 16,1997 Page 2 existing Garden Lane right-of-wav dedicated in 1921. Staff has reviewed the proposed location of the access and finds no problem with sight distance. Garden Lane was dedicated at a 60’ width. The two propose road extensions meet the code required minimum 50' width and 100' diameter cul-de- sas. All lots have conforming access. Lot 2 and possibly Lots 5 and 6 will require lot width variances due their cul-de-sac orientation. All lots meet the minimum 1 acre requirement as shown, although thi*" -oes not account for any stormwater or other easements which might be needed. The proposed access from Tonkaview eliminates a number of problems inherent in past proposals that attempted to access from Wildhurst Trail. The topography favors access to Tonkaview. Review Comments 1.Drainage/Grading Plan. Referring to Exhibit A, there are two major drainageways within the property. There is a major ravine that intersects the north end of the propert>’, in proposed Lot 2. The City will require a drainage easement over this ravine, encompassing approximately the northerly 2'3 of Lot 2. Per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) (2), "For properties served by municipal sanitarv’ sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one-half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area." In the final plat, Lot 2 must be assured of ’ i acre dry contiguous building site to the east of the ravine and the access drive must not encroach the ravine area. A major portion of this property drains to the south and east tlv agh proposed Lots 7 and 6 to a less dramatic ravine area that drains under Wildhurst Trail and eventually to the lake. There is concern about erosion on the east side of Wildhurst Trail due to stormwater flows, and the neighboring property owner west of Wildhurst has, with the City's blessing, constructed a minimal pending area to reduce the flow rates which were threatening his driveway access. Both drainageways have a high potential for erosion. The City Engineer is recommending that a majority of the drainage to the southerly ravine be diverted to the north. The City will require storm water ponding to control the runoff rates as well as provide for runoff quality enhancement. Because the site topography does not lend itself to ponding meeting NURP criteria, off-site ponding downstream has been called for in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan which is presently being prepared. This off-site ponding will likely occur downstream near Wildhurst Trail and be constructed by the City, and the developer should be responsible for reimbursement of these costs. On-site grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review at the time the preliminary plan is submitted to the City. Grading #2239 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 3 2. 3. 3. 4. plans submitted wth the formal application must include existing and profMDsed 2’ contours. The plans must also include the following; Erosion control. Building pad locations and elevations. - Temporar>‘ erosion control during construction. PesifeTiated Wetlands. There are no designated City or NWI-mapped wetlands within the property. The major ravine and drainageway at the northern portion of the property is not designated on the City ’s wetland inveniory maps. Utilities, This property is within the MUSA and sanitary sewer is available from either Tonkaview Lane or Wildhurst Trail. Water supply will be provided by individual private wells. Referring to Exhibit D. sanitary sewer will have to be extended approximately 300' north along Wildhurst if tliat route is used, which is probable since the sewer in Tonkaview' would likely have to be lowered to serve Lots 2, 5 and 6. The developer will bear the cost of sewer installation in addition to a per unit sewer connection charge ($7,445/unit per 1997 fee schedule) since the property has not been previously assessed for sewer Easements. The proposed road locations eliminate past concerns regarding the steepness of access to Wildhurst which would have required extensive excavation. The drainage and grading plans must address how drainage will be directed, providing storm sewer where necessa’y. In the original Heathercroft plat (of which the Soskin property is existing Lot 2), the subject property was platted with 10' drainage and utility easements along all exterior lot lines. The City w ill ask for a dedication of drainage and utility easements at 5 ’ width along all internal lot lines and 10' along the proposed road right-of-vay. The City will ask for drainage easements over all retention areas, drainageways and storm sewers. Private vs Public Roads. The Orono Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of private roads in the rural area to serve new development. In the urban area (1 acre and 1/2 acre zones) all new roads are generally expected to be public. The City does not generally encourage the development of public road cul-de-sacs due to maintenance requirements, but in this case it is staffs recommendation that both cul-de-sac roads be accepted as public upon completion. The basis for public roads here is two-fold: 1) The development is in a sewered urban area, and the cul-de-sacs are not unusually lengthy; and 2) The City needs to retain public access to the newly acquired park areas along the Garden Lane right-of-way. The new road will also have the potential to serve Lot 70, Tonkaview Gardens, which is directly south of proposed Lot 7. It has not been determined how or whether that paicel would be assessed for the road extension which would serv'e it, or whether sewer would be r #2239 - Sketch Plan May 16, 1997 Page 4 extended within Garden Lane at the time of construction to serv e Lot 70 (or which direction that sewer would come from). Planning Commission should discuss this as part of the sketch plan review. 0.Park Impacts . This proposal forces the issue of providing access to the new Saga Hill park/open space areas. The sketch plan proposal suggests a vacation of Garden Lane with portions accruing to Lots 1,2 and 3. In Lot 2, the vacation would remove from possible park inclusion the northwesterly rim of the ravine. The City has no intent to vacate any portion of Garden Lane near the ravine, and the City must maintain access to the park areas via Garden Lane. Based on these factors, approval of a northerly cul-de-sac as proposed is questionable. There may be some rationale for a cul-de-sac that defines the end of the residential property with a continuation of the road to a future potential City parking lot further north serving the park. Or, there may be no need tor such a cul-de-sac if the City's future parking lot acts as a turn around for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Exhibit G suggests some alternatives for park access and road dedication. Also, remember that the Hennessey lot (Lot 63 Just north of the ravine) caimot be left landlocked. And, if there is no need for a cul-de-sac within Garden Lane, is there any reason to bring the Sollner lot into this subdivision, other than to serve it with road and utilities? 6.Park Dedication. This sketch plan application will be forwarded to the Park Commission for review’ at their next meeting. Given the location of the park area, it is possible Park Commission will want land dedication rather than collecting a fee as part of this subdivision. The developer will need to know what land is to be dedicated. Land in the area of the northerly ravine is the most likely candidate for dedication. Please review the City Engineer's letter of May 15 (Exhibit E) Summary of Issues for Discussion Planning Commission should provide applicant with general direction regarding the following issues; Road system configuration, need for cul-de-sacs. Public vs. private roads. Whether Sollner property needs to be part of plat. Future access to Lots 63 and 70. Whether lot width variances noted are acceptable. Whether vacation of Garden Lane will be considered Address any issues or concerns raised by City Engineer. Address any other issues raised by staff or applicant. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. g. r BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^ 612 6361311 OS/15/97 11:49 0:02/03 N0:061 ^ m Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & \\\\ Associates Engineers & Architects 7»tv ri/i>i«r* • i»>,7 A.4.,.,,,,^. * .'/i, Mirrori.r^ i,.^ nt...r, B....-,-... n . ,, ............... ^ •(•.••..Jf l,„,H. f_r ..-.i-rnw t,.„ Ml . .................. 1 ■ uMur. .► • U^>,A tusrn. .«»U Su* sr VI *SA uo, s..:n-.w*|.w.» K —..fj * --..wr, Kr . l..,,. , (, , if . 'Jr. !*. J* r“ * J'JJJ P£ . V,-,. ► r; . *,.n,xv- C a ..i ...-.,..- . v.«t (>• w.in ft . O'/.n \r »ntt s» MN • MwO;.w' May 15. 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gjffron Assistant Building and Tuning Administrator City of Orono Post Offici* Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesot.i 55323 Rc Garden Lane Site Sketch Plan File No, 139-2239 Dear Mike. We have reviewed the sketch plan prepared for Jim Waters on the proposed Garden Lane Site, a seven-lot .subdivision of Lot 2. Block I. Heatltercroft and Lot 90. Tonkaview Ga.'dens. located west of Wildhuisi Trail in the west half of Section 7 Thc.c are several issues ihut need to he addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan 1. UtlUtles: A sanitary sewer will need to be extended north along WildhurM Trail approximately .310 feel to the adjoining lot line l>etween Lots 5 iu.J 6 and then westerly and northerly to the end of the northerly cul-de-sac. Sewer seA’ice an be provided from Tonkaview Lane. However. 200 feet of existing sewer must be replaced at greater depths Plans and speciflcatiuns should be prepared for the sanitary .sewer and street reconstruction of either Tonkaview Lane or Wildhu.st Trail, with us-buili plans provided to the City upon completion. As this sanitary sewer and street will be owned tuid maintained by the City, we recommend that the design, bidding and construction be done by the City with assessments levied to the development. Please note there is no municipal water service available for this area. Each lot will be required to be served by a well. 2« Streets, The propo.sed street location appears acceptable. There should be some provision to provide street access to (he City Park north of the development. This could be done by providing a driveway to the Park from the cul-dc-sac. constructing the cul-dc-sac wahin the Park, or eliminating the cul-de-sac and creating a parking/tumarmind are.i within the Park property. The easterly cul-de-suc should drain west to a storm sewer line which would run westerly and northerly to the end of the cul-dc-sac. Drainage could be routed to the ravine on Lot 2. Plans should be prepared for the su’cei and storm sewer construction. 3. Grading: A grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be prepared that shows both the existing and proposed contours, building pad locations and elevations, and erosion control measures to he used during construction 4. Drainage: There are two major drainage ways running through the property One is located at the northern end of the site which drams northeasterly through Lot 2. The other is ItKated at the southern end of the site which dr.uns easterly through Lots 6 and 7. We recommend that the majority of the dniinage from the site be directed to north. The north nivmc gradient is half a.'^ steep as the south ravine which will allow more options to handle the stonn water runoff. .Some type of stomnvater retention and/or How reduction structure (or other type of improvement) should be installed within this ravine. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113-3898 • 612-636-4600 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 05/15/97 11:49 g :03/03 K0:06T Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Oromo Page *2- May 75. 1997 Due lo the exi<iting topography on ihr site, it is unlikely that a NURP pond can be cunstructed. The City’s Comprehensive Stomt Watei Pliin, which is presently being prepared, identifies the need for u regional stormwater pond at the downstream end of the north ravine This pond will likely need to be constructed by the City. This developinent should be responsible for reimbursing the City for a portion of the cost of the regional pond Final plans should be submitted to the Minne.sota DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Di.strtct for their review and approval 5. Easements: Onunage and utility easements should he provided ^ feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway nght*of-ways Drainage easements should he provided across all drainage w ays and pending ureas. 6. Financial (luarantec: Vrlicn the plans have been completed we will prcpivre an esomate of rhe total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the required financial guarantee, unless the improvements will be done by the City. Plca.se contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK . .SSOCIATES. INC Tom Kellogg Cc; Greg Gappu. City of Orono F 'i t)'l C MC ^|t<rrc.H 3 CTTYOF onoNO niiKESO^^i Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Sr. Planning Coordinator City of Orono Planning Commission P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 1 5 1997 September 14, 1997 Dear Mr. Gaffron, We are writing to whom it may concern regarding the proposed development of the properties known as Lot 2, Block 1, Heathercroft and Lot 90, Tonkaview Gardens, application #2294. Our residence is adjacent to said property directly across the public roadway at 1186 Wildhurst Trail. We are unabl. to attend the public heanng of the Planning Commission on September 15, 1997 However, we are intensely interested in the appropriate development and land management surrounding Forest Lake Bay. We anticipate our vision of development for our immediate community and rights as residential property owners will be appropriately represented by the Planning Commission and City Council. Specifically, we desire to comment on the following concerns regarding the proposed development. We understand the property is proposed for re-zoning from three acre lots to one acre This is inconsistent with appropriate land use standards given the grade and in-stability of the undeilying ground. This action would contribute to a well known run off situation that threatens the viability of Forest Lake Bay. Over the past six years we have experienced significant erosion from the public roadway to the lake due to run off from Saga Hill. Additionally during a significant downpour the nressuie and build-up of run-off broke through our basement window leaving several inches of water in our living area. How does the City propose funding the cost of expanded public roadways and the extension of municipal sewer and storm sewer? Property taxes in our community have increased dramatically over the past six years. The affordability of housing for long standing members of our community has declined unreasonably in our opinion We expect that the cost of such additions be borne entirely by the developer. Will the storm sewer run into the lake? This would be of great concern to the maintenance of property values of a great many stakeholders including ourselves. i Finally, concerning the expansion of access to the local lift station for sewer. Our property and the adjacent lot owned by Dave and Katy Kruskopf periodically experiences problems with the sewer venting via our home's roof vents. Venting f aently freezes over causing an intolerable stench. We have been told by city employees that the cause of this problem is at the lift station and cannot be corrected. Additional burden on the existing system from application #2294 and/cr #2293 may create significant health concerns on top of an already serious problem i We take great pnde in the quality of life in our community. We support the existing zoning requirements of the City and their appropnate enforcement. We appreciate your attention to these matters and are anxious to hear specific plans to address them uithin the proposed development. Sincerely, Brian D. Rasmussen Sandra J. Rasmussen 1186 Wildhurst Trail Mound. MN 55364 71 GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Streat Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Scpicnber 5, 1997 Sieve Von Bargen Minnegasco Reai Estaie Specialist 700 West Linden .\venue Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 recbved SEP ' s C^Ty Or ORONO Mailiei Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Re: Applications 7/2293/2294 - Pr(>poscd vacation of rights-of-way Dear Mr. Von Bargcn: The City of Orono has been requested by a developer to vacate portions of right-of way dedicated in the plats of Tonkaview Gardens and Mount Home Park. Both rcciuests involve roads that have never been opened. Cnclo.scd is a copy of the plat map and surveys identifying the proposed vacations. Plea, c advise whctl .• you have any objections to vacation of these rights-of-way. Thank you for your input. This item will be on the September 15 Planning Commission agenda. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron/^"' Senior Planning Coordinator end. / Minnogasco has no facilitita within the above described area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. Steveiv-A^oh Bargen Real Estate Specialist Minnegasco ^ • To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffiron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator September 12, 1997 #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Sewered Application: Request to detach Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres from 905 West Femdale, and legally combine it 'vith the Conley Brooks properties which on the survey include Parcels A, E, H and F (Lot 13 is the peninsula segment defined in the survey as Parcel C). List of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F Plat Map Propert) • '\sners List Survey of John Brooks Property, 905 West Femdale Survey of Conley Brooks Property, 980 West Femdale Letter of Request G - Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Code Section Section 11.03, Definition 65 and 66: A. Definition 65 - "Subdivision" lists three types of property separation which are exemptions from the subdivision code. This proposal does not meet any of the three exemptions. However, per Definition 66, "Subdivision Classification", it appears to meet the Class I subdivision definition because it is a division of property previously combined for tax purposes, and therefore is exempt from platting. Summary of Request Conley Brooks has sold the property at 905 West Femdale to John Brooks, and apparently has an agreement with John Brooks to allow the detachment of the peninsula extending westward from 905 West Femdale, for combination with Conley Brooks’s new residence at 980 West Femdale. Conley Brooks has provided a description of his request, stating reasons for the proposed division/combination. This is an extremely unusual request because the peninsula is physically connected to 905 West Femdale, and is completely separated by a lagoon portion of Lake Minnetonka from 980 West Femdale. The peninsula is only accessible by foot from • H #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale September 11, 1997 Page 2 905 W'est Femdale, and its detachment seems extremely inconsistent with our basic concepts of property contiguity and logical planning. However, I have been unable to find anything in the code which would strictly prohibit this detachment'combination. Applicant ’s reasons for the rearrangement request are primarily to control the peninsula to preserve the view from his residence at 980 West Femdale, and secondarily to provide a suitable beach recreation area for his family use. Applicant's letter correctly notes that the entire peninsula, as well as most of the 905 West Femdale property, is in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone. When 905 West Femdale was rebuilt some years ago, hardcover calculations and approvals were based on an area of the property that included this peninsula. Transfer of ownership of the peninsula technically results in a decrease in 0-75’ area and hence an increase in the 0-75’ hardcover percentage for 905 West Femdale, although it does not increase actual hard surface. Applicant correctly notes that no structures could be placed on the peninsula and staff notes that there are significant numbers of small shmbs and some small trees growing on the peninsula, but nothing of any large size. Presumably, Conley Brooks would want to keep the p>eninsula from growing a thick barrier of trees which would block the views of the lake from his house. Additional Discussion It seems unlikely that Hennepin County will allow the legal combination of the peninsula parcel with the mainland parcel, considering that they are separated by a water body. If this proves to be the case, then any approval granted by the City must require the execution of a Special Lot Combination resolution filed in the Chain of Title of the appropriate properties, stipulating that Lot 13 could not be sold separately from 980 West Femdale. It is against City policy and practice, and inconsistent with the code requirements, to create an unbuildable lot via subdivision without having that lot legally attached to an adjacent property. Issues for Consideration 1. Does Planning Commission accept the concept of this detachment/recombination? 2. Does Planning Commission accept the hardcover ramifications of this proposal (i.e. the technical percentage of 0-75’ hardcover on 905 West Femdale will increase from 9.63% to 10.25% although the total square footage of hardcover on that property will not increase)? J.WTiat restrictions, if any, would Planning Commission recommend with regards to this proposal? #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale September 11, 1997 Page 3 Staff RecommeDdation Given that the dry buildable area of 905 West Femdale will still be in excess of two acres, this proposal does not make 905 West Femdale substandard, but merely changes the calculated percentage of hardcover. While staff considers this request to be unusual, under certain circumstances it may be acceptable. Those circumstances include either a legal combination of Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres with the remaining Conley Brooks properties; or, if Hennepin County will not combine across the lagoon, a "Special Lot Combination" resolution must be executed by applicant and filed on the Chain of Title of those properties, such resolution recognizing the unique relationship between Lot 13 and the remaining Conley Brooks properties and disallowing future separation or separate sale of those properties without City approval. Options for Action 1.Recommend approval per applicant's proposal, requiring legal combination or special lot combination. 2.Table for fiirther information. 3.Recommend denial. 4.Other. LEAF AND GRASS DISPOSAL PROGRAM The city of Orono leaf and grass disposal program wll begin on Saturday, October 11, 1997, and continue every Saturday up to and including November 8,1997. Orono residents may bring leaves and grass clippings to the disposal site from 8:00 a.m. to noon. The location of the disposal site is the Orono Public Works b lilding, 2700 Kelley Parkway. Leaves and grass must be emptied into a large container at the site. Bags wll not be accepted. f CITY OF ORONOrs !n <r-‘ • \ 'S. V 2A730510 ,-C^3 '* V\-— .'•• ../ 'fl-v 08/25/97 13:02 9:12/19 N0:371 ADPlkirion# Pile Rtcdvd ^ 7 AawrtPiM CTTY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION A PROPERTY LOCATION gna Pvh^h^^^ ft at-ha/'twl Propcity Identificition Number (PID) see Exhibit a Attached Please check one • Property____abstractor____torrens? Attach legal desvaiption to appUcadoo. APPUCANT Name Conley Brooks, Jr. Address aty__ 980 West Femdale Road Orono. MN 01VNER (if different than qjplicant) Name_______________ Address CHy__ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Zip ,Phone (home) _|*73;Wi, Phone fwDik) 5 Ob 6 s Zip PI PI [w(home) (work) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all |»rceb Residential; no. of units Other (spe^)_____ PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Putpores X Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new huiWling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites ________ Existing Units ________ New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (chedc) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft Dry Buildable Land Residential Odier (specify)________ CITY OF ORONO 9 6124730510 08/25/97 13:02 0 :13/19 NO:371• » • — \ \MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR ORMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATION 1. Piymaaefftet(reftr to *4)f>Ikatk» feet" listed below. IT ^2. CooipWfed i^tplicMion fbnn y FMiminaiypliMififenBatioaoQCertificiteofSufvey ■'C. 4. Certified fevpatyOwnai list ofowoen within 35(y (you must obtain feb fist from HcmiepiB County Depvtmeot of r»«ieeA-603 Oovt Center 34S-327IX 5. AseBeddcsduntothistppIkttica.pleeseiaachesepenteliitofBnyodierpmaosyouwithootifiedoffeitipplkatioii. Zoning OfneiaTt Signature___________________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. fbymentoffeesCrefer to Pnliffliniry Subdivision Approval ratolution and park fees if appkable). 2. Signed Cettifkete of Survey or mylar copies of furmal plat 3. Tide opktiao. 4. EeeenMnta, covenants, etc. 5. Developen Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Oflidara Signature L APPLICATION FEES jotting Adreinistrator to check pC] dioee whid. apply) A. AppHcndon Bmo Feee: _____Sketch Ptaa Review (Class I. IIA110 nsO.OO X Sifedivitton of a Lot Lhie Rearrangement S350.00 ____Subdivtoion AppUeadoo (Class IA n) S3SO.OO ____Preliminary Sribdivision Application $373.00 S25.00/lot (Clau III A all non<resideotial) ____Ftaal Plat AppUcadoo (Class IIO $200.00 ____Legal Review and Filing: _____SubdtvMon only $73.00 _____Subdiviaioo w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totalt Park Fees (to be detennined per Section 11.02) Legal and Enginearing Review Feet (as incurr^ Raecwal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change (hxn original application) Rsnawal of Clast III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original epplieetion) Renewal of Pinal Clau III Subdivision Application $130.00 (No change from original application) B. Spaelnl Improvamaat Fata: _____Propo^ Private Roads $600.00 $.S0/linaa1 ft.; Propoaed Public Roads $900.00 -t'$.S0/Iineal ft: lin.ft.x.30-$ lin.ft.x 30-$ Request for City to Accept Existing Prh-aie Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewsr Main Extension $230.00 ^ S25/stub Proposed Watennain Extensioa $230.00 $23/stub Pn^ied Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 Onsite Syatem, Sits Evaluation Review (applicable to rural aibdiviskm ^Ikallons) $30.00ft>af totx new loti C. Flexible Application FeeaMlic Feee _____ Variance $220.00 ($30.00 per each additional variance) ____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 PRD Application wife Subdivision $30.00A>welling Unit The apidiemt hcrd>y agrees ^provide all faifomutioo required or requested by fee Zoning Administrator, Ciqr Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commiuion and^Jouncil nMcs^ry to pro^u this application and ftirther agrees to pay all addithma) fees established by ordinance. * Applicant’s Signature Owners Signature 'S-Aa./97 D,» Applicant must have all submittals into fee City Office 23 days before fee Planning Commission meeting Planning Coimniuioo meetings are held on fee third Monday of each month. Applicanbi must be present et ell xheduled review meetings of the Planning Commiuion and Council If an ^^licant b unable to attend a scheduled meeting please make anangements to have n authorized agent attend in your place and to advise ^ Duilding A Zoning OfTice of this chsnge prior to fee meeting i**. Vz. ^ ^.^li ,;/ <j '- Exhibit A to Orono Variance Application Parcel 1: 1045 West Femdale Road: (Date acquired property - August, 1997) TaxLD. No. 02-117-23-43-0003: Lot 4, Nordi Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, except that part described as follows; Commencing at die Nordieast comer of said Lot 4; dience Soudi along the East line thereof 487 feet; thence Westeriy at an angle of 88 degrees 30 minutes to die right, to a point in the Westerly line Ok said Lot 4; dience Nordierly along the Westerly line of said Lot 4 to the most Easterly comer of Lot 5 of said Addition; thence Northwesterly along said Westerly line of said Lot 4 to the most Wester^ comer of said Lot 4; thence Nordieasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 4 to die most Nordierly comer of said lot 4; thence Southeasterly alcmg the Northerly line of said Lot 4 to point of beginning. Tax I D. No. 02-117-23-43-0005: That part of Lot 5, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka described as follows; Beginning at die Southeast comer of said Lot 5, thence along die Soudi line of said Lot in a Northwesterly direction, to a point 90 feet from said place of beginning; dience in a Northeasterly direction on a straight line to a point on said East Lot line, 99.1 feet North of die Southeast comer of said Lot; thence South along the East line of said Lot to the place of beginning. TaxLD. No. 02-117-23-43-0024; Lot 12, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka. Parcel 2: 980 West Femdale Road: (Date acquired property - June, 1997) TaxLD. No. 02-117-23-44-0019: All of the following described tract; Lot 24, Country Club Estates, Hennepin County, Minn., according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the ofiSce of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County, except that part of said Lot described as follows: Commencing at the most Southerly comer of said Lot 24; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot a distance of 26.6 feet; thence Northeasterly deflecting to the right at an angle of 89 degrees and 18 minutes to the North line of said Lot 24; thence East along the North line of said Lot to the most Northerly comer of Lot 23 in said Country Club Estates, Hennepin County, Mitm.; thence Southwesterly along the line between said Lots 23 and 24 to the point of beriming EB01:921887 1 1 a J .rJ \y r^ i 9 ' /•«« ♦ wi^h lies Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot distant 205 feet South of the Northwest comer of said let, through a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot distant 300 feet Southwesterly of the Northeasterly comer of said lot. Pared 3: 905 West F^mHali* R^d; (Date acquired property - ^ril, 1994) Tax LD. No. 02-117-23-44-0010 Got 13 only) Lot 13, N(xlh Shore Cottage Acres Lake Minnetonka, and the adjoining accretions to said Lot 13 witfiin Government Lot 2, Section 2, Township 117, Range 23. \ f EB01;921887 1 nr. ^ - #4 I'd ..V LIST OF EXHIBITS AND ENCLOSt IRES * % . •'" \• •. :i%■i V', i J •>; Exhibit A Legal Descriptions and Property Information Exhibit B Description of Variance Requests Exhibit Bl Photocopy of survey from Orono Application No. 2269 Exhibit B2 Survey of Conley Brooks» Jr. property Exhibit B3 Survey of John Brooks property Exhibit B4 Survey of the property depicting the current location of the existing garage and the proposed location of the new storage building Exhibit BS Photocopy of the proposed plans for the new storage building Certified Property Ownership List Hardcover calculations for Conley Brooks, Jr. property Hardcover calculations for John Brooks property Check for $220.00 EB01531U7 1 RUN DATE 0R/2A/97 BATCH Sll HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOWUTION SYSTEH PROPERTY 0»«RS LIST PROP AOOR QNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR' PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»«CR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3« 02-1I7-2S 42 0009 OOOSS AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 131S STM ST S E SUITE S14 MPLS MN 55414 SB 02-117-23 43 0003 01070 FERNOALE RO H HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 N FERNOALE RO MAY/ATA HN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0006 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO LOUISE M LONRY NORMEST BANK MN TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 58 02-117-23 43 0022 OIOSS FERNOALE RO N 6ERAL0 T MCCOURTNEY ET AL 6ERAL0 T MCCOURTNEY 1055 H FERNOALE ROAO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0005 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO NINSTON R LIN0BER6 HINTON R LINOBERG 865 H FERNOALE RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0008 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO S B A K C OLSON S B OLSON/K CIAROELLI-OLSON 885 FERNOALE RO N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0001 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 45 0004 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO LOUISE M LONRY NORMEST BANC MN C/0 TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-0046 58 02-117-23 43 0007 01080 FERNOALE RO W N N SHIEBLER A J F SHIEBLER HILLIAM N/JOAFME F SHIEBLER 360 BEACON ST 82 BOSTON MA 02116 38 02-117-23 43 0024 01045 FERNOALE RO H HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 00865 FERNOALE NINSTON R Lira>BERG NINSTON R LINOBERG 865 H FERNOALE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 0006 RD N 38 02-117-23 44 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO C BROOKS JR A C 6 BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL 6 BROOKS 90S FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA W 55591 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 02-117-23 43 0002 0107C FERNOALE RO N NORNEST BNK MN NA ASSO TRSTE NORMEST BANK M4 TRUST REAL ESTATE 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS HN 55479-0046 38 02-117-23 43 0005 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HENRY M SKARP HENRY M SKARP 1045 N FERNOALE RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0021 01065 FERNOALE RD H JANE 8 NELSON TRUSTEE J B NELSON TRUSTEE 1065 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 44 0007 00885 FERNOALE RO H S B A K C OLSON S B OLSON/K ClARDELLI-OLSON 885 FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA MN 55591 38 02-117-23 44 0010 00905 FERNOALE RO N C BROOKS JR A C G BROOKS CONLEY JR A CAROL G BROOKS 905 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55391 (B RUN DATE 0e/Z6/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PRWERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTDATCH SIX PROP AOOR OMNER NAIC TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NATC TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 02-117-23 44 0012 00038 AOORESS WaSSXGNEO THE NATURl CONSER/tNCY NATURE CONSERVANCi 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 36 02-117-23 44 0015 00036 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITEO LAND CITY OF ORONO CONVEYEO 2/16/82 SO 101146 36 02-117-23 44 0016 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 41 0004 00690 HILLSIOE OR H THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 TOTAL BATCH 511 00030 38 02-117-23 44 0013 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS m 55414 38 02-117-23 44 0016 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS m 55414 38 02-117-23 44 0019 00980 FERNOALE RO N C G A C BROOKS JR CAROL 6 A CONLEY BROOKS JR 980 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA MN 55391 99 02-117-23 44 0023 00692 FERNOALE RO H MARIE H ANKENY ET AL TRSTES MARIE A OENALT ANKENY JR C/0 SARGENT MGMT 601 2N0 AVE S STE 4800 MPLS MN 55402 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3138 02-117-23 44 0014 00038 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO S B A K C OLSON S B OLSON/K CIAROELLI-OLSON 885 FERNOALE RO H HAYZATA »tl 55391 36 02-117-23 44 0017 00960 FERNOALE RO N C A J FLOYO OR A MRS CHARLES P FLOYO 960 HEST FERNOALE RO HAYZATA W4 55391 -i 99 02-117-23 41 0005 00702 CO RO NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 44 0024 00099 AOORESS PENOING MARIE H ANKENY ET AL TRSTES MARIE A OENALT ANKENY JR C/0 SARGENT MGMT 601 2N0 AVE S STE 4800 MPLS MN 55402 ♦tv*'..* *4.'. '.= *. .' A. ; V. I. .*!. '••* V .’ • / i ’,A--.<• :>* ®i j iiiiiif f (i-iiiH :|lj||jju fdir lil'ifiiK -1r: o • t •:/; —1 5 5?2 ;d % ..* *’1 X • Exhibit B to Orono Variance Application Description of Request (continued) 1. Lot Line Rearrangement Request; In Orono Application No. 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney effectuated a class one subdivision of the former Skarp property. For the purposes of this application, we wiU use some of the same surveys and diagrams, as this request involves many of the same properties. Exhibit B1 attached is a partial copy of the survey from Orono Application No. 2269. Exhibit B2 attached hereto is a survey of the Conley Brooks, Jr. property. In Orono Application No. 2269, the Orono City Council approved Conley Brooks, Jr.’s combination of Parcels A (980 West Femdale Road-the Gumucio house) Parcels E and H (which are the former Skarp parcels on the north side of Femdale Road), and Parcel F (which was Conley Brooks’ part of the Skarp property south of Femdale Road). Still to be resolved are the status of Parcels C (Lot 13, Nonh Shore Cottage Acres), Parcel B (the most easterly part of what in 1951 was Skarp property and the property in which Charles Floyd claims an interest), and Parcel D (the ambiguous parcel on the south side of Femdale Road northerly of905 West Femdale Road, the former Conley Brooks, Jr. property, now owned by John Brooks (no relation to Conley Brooks, Jr.)). Exhibit B3 attached hereto is a survey of the John Brooks property located at 905 West Femdale Road. At the present time, there is a land title registration case (a torrens case) in Hennepin County District Court as file No. 20244 concerning the registration of title to the easterly 20 feet of the former Skarp property as alleged to be half owned by Conley Brooks, Jr. and half owned by Charles Floyd. That application was amended to include all of the Skarp property and Lot 13, Northshore Cottage Acres, because all of the land surrounding the old Skarp property is registered land, except those parcels. Please note that Conley Brooks, Jr.’s application to register the 20 foot parcel explicitly recognizes the 1951 deed from Skarp to Dye (Conley Brooks, Jr.’s predecessor at 980 West Femdale Road) and to Austin (Charles Floyd ’s predecessor at 960 West EB01:921813 2 ^ O o • J r---5s> .-^v Femdale Road). In no way is Conley Brooks, Jr. trying to qect the Floyd propertyfrom its lake access at the 20 foot parcel. There is a second land title re^stration case (a torrens case) pending in Hennepin County District Court as file No. A-29864 concerning the old Bagley property at 905 West Femdale Road. The auditors subdivision lot description of the Bagley property left it ambiguous as to who owned the land south of the center line of Femdale Road. Conley Brooks Jr. claims to own all the land in file number A-29864 through the Bagley chain of title. The purpose of this Orono application is to complete the Conley Brooks, Jr. property at 980 West Femdale Road by including with it Parcel B (if Charles Floyd ultimately agrees with the exchange proposal described below). Parcel D, and Parcel C, as shown in Orono Application No. 2269 and as reiterated in this application. The reasons for the lot line rearrangement are: 1. To create a more logical and usable boundary perimeter for 980 West Femdale Road. When combined, all of the parcels in question form a reasonable contiguous area. 2. To secure for 980 West Femdale Road its lake view and lake access. 3. To clear up long-standing confusion over who actually owns Parcels B and D. Parcel C, the peninsula opposite 980 West Femdale Road, is an important element of the whole. The views of Lake Minnetonka from 980 West Femdale Road (and from the former Skarp property in particular), are directly across Parcel C. It is important that Parcel C be maintained in such a way as to preserve the view; ownership by 980 West Femdale of Parcel C ensures that maintenance will be conducted in a satisfactory manner. Conley Brooks, Jr. proposes to grant to 905 West Femdale a scenic easement over Parcel C, whereby no docks or other structures could be erected on the peninsula. An additional reason for combining Parcel C with 980 West Femdale is the fact that it provides 980 West Femdale with a good site for swimming and enjoying the lake. The shoreline and lake bottom of the former Skarp property and Parcels B and D consists mainly of weeds and muck, whereas Parcel C has a relatively clear sand and gravel bottom. The quality of this lake EB01921813 3 ti J .*-* • V access is very important to the owners of980 West Femdale, but is immaterial to the owners of 905 West Femdale who have an abundant supply of such access. Orono Application No. 2269 had the beneficial net effect of allowing for the removal of the old Sharp house, and combining the land on which it sits (Parcel G) with the McCourtney house (Parcel J) at lOSS West Femdale Road The lot line rearrangement proposed herein is not detrimental to McCourtney. This lot line rearrangement is also not harmful to the Charles Floyd house because it does not have any impact on the Charles Floyd house one way or another. The Charles Floyd house is located entirely easterly of all the lands in question (except Parcel D which partially adjoins the Floyd property). This lot line rearrangement regarding Parcels C and D was specifically agreed to by John Brooks, who purchased the old Bagley (McDowell) site at 90S West Femdale Road in June, 1997 from Conley Brooks, Jr. With regard to hardcover, there is immaterial positive or negative impact on the John Brooks house at 905 West Femdale Road and the Conley Brooks, Jr. house at 980 West Femdale Road, because all of the lands which are the subject of this lot line rearrangement request are within the 0 foot to 75 foot set-back area in which area no hardcover is permitted. Consequently, it does not make any difference for building purposes who owns these little parcels of land. It is a strictly neutral factor Each of 980 West Femdale Road and 905 West Femdale Road has its own hard cover computation and its own hard cover issues based on the fact that so little of each is in the 75 foot to 250 foot zone. In sum, this lot line rearrangement completes the logical rearrangement of properties in this immediate neighborhood after the sale of the Skarp property and after the sale of905 West Femdale Road to John Brooks, with one exception. The exception is a significant one. The exception relates to Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd as putative co-owners of the 20 foot parcel carved out of the Skarp property via the 1951 deed. There has been and there continues to be discussion between Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd (through Robert Floyd, Charles Floyd’s son, and Kevin DeVore, Robert Floyd’s lawyer) of Brooks’ proposal that Conley Brooks, Jr. and Charles Floyd effectuate a swap whereby Charles Floyd would give up his undivided one-half interest in the 20 foot parcel (Parcel B) in return for the easterly part of Parcel D, just in firont of the Charles Floyd house at 960 West £601:921813 2 -jaaBw,., Femdale Road Mr. Floyd has thus far not accepted this idea, and as of August 22, 1997, the parties have not been able to reach an agreement. It is hoped that by the time this application reaches the Orono City Council, such an agreement will have been made. Attached is a proposed dock layout showing how part of Parcel D could be conveyed from Conley Brooks, Jr. to Charles Floyd and the placement of docks on such parcel. If Brooks and Floyd are unable to reach agreement. Parcel B would not be a part of this lot line rearrangement request and Parcel B would be owned pursuant to the decision of the torrens court and any other proceedings which might occur to determine such ownership. EB01:921813 2 A SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Co-lS'75-250'250-500* SobTlOy* EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House /VSO S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. 35 O S.F. S.F. t I. B. Garaee S.F. C. Drivewav •4-tiA(K ro a X X ^ ^3 o S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. "Pari e/Deck X X syo S.F. S.F. tj S \f. Landscape LualiS ‘7J UnJrrlain ________ By Plastic _______ X X X 3oO S.F. S.F. S.F. Or Fabricr •; ' • • G. Other COt^'.S.F. (: y '■ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- ______________ -r B ?A X 100 = S.F. 9/j SCO S.F. /O. 2 5 0* L icr Z d. SJCO PROPOSED H-ARDCOVER IN ZONE —----- A. Hou«S.F. Lcneth Width J-X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X S.F. S.Fi . S.F. I i« G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -i- B X 100 S.F. S.F. % s.rr A B fk<t. car /j A B setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE 0-75’ ^S-isg]) 250-500* A. House /ag. CN Length X X X B. Garage - C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B . 500-1000 Width . /Ag ior /o7 2^, ^OOi- 72,700 X 100 = Width X 100 3szo s.F. 3*fo s.f; S.F-. S.F. • «. S.F. S.F. S.F.’ /70 S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ' ■» -4 S.F. S.F. 7 6PO S.F. 7S.3CPO S.F. S,0^ 55 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; . S.F. I •• S.F. A B ;; S.F. ■ _ S.F. % A B L • -■^■- #Iniiy Sept. 11. 1997 SEP. 1 a isgr, A * Orono Planning Commission Mr. Mike Gafifron Citv^ of Orono 2750 Kellev Parkway- P.O. Box 66 Crvstai Bav, Mn. 55323 a Dear Commission Members and Mr. Gaffron. I am writing regarding the request for a subdivision of tlie propert\‘ located at 905 West Fenidale Road in which a portion of propertv' identified as Lot 13 of North Shore Cottage Acres is being seperated from the 905 propert>' and joined to the propertv' at 980 West Femdale Road. M\ famih owns and resides at 960 West Femdale Road which is located w m betw'een the 905 and 980 properties. Wc also own lakeshorc south of W'est Femdale Road between 905 and i 045. In addition the lake view £rom our home is to the si. uth iireeth c\ er the 905 property and this Lot 13 propert}'. Our boating access to the main waters of Lake Minnetonka is through a small waterway between the Lot 13 and 1045 properties. Quite obviously Lot 13 and its use ha\ e a great effect on the usage and value of our properties. Both the Cit>' Codes and the Communin ’ Management Plan have numerous entries detailing the goals, procedures, and requirements guiding and regulating your actions regarding subdivisions. These also detail the issues, rights, and goals to be considered regarding neighboring properties and the communin as a whole. Clearly the close relationship of Lot 13 and my family ’s properties include several of these and as this is the case, I have a number of issues that I would like to address. First I have a grave concern for how such a partition will affect the stabilit\- of the Femdale neighborhood and the entire cit>-, especially areas around the lake. The Cir/ Codes and CMP hold orderly development and stabilitv' to be important goals to achieve. There is great demand for lakeshore all over Orono, and there are numerous sites where nearby I . M m a , _ I M . _ «- ■ ..M-i ■ Mini'll Til A^ M >1 ^ , . .. ^ . . ■-."i. . 2T. . propert}' owners would like to individually, or as a group, purchase a portion of a property to obtain lake access or purchase an entire property' and divide it among a number of nearby owners tor the lakeshore. To ^lovv such arrangements w ould raise the value per foot of lakeshore to such a high level that many, if not all lakeshore owners w ould be tempted to sell small portions, or all of their propert>- for such uses. Veiy likely the resulting property ’ tax increases would force or persuade many more to do the same. Left unchecked, it could result in a substancial proportion of lakeshore changing trom single family residences to a proliferation of many small sUces of land serv ing nearby properties as purely lake access sites. This clearlv is not the future which the citv’s CMP and CiK Code book advwate • • • for single family residential properties with lakeshore. I feel that the proposed subdivision of the 905 propert>' is a very similar situation in both the motivation and the result. Add to this subdivision, the proposed subdivisions on 1045 and a yet to be submitted additional partitioning of the 905 propert}- and you can veiy well see the pattern that I’m referring to. These are combining to effecm ely redraw' the properties surrounding our home. I realize pr'^pert}* i.nvncrs have a right to do as thev wish witli their land within limits. But the citv also has zonins and laud use reaulations for manv reason.s, which I strongly feel are present in this situation. There are a large number of sections in the Citv Cede book and the CMP w hich are directlv W 9 related to this application and those for adjoining properties. Page 4-3 of the CMP when discussing rural land use plans, points out that Orono's citizen.s are making private investments based on the concepts and information in the CMP and are entitled to know that they can rely on the plan. Certainly the same can be said for your zoning rules and regulations and tlie other sections of the CM?. -Ajid yet to allow propertv ow ners to change propertv- lines and relationships purely on a whim or personal likes and desires alone would leave all properties vulnerable. This constant change and uncertainty' would provide no protection from a w ide range of affects on each property's usage and value which would certainK result in a substancial number of these situations. There also is no criteria and predictable system in place to guide decisions regarding small divisions and redrawing of property lines such as we see occurring around us at 905. 980. 1045. and 1055 West Femdale Road. How could any potential or current oropcriy o'wner possibly anticipate and react to such an unpredictable and unstable environment or assess its potemiai impact in the fiitiire. Property owners should have an assurance that property' lines are more than merely a temporan agreement that can be chanaed at anv time and for anv reason. r -T rC<T^C-^^px« ■ 1 To encourage a situation in which anyone with the means and inclination can redraw all the surrounding properties to their own liking, with neighboring property ov\ ners having little or no voice or representation for their interests and wishes, would likely lead to a form of anus race in which ail property owners are forced to continuously jockey for agreements and coalitions to deal with it. This would be required boUi of those desiring change and those merely try ing to defend tlieir interests or the status quo. It certainly could not be contributing to public peace and harmony or the orderly development of the city'. It also would not be protecting the value of the surrounding properties, the character, social, and economic stability ot the city or neighborhoods. Such a system would certainly lead to conflict 'and adversely affect property values and people's quality of life. This is not an exaggeration at all, as it is exactly what our neighborhood is experiencing * riaht now. I'm convinced that none of us are enjoying this situation or the triciion, expense, uncertainty, stress, delayed projects, and other numerou.s problems we are all currently having because of it. To continue this ill advised and unfounded situation will certainly lead to even greater strife tor all concerned. It is one thing to purcha.se numerous properties and own them. !t is something totalh different to start can ing up a neighborhood and redrawing it to your personal liking. ^ hat is the purpose of all of these zoning law s and regulations but to avoid the.se types of conflicts. Tliere is no way that an a\ erage homeowner would read y our City Codes and ever think that these ty pes of subdivisions would be allowed. If the City of Orono is now changing the codes or their interpretation or enforcement, then it should be sure to explain this and promulgate all the details so that all citizens can take advantage of it and seek similar subdi\'isions if they wish. My family would have had numerous opportunities to pursue such agreements if the City had made this clear in tlie past. Most resident.^ ha' c understood the current regulations to mean that tor this area, in order to subdivide your property at all, you would need two acres for your own residence and at least tw o additional acres to subdivide. If this is not correct, then I would very much like to have the correct detinition ot w'hat is acceptable and what criteria and guidelines are used to evaluate the applications in some equitable and cousistant fashion. The City' Code clearly also requires the Commission and Council to consider adjoining lands as yet not subdivided, which is absolutely not being done in this series of applications. This is not a gray area, it is clearly required of all subdi^’isions in the City of Orono. They require consideration of the affects, in numerous facets, that any subdivision w ill have on adjoining properties and the city as a w hole. Tliis will only' be possible by 3 ' M examining all the subdivisions of these properties simultaneously. To grant these subdivisions without a long hard look at the precedent that you will be setting for our neighborhood and the entire cir.' would be neglecting your duty, in my opinion. This is not a simple situation, but no one ever purported that ninning a city’ would be simple. The application process in this series of subdivisions has also been flawed, as the city codes clearly require substancial information to be included in all subdinsion applications, not just certain ty pes. The property’ in question at this time, 905. is not a problem property' in any form. There is no flaw or defective situation that needs correcting, so what is the justification for this requested partition. The desired use of Lot 13 and maintanance of the view can be accomplished with covenants and easements rather than a subdivision. Apparently the removal of Lot 13 from the rest of 905 is far more likely to create a problem, in hardco^'er and setback, requirements for the 905 house, than to correct any problem or hardship. It is also my opinion th.at the proposed co^■cnants of allow ing no dockage or structures to be built at any' future time on Lot 13 is not preser.'ing the \ aiue of the land, in this valuable, desirable, and highly usable prime water frontage. In luy opinion, the Lot 13 shoreline is one of the finest viewing, swimming, and water sports sites on the entire lake. wHiat provision has been made tor access to the site, is it clearly stated in the application? Both the City Codes and CMP require that the care and concern in making the decision shall increase relative to the property’s proximity to a lake or wetlands. Being that this property is very nearly surrounded by the lake, it should rccei’ c the highest degree of scrutiny possible The CMP in section 1-3 defines views of the lakeshore as invaluable property rights. As our \iew is over the property in question, we have concerns over a number of maple trees which have been planted by Conley Brooks Jr. in the last ye-r or ^vo which, if allowed to reach maiurity . will adversely afreet the laL-devv of the owners of 905. 1055. and our property. I have discussed this w ith Conley Brooks Jr. and he is apparently planning to transplant them to his portion of the 1045 property which w ould solve this problem, but I would hke to see the matter addressed as an issue in this subdivision reque.st so that it is clearly taken care of, as it will have a major impact on neighbonng properties’ views. It is worth remembering that given the life spun of a tree, you must also consider the interests and wishes of flitiirc property ow ners as w ell as the current owners of each property. Another reason w e consider Lot 13 to be of importance t(? us is its afreet on our lake access. Because of water currents and sand deposits resulting from tliem, the waterw ay providing our access to the rest of the lake has in rr V— f7> • - -r r-.'-T'r7--v^--:»;4s . t^ • • past years been increasingly filled in to the point of threatening our abilit>‘ to get boats into the cove and to reach the shoreline of each of the properties adjoining it. This thankful!**’ has been solved for the time beina b\ dredaina done by John Brooks and Conley Brooks Jr. quite recently. But our concern is to provide a mechanism that will guarantee that future owners of Lo^ I .> will not in any way attempt to prevent the owners of adjoining properties firom keeping the w ateivN ay na\ igable in the fiiture, even if it requires removal of some portion of that land, as it is Lot 13 where the sand deposits and the land actually grows into the waterway. Finalh, in the Cit>’ Code book, page 431, Subd. 10 .A, requires (shall include) that all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed by the subdivider for (9) certification by the zoning administrator. As I sirongK feel that has not been tlie case so far in this series of subdivisions, not on the part of the zoning administrator, but in the actions of your commission and* die Cit> Council. 1 am hopeful that there will be a more careful and detailed consideration of all the issues involved in tins application and those involving all the adjoining properties before a decision is made on an>’ of these subdivision requests or permits of an> kind are issued on the.se properties. Sincerelv. Robert T. Flo' d -S' 1 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE;September 12,1997 SUBJECT; #2279/2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision and Street Vacation - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning Dutrict: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, unsewered. Summary' of Request: This item was tabled at Planning Commission’s August meeting to allow applicant to revise the proposal from 4 lots to 3 lots. Applicant has submitted a revised proposal showing the existing house plus 2 new building sites, substituting a driveway outlot for Lot I instead of the previously proposed short cul-de-sac. Applicant has also provided a report from Dundee Nursery regarding the plant materials found within the area where the existing house driveway might be relocated, as well as in the area of the driveway proposed to serve Lot 1 . Additionally, septic test sites have now been correctly shown on the submittals. List of Exhibits A - Revised Plans, Sheets 1 & 2 A B - Dundee Nursery Report C - Note from Applicant's Attorney D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/21/97 E - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/18/97 Meeting F - Back Lot Conformance Analysis G - Back Lot Ordinance H - Memo and Exhibits of August 14,1997 Discussion At the August 1 8th meeting. Planning Commission tabled this application and advised applicant to submit a revised proposal incorporating 3 lots rather 4, and incorporating outlots to serve as access to Lot 1 and possibly Lot 2, and a second outlot to provide a buffer to the adjacent residence to the southwest. Planning Commission also advised applicant to provide a tree and screening inventory for the areas adjacent to 1290 Lyman Avenue as well as for the alternate driveway to serve the existing house, and advised applicant to submit a proposal that has corrected septic system layouts shown. A plan incorporating these features has been presented for Planning Commission review and recommendation. Zoning Files #2279/2280 September II, 1997 Page 2 A.Outlets Outlet A is proposed as a 20' buffer outlet to protect the interests of the existing house at 1290 Lyman Avenue. Outlet B is shown as a driyevsny outlet primarily serv ing Lot 1, but also potentially serving as driveway access for the residence on Lot 2 as well as access to the rear of Lot 2. The use of these outlets rather than a cul-de-sac resolves a number of issues, but as configured, raises a question regarding setbacks. Note that when Lot I abutted the cul-de-sac, it was not considered a back lot. Under the revised configuration using Outlet B for access. Lot I is a back lot and is subject to the provisions of subdivision code Section 11.31, Subd. 5(C) (see Exhibit G). That code section has standards regarding applicability, dimensional standards for back lots, access requirements and screening requirements. The proposed division appears to meet those standards as described in Exhibit F, a comparison of the proposed lot with the standards (Please review!). Based on the rather complex discussion of Exhibit F, staff would suggest that the proposal as presented generally meets the intent of the back lot ordinance. The following specific variances, findings and conditions seem appropriate: 1. 2. 3. 4. Find that Outlot A provides the buffer required between Outlot B and the neighboring adjacent residence, and do not requirethat the two outlots be combined, finding that keeping this as a separate outlot provided a greater likelyhood that Outlot A will continue to function as a buffer, by placing certain covenant restrictions on its use. Grant a variiuice to allow a 50' front setback instead of the required 75' for Lot I's east lot line, based on the configuration of this specific back lot related to Lot 2. A driveway design for Outlot B to be provided prior to final plat approval to ensure no drainage impact on the neighboring property, and to show the retaining walls needed. Screening to be required at appropriate locations at the southeast comer of Lot 1 to avoid headlight impacts to adjacent property. Tree/Screening Inventory Please review the information submitted by the applicant from Dundee Landscape Nurser>'. That information includes a list of plant material, varieties and sizes, with a general description of their location. Pagel defines the trees that would need to be removed to constmet a new driveway to the existing home within the easterly boundary of Lot 3. Page 2 describes the existing screening vegetation within the area to be platted as Outlot A. Zoning Files #2279/2280 September 11, 1997 Page 3 Planning Commission should consider whether the screening within Outlot A is appropriate or should be enhanced with additional plantings. The neighboring property owner may have some input into this discussion. Planning Commission should also consider w hether the loss of trees as noted is of such a magnitude that it may be more appropriate to allow the e.xisting driveway serving the existing house to remain as is. Lot Dimensions Under the new configuration, each of Lots A, B and C contains the minimum required lot area. Lots 1 and 2 meet the 200' minimum width requirement, and with the revision of the south lot line of Lot 3 southward to the 20' setback from Lot 2 septic system, the defmed width of Lot 3 at the 50' setback line now is approximately 180', nearly meeting the 200' requirement and much better than the prior proposal, but still requiring a 20' or 10% variance. The setback requirements as shown for Lots 2 and 3 appear to meet code standards. Septic Systems Applicant has now correctly shown the septic system locations and staff notes that one site on each of Lots 1,2 and 3 is less than 75' setback from Basin E, but Septic System Inspector Steve Weckman has reviewed these and is comfortable with the proposed setbacks given the system elevations above that wetland basin. Storm Water Applicant has suggested that due to the minimal impact of adding two houses and drivew ays to this 10 acre parcel, no storm water ponding is required. This needs to be reviewed by both the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer before confirmation. A condition of preliminary plat approval should be completion of City Engineer and MCWD review of the revised proposal to confirm whether storm water ponding is required on the site. If so, the original grading plan indicating storm water ponding adjacent to Basin E may still be appropriate, and it is noted that a wetland variance would be required for that construction, but such a variance would be supported by the intent of the grading to provide protection to that wetland and enhancing water quality. Lane V'acation U.S. West and Minnegasco have both indicated they have no problem with the lane vacation at the northwest side of the property adjacent to the Luce Line Trail. The DNR has advised that they do not object to the vacation. We have not heard from Triax Cable or NSP. Staff recommends approval of the vacation, finding that that undeveloped dedicated right-of-way serves no current or future expected public purpose. Zoning Files #2279/2280 September 11, 1997 Page 4 Neighborhood Access The City Engineer in his sketch plan review comments suggested that Lyman Avenue is extremely substandard and adding more houses to it should be a trigger for upgrading that road. Applicant is providing a portion of right-of-way at the southeast comer of the property to accommodate the existing private road through the property and in fact is intending to dedicate that as public right-of- way to the easterly boundaiy of the property. In staffs opinion this is appropriate, although the radius of 100' does not meet the City’s 30 mph/275’ radius standard, but does match the curve of the existing road. Because the septic site for Lot 2 is very near the traveled roadway, staff suggested that applicant maintain a 15' setback from the septic system to the property line, with an additional approximately 12-15' between the traveled roadway and the property boundary. While it would be in the City's best interest to have additional right-of-way northwest of Lyman Avenue to reduce the degree of curve, that would potentially eliminate this septic site. Applicant is not providing a cul-de-sac as was suggested by Planning Commission during the sketch plan review, but is proposing merely a single shared driveway access to the existing road to serve two houses, as suggested at the preliminary plat review, with no other changes to the road system in the area. Planning Commission may wish to make a recommendation to Council regarding the need to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Applicant notes that Lyman Avenue may be excavated in the future for sewer construction, and at that time could be replaced more in keeping with the code requirements; applicant notes that it would not make sense to widen or repave Lyman Avenue at this time and then dig it up in a few years to install sewers. Staff Recommendation This application has undergone a number of refinements which address many of die concerns raised by Planning Commission in prior reviews. Outstanding issues for Planning Commission discussion include: A. Confirm acceptance of status of Outlots A and B as two separate outlets, with restrictive covenants on the use of Outlet A. B. Variance for setback requirements for Lot 1. C. Variance for lot width for Lot 3. D. Whether additional screening is required in Outlet A. E.Whether the proposed road dedication of Lyman Avenue is acceptable given the potential impacts on septic site for Lot 2 if the dedication is expanded. F. Approval of the proposed lane vacation. Zoning Files #2279/22^0 September 11, 1997 Page 5 G. Whether actual improvements to Lyman Avenue should be required of this developer. H. Any other issues Planning Commission desires to address. Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission can resolve the issues noted above, then a recommendation for approval with specific conditions would be appropriate. Staff will draft appropriate preliminary approval conditions based on the results of vour discussions on the above noted items. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as pioposed, with specific conditions, 2. 3. 4. Table for further information or tor plan revisions. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. MM I? ^l¥|ir ! I r Ml !!!|i! II wn ww^f id iff!i if|i|io|| fflj*frliflr n[{] iiiii lailU' I tlnii m? Hiji ji\\ ibl / / / .V V'l ^ ’'1^ AyA \,v~v.'ir, ^ m M ^ - \ •■ * \ * *X. X. X X X X* X X XXXXXXX -^^ * * * * ^ ^ * \ flfin v!" >• - ''\l\ •' ^^v>^^'^^^'^';''V/^?i^^^-^'-:^-■ •■ \/’^\ •• \N\\AV ■i z - : ; * : I • ‘ • — » , t t * • * *x\^ j t * * '\\S^ . Vf ■%t \ i; s'M .7.t;\ \ \ •\ m III fI* I li I I wi>r~ xA ■% i/tn n ► > - ^ . H ™- ^ « < * ^ *r»» <>r- m O r- -< a « 9 w r^ f^I u. ? 5 5 * Jtp % m f\ 2 0 I ■1-00 • > p 8 s ► O O ;;;; i •nm s 8 i:rt> nioov > P P P P -3'2SaS iiiil pSI?? —“ E vow r- « «• «• & III i Vpw S-!S ill IIIII fe\\\Vv \ V \ -'V ............. '-----------^4y<> |o; . -M3« ,.92 \ ,1 • -^xr* ’/'CV/ /'* /! v'* ' 'SV* / I I * . I / - V' k » 4\' * % . V ., 4. :'-i >v. i^^\[v;.\'p mmi >’ir::xX\'l\\\'.\\;.\.::.\\'4:.\\\v\ " .’.v: -K I-A'' ^ * \ wmM WOODHILL COUNTRr'eiS&B'^- 'Vu /' ■' . Wtjy % » %'ilM^ ■i;i;:t//// i\y-:'-'->/(V' i-.:‘.'.Kv., ^ .ww^.v -tS- >5^ \\<^yyy'Ay »»/// *y.i 0 ’000 0 0 0.0 0 0 m \ 3 P w - 1 t m l r-1 » » I »|iuj|l» a ?i?fl iipirI jjt'lim III i oil? SI3 Fi II \ 3mnt*•" mn I ; I'll jin I HIH II 2io 9i a iMiMUMnn : I*1”a i m - 0 o vU LANDSCAPE I w f I • I I ndee E^I^NURSERY r.ii B Since 1946 Nursery Garden Center/FIorai Landscape De^ign/Build Corporate Office 16800 Hwy 55 Plymouth. MN 55446 Phone (612) 559-4004 Fax (612) 559-8483Tracey whitehead 1220 Lyaan Avenue Orono, MN 55391 September 3, 1997 Dear Tracey, Following are the results of my site visit this morning to your property in Orono. Please feel free to give me a call with any questions which you might have. SITE VISIT: September 3rd, 1997 SITE I^CATION: 1220 Lyman Avenue, Orono, MN SITE INSPECTION BY: Bill Osmundson Following is a list of plant material found in the area along the existing house driveway. Included in this list are the significant trees that would need to be removed to construct a new driveway into the existing home. Scrub plants such as buckthorn, along with tree whips (smaller than one inch diameter) have not been included. TORK VAPTgPY 2" DTA. nTA A**-8«* HTA ASH 2 5 a"*2o» BURR OAK SUGAR MAPLE RED OAK LINDEN WHITE OAK SPRUCE 2S5»sss: 16800 Hwy 55 Plymouth, MN 55446 (612) 559*4016 Locations 4225 County Road 42 Savage, MN 55378 (612) 894*8740 1112 Washington Memorial Drive $t. Cloud. MN 56301 (320) 253-7264 SITE VISIT; SeptexBber 3r<j, 1997 SITE LOCATION: 1220 Lyman Avenue, Orono, MN SITE INSPECTION BY: Bill Osmundson Following is a list of materials which were found in the area designated Outlet ’*C** on the site plan. The area is approximately 180' long and 20' wide. The first 100' as measured from 30' in from the existing road has a heavy growth of understory brush. This plant material ranges from 24" to 108" tall an is composed of mainly small whip trees and a heavy thicket of wild buckthorn. The neighbor has a hedge of nannyberry viburnum and lilac running from the existing roadway back approximately 40' along the property line. Following are trees found in this first 100' foot area. »PPieB VAPTIPrY 2* nTA- 2»-4* DTA 4»»ft" DIA_____8"“‘20"20 "-h ASH BURR OAK SUGAR HAPLE :&sssoi99 RED OAK H9HITE OAK LINDEN The last 80' of this section seems to have been cle2u:ed of the understory brush, though there are signs of regeneration with 6"-12" wild buckthorn. This area contains approximately 35-40 trees which range from 2" to 20" diameter. The majority of these trees are sugar maple with several ash and oak mixed in. i WINSTON LAW OFFICE 4430 IDS CENTER SO SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOUS, NUNNESOTA 55402 TEL C612) 341-9800 FAX- (6121 33tt-6351 lOHN b. WiNbfON DIRECT S4t.9A1i September 8, 1997 Michael K Gaffron (473-0510) Senior Plamiing Coordinator City ot Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE; Whitehead SubdivisloiVl220 L\Tnan Avenue Dear Mike: 1 will be representing Marc and Traev* Wliitehead before the Planning Conunission this coming Monday evening, September 15. Please tax nte a copy of the Staff report prepared for the public hearing, and let me know when you anticipate the matter will be heard on Monday. Thank you. Sinccrclv, John B. Winston IBW/kra Mr. and Mrs. G. Marc WTiitehcadcc; 10'd lSe98£S2l9 ‘OH XVd 30iddC HVl NOISNIM i.0:H NOW 1.6-80-d3S I.Ji.l y^/^/0(U|Dl2^ fifntfiLNfilii 1. 2.a. IP ^5 o c? Tbt proposid diabi M Th« loniion of driii k Tht tatlMCii lor tkn^ * 20lMHrom 75 lt«l Irnm v The 0¥ifnor aoi] WVlIOfUl os kllOwr'^ 1(4 ? • rokx)| 144 3 • 4V kid Cuiloi A • area lo tw CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE NO. 2279/2280 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION action DATE OF NOTICE: 8/21/97 TO:Marc & Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 8/18/97 VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to submit a revised proposal at the September 1 5th Planning Commission meeting, incorporating 3 lots rather than 4, with access outlots generally as shown on the attached sketch. Applicant to provide a tree and screening inventory and proposal for the areas adjacent to 1290 Lyman Avenue and for the area of the alternate driveway to serve the existing house. Applicant to submit proposal with corrected septic system layouts. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, September 15, 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 SCHEDULED PUBUC HEARING/PUBLIC HIFORMATION REVIEW («) #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-8:28 P.M. The Affida\'it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted, Tracy Whitehead was present along with surveyor, Walter Gregory. Gaffron reported that the application was reviewed as a sketch plan at the June meeting and direction was grven by the Commission at that time. The property abuts Lyman Avenue, wWch becomes a private road with an easement as it moves eastward. The driveway serving the existing house is on this easement. The current four-lot plan has a revised access location. The proposal includes vacating a dedicated 20' right-of-way which abuts the Luce Line. This richt-of-wav anpcars to have no value to the City. The utility companies were notified. Staff is awaiting response to see if any easements arc ; '•quired. There is a 10' perimeter drainage easement that will be required. GafiVon indicated that Staff recommends approval of the vacation. fh ; property for the 4-lot subdivision totals 8.79 of dry buildable with 2.32 acres of fk\XiO orotected wetlands. Area credit would be sranted for two wetlands delineated oer nland Conservation Act rules that do not show on the Orono map and are desi,s»>«.ted as dsins B and C. Lots 1-4 each have at least two acres of dry buildable. An issue brought forward at the sketch plan review was the narrow corridor for access to Lots 1 and 2. The back lot configuration requires Lots 1 and 2 to have three acres; one lot meets that requirement, one does not. Gaffron noted the cunently proposed road and cul-de-sac results in Lots 1 and 2 abutting a roadway, eliminating the need for the three acre minimum. The plat drawing correctly shows the 50 ’ from and rear setbacks and 30' side setbacks. Lot 1 would have a 50' side setback for added buEftring to the neighboring re^dence. The proposed road would be 24' paved with an 80' circular paved cul-de-sac. This will impact the neighboring property but there are possible ways to mitigate. It does, however, result in a substandard side street setback for the neighboring property. Gaffron suggested possibly moving the road over to meet the 50' setback. Another option according to Gaffron would be to not build it as a roadway. Gaffron said the neighboring pronerties were not e.xpecting a road to come through. GafiBron said an outlot would allow for expansion of a private road in the future if needed. There are a number of issues regarding the cul-de-sac. Lois 1, 2, and 3 would not meet the 200' width and require lot width variances. Gaffron indicated the grading plan shows the option to bring a driveway down the east lot line to the platted roadway for Lot 3. 1 NfINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) There are two septic sites determined for Lots 1,2, and 3 but only one for Lot 4. From the City perspective, Lot 4 would then not be buildablc. The applicant has asked for consideration of platting the lot for future development when sewer is available. Staff does not recommend this option. Gafi&on noted that the revised layout for septic sites does not match the testing performed in 1990. Lot I site is accurate but Lot 2 does not match. Lot 3's alternate site and Lot 4 site differ. There is also an administrative review needed to approve the septic system setback from the ponds in Lots 2 and 3. There is normally a 75' setback. The inspector preliminarily noted he is not concerned, however, as the sites are higher than the wetlands. The Type 1 wetland in Lot 1 is small and would allow for septic sites up to the edge of the wetland but not into the wetland. Gaffron reviewed the issues regarding specific lots. Width variances are required for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Drainfield setback from the pond is an issue for Lots 2 and 3. The problem with the drain field setback for the principal septic site in Lot 1 is most likely solved accordii Gaffron. However, there is no alternate site for Lot 4. The 26' wetland separation juirement will require a variance for building of the NURP pond. Gaflfron indicated that he has received the wetland delineation report. There is concern regarding the septic site locations for Lots 2 and 4. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to give the applicant direction regarding whether Lot 4 is buildable. Gaffron said the review in his opinion is an extension of the sketch plan review at this point, since Lot 4 clearly does not meet minimum septic requirements. Smith asked for clarification on where the Luce Line horse trail is located and what the DNR setback is from the trail. Gaffron indicated there is a 100' right-of-way and show'cd the location of the center line. He said the trail is 50-60' from the north lot line. It was noted that there is no special City setback requirement from the trail and none imposed by DNR. Hawn was informed that the DNR has not responded to the application. McMillan was told that the DNR has been notified of the request for vacation Whitehead apolo^ed for the incorrect information on the septic site locations. She indicated that the setback requfrements will be met. Whitehead said she understood the Commission would like to see a cul-de-sac for emergency truck staging if necessary. She said there w'as not alot of discussion regarding the plan itself. Whitehead indicated she knew the wetland delineation was necessary. Wliitebead felt she has met the concerns of the Commission regarding the cul-de-sac and will widen the curve on Lyman Avenue. There are two large oak trees impeding this from occurring but Whitehead said they could be removed. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy WTiitehead - Continued) Wbhehead indicated that they attempted to present a plan with few variances required but the topography has created some problem. It is their desire to preserve the nature of the neighborhood. Whitehead said the neighbors will notice the road going in but will not be able to view the houses as they will be located back on the lots. WTiitelwad said the setback requirements will be met except for the drainfield on Lot 2. The 200' width requirement is difficult to meet with the creation of the cul-de-sac. The alternate septic site location for Lot 4 would be located underneath where the cul-de-sac is to be located. She asked the Commission to give consideration for approving Lot 4 for building in the future when the sewer is connected. Whitehead asked the Commission to assist in expediting the application so she can sell her current home and move. Margret and Brano Stankovsky indicated they live in the substandard sized lot that b next to the proposed subdivision. Stankovsky s^d he has spoken with the applicant. He indicated it would not be appealing to have a 50' wide roadway at a location 31' from his home. Stankovsky said this would add to the substandard Condition of hb property and decrease his value. Stankovsky indicated that while the new lots would meet the required setbacks, his own property would not be protected by a 50' setback. He noted there is no mention in the plan for screening of the road to reduce noise from traffic. He also was unaware of the pitch of the roadway as noted and is concerned with runoff. He fek the change would aid runoff but is concerned with snow being plowed closer to his property. Stankovsky said he is concerned for his septic system. Stankovsky requested the Planning Commission consider requiring that the road be placed at least 50' from his property, that buffering next to the road occur, and that an effective drainage plan be required. Stankovsky would like to sec minimum variances approved. He noted he has requested to purchase additional land from the Whitehead's in order to meet the 2 acre zoning requirement. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman, lives east of the subject property. He is concerned with Outlot B changing the character of the neighborhood. He feels the application should be allowed only minimal variances. Palmer does not understood how Lot 4 could be conforming and believes the subdivision should consist of three lots only. Hope Pesek, 1235 Lyman, lives south of the subject property. Pesek feels the large turnaround and driveway is inappropriate for the area. Pesek suggested the use of the abandoned area for the cul-de-sac. She asked what the purpose is for an 80' road. Gaffron explained the cul-de-sac would allow for fire truck staging and easier snow plow maintenance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt h should only be expanded 10' with the access located as oriirinallv planned to reduce the size of the road. He feels the proposed road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a tVi O lot subdivision. He feels the main hardshin is to the Stankovskv orooertv. He believes economics should not be considered. He would like to see minimal variances allowed and does not view lack of sewerine as a hardshio Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property-. She is concerned with the impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway casement for her property. Gaffron indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outlot extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots I and 2. The ramification of this scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to this, such a drivewav would be devastating to the land due to the basin and steep slopes of the area. Gaffron indicated that no other access options have been presented. He indicated the driveway could be rebuilt and a cul-de-sac placed to the northwest but would have major impacts on the neighborhood. The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said h was intended to mainlv acolv to lakeshore lots and is geared for more dense neighborhoods Gaft'ron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance, which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and cul-de-sac in order to eliminate the back lot situation. Stankovsky questioned whether a 50' wide driveway would be required. He noted that a 50’ road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety. Smith asked if this option would assist Lot 4 with the lack of an alternate septic site. Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go through the middle of the site and would be difficult to do. Lindquist indicated that he views the application as probably a 3-lot subdivision. He said he cannot approve the plan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the problems regarding the cul-de-sac, driveway, and w-etlands. Smith and McMillan agreed with Lindquist. Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site for Lot 4 even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work as presented in his opinion. 8 KHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18.1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Whitehead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the chan^g of the cul-de-sac to a shared drivew-ay would enable her to gain the alternate seotic site for Lot 4. Whitehead indicated that there is 5.89 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning whether Lot 2 would need a lot area variance Schroeder received confirmation from Gafifron that it would create a front lot/back lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area variances are tvnicallv not anoroved for new si»hdivi«c5on Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for Lot 4, noting that even with Outlot B, there is still a problem. Whitehead acknowledged that the ahemate septic site would still be located underneath the driveway. Whitehead asked how it would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said h would become one lot. and the shared drivewav should be at least 50' from the neighboring property. Whitehead said a 50' setback is not required. Gaflfron confirmed that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. If it was an outlot driveway, the house to the driveway would be 50', Schroeder noted there is ample room to meet that setback. ^Tiitehead said the Stankovsky's home was shown at 74' from the lot line when the plan was reviewed for its construction but was subsequently built at 31'. She said the 1,13 acre Stankovsky lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder indicated that this is a senarate matter but acknowledeed it should not have occurred. He was informed that the Stankovsky house was built 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a 3-k>t subdivision, the Stankovsky's should be able to acquire additional land from the Whitehead's. Whitehead said they have considered that possibility but noted that the driveway would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area was too steep. Whitehead asked if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8 meeting. Schroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to occur. Gaffron suggested further review at the September 15 Planning Commission meeting for Council consideration at the Seotember 22 Council meeting. Gaflfron indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200' width requirement under the 3-lot subdivision as noted above. Whitehead thought this could occur. Schroeder suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead's to work with their neighbors Smith agreed with Schroeder. MINUTES or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitebead - Continued) Lindquist reiterated that the subdivision would include a plan for Lots I, 2, and 3 with septic sites, residences, and driveway’s ^own to scale for review at the September Planning Commission meeting. Whitehead noted she had intended to be out of town at that time. Schroeder informed her she could send a reoreseniative Whitehead was informed that the olan should be able to be approved with the changes as noted. Hawn questioned whether the applicant could be accommodated through another meeting. Schroeder noted that it would require a public hearing. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2279/2280 for a 3-lot subdivision for review at the September meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Whitehead asked if the driveway would be part of Lot 1 or Lot 2. Gaffiron said he would recommend the drivewav be platted as a separate outlot for the westerly 20’ with a 30' width for the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2. He noted Lot 1 is a front lot, while Lot 2 is not. Whitehead indicted that if Lot 2 is a back lot, it would necessitate a 75' setback for the house and push it into the wetland area. She would then need 45' to get the driveway in to meet the 26 ’ separation. Gafiron informed her that he felt the house location as noted should meet the setback. Whitehead asked if there were other issues to consider. Schroeder noted the consideration of the back/front lot issue Gaffron indicated that the applicant is typically responsible to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Schroeder said it would be guided by precedence. Gaffron noted the City Eneineer had indicated that the road would require upgrading with more houses built. Lyman to Smith Avenue is currently narrower than the standard allows. Hawn indicated an easement could be eliminated if the driveway serving the existing house was brought onto the property. Whitehead said it was technically possible but would result in the loss of about 20 trees. McMillan questioned whether a vegetation map should be required. Gaffron .» 1 it would help in placement of the drivewav if the Plannine Commission requires its reii>» McMillan asked that this be included as well as vegetation for the Stankovs'*, d \ • driveway is placed by their property. Gaffron asked if the vegetation map should include both existing screening and trees. McMillan asked that it include what currently exists and what will be required. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) McMillan indicated that the cul-de-sac had been proposed in 1991 for a turnaround for four homes. She noted that the Question brought ud at that time was the need to assist the homes in the area. She said the circle area at the east end of Lyman was two-thirds dedicated and the missine oiece could be obtained. Schroeder said the aoolicant should not have to solve the problem of others. Whitehead indicated that Highway 12 reconstruction will take a nortion of the nronertv near the ea.st end McMillan .said that portion is not known at this time. Lindquist asked the applicant to work with Gaffron on this issue Whitehead indicated that her homestead parcel is separate from the other tax parcel and asked if she could separate the four lots with house from the total land to enable her to sell her home now. She was advised to work with Gaffron on this issue as well. ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2253 RICK RICE, 2700 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:28-8:36 P.M. The AfTidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the subject property is a comer lot requiring front yard setback requirements on both Kelly and Lydiard Avenues. The application is a proposal to construct a deck. The existing footprint and building pad were noted. A kitchen addition was built in 1988. While a permit was issued for the addhiox it did not meet the 35' setback as it is 30* from the Lydiard Avenue property line. Aii existing patio door will lead to the proposed deck. The request will result m a reduction to the side yard setback adjacent to the street where there is a topographical change. The 50' Lydiard right-of-way is not developed to that width. Van Zomeren said there should be no negative impact from the deck on adjacent property’s views. Rice said the northwest comer of the residence is the natural area for the deck placement due to the kitchen location. The deck will also enable the applicant to view the lake from the vantage point. During public comments, Janice Berg, who lives by the applicant, said she had no problem with the deck reauest. F ANALYSIS OF LOT 1 CONFORMITY WITH BACK LOT STANDARDS 1.Applicability A. The existing property dimensions are such that the front lot/back lot split does not require an area variance. B. Creation of the back lot is not merely a convenience to the developer but is supported by unique site factors including steep slopes in the location of the adjacent residence, which factors tend to limit the appropriate access configurations. C. ITie creation of Outlot A alleviates applicability standard C which states that "a front back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property' abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth." The required front yard depth in RR-1B is 50', and Outlot A provides a buffer that allows a separation of 50' between the outlot driveway corridor and the neighboring residence. A. Lot 1 more than meets 150% of the 2 acre zoning district requirement, containing 3.8 acres of which 2.2 acres is dry buildable. B. The defined front line for Lot 1 will be its easterly boundary' as currently configured. Lot width by definition than is more than 400', meeting the 200' RR-IB standard. C. The depth of the required street or front yaid is measured from the east lot line and must be 150% of the zoning district standard. That means that a 75' setback rather than a 50' setback would be required for the east boundary of Lot 1. The proposal is for a 50' setback. This either requires a variance, or potentially a reconfiguration of how Outlot B abuts Lot 1. Staff would consider this more of a technicality, and a variance would probably be appropriate given that the intent of the front setback increase is to provide separation from the front lot, but in this case it is the side lot line which abuts the rear of the front lot and applicant is proposing a 50' setback where the 150% of 30' requirement would only require 45'. Also, in order to have access to the rear of Lot 2, there needs to be area around the west side of Basin E, which limits the location of the east line of Lot 1. Also, the steep slope towards the wetland on Lot 1 forces the proposed house location to be at the crest of that slope, and a 75' setback will be extremely limiting for that house location. Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow 50' setback instead of the 75' setback for the defined front lot line of Lot 1, based on the considerations noted above. D. As noted the required side yard setback for back lot would be 45' in RR-1B, and the proposed 50' setback from the south lot line of Lot 1 meets that requirement. 3. The dimensional standards in the code only apply to front lots not this back lot. 4.Access requirements. A. The access outlot is platted in a 30' width and Outlot A is provided to accommodate screening. However, drainage and snow removal must be accommodated within Outlot B when the driveway is constructed, and a requirement of final plat approval should be that a driveway design be provided for Outlot B prior to final plat approval incorporating the necessary retaining walls and drainage vvays to ensure no impact on Outlot A or the adjacent residence. B. Outlot B may appropriately be used for access for both Lots 1 and 2. C. The driveway within the back lot can be located at least 1 O' from adjacent lots. D. Only 2 residents will be ser\ed by a driveway within the access outlot. 5. 6. E. This section states "no access outlot may bt. platted abutting an adjacent outlot except w hen the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards." Staff does not recall the reason for this back lot code requirement, but it probably relates to concerns about creating lake access for lakeshore lots. The two ways to address this would be to either grant a variance to allow Outlots A and B to be adjacent to each other, which staff would have no problem w ith given the intent of Outlot A; or to combine the two outlots into a single access Outlot, still considering that I,ot 1 is a back lot, still considering that it is merely a driveway outlot to serve Lots 1 and 2, and placing covenant restrictions on the westerly 20' of Outlot A to avoid any disturbance of that area in order to preserve its intent as butler for the adjacent home. This code section requires that "driveways constructed in access outlots 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". This means that a fence or other screening needs to be provided along the southeast comer of Lot 1 to avoid headlights impacting the adjacent neighboring lot. "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." Since the street yard of the back lot is the east lot line, and intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of the adjacent lot to the east will have little impact based on the proposed house location at the top of the hill, staff suggests there is no need for this screening. Uirrs Subdivision 5. Double froncige Iocs, iccess co Iocs, ind frcnc/bsck loc divisions. d- A. Double frocuge lots. Double frcccige -cjid reversed frontage lots snail be avoided excect where necessary to provide separation of residential rievelcpment from traffic aneriais or to overcome specific disadvantages of tocography and orientation. B. Access from any arterial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access e.xclusiveiy from an arterial roadway. Where driveway access from anv arterial roadway may be .necessary for several adjoming lots, the Council may require that such lots be ser/ed by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, drivewavs shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and "easement back lots as defined in this Chapter (see detiniuon of "Lot-Back") shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions snail be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an outlet to provide access from the back lot to the public or private read. Such outlet shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for cither the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Applicability. a. Front/back lot divisions may be used when e.xisting property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlet access corridor is excluded. b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may cot be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back loc is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. c. A fronc/back lot division snail not be allowed when any e.xisting residence on a neighboring property abuning the proposed access outlet is located nearer its affected side lot line rh;^n a distance equivalent • to the zenieg district required front yard depth. 2. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. b.Lot width measured oarallel to the ffocc or street lot line at* the street yard setback Line of a lakcshore back lot, or at r. L r. "Ir: L c Cj c. c r c r r I r r L L' the rc3x of the front yard setback line of a nooiakcshore back lot, snail meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any bade lot will be a yard staning where the narrow access outlet corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. c. The depth of the required street yard or front yard snail be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. d. The reouired side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore bade lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. 3. 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, e.xcept that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning disuict. .Access reouirements: J J a. b. c. Access outlots shall be 30' minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring procenies. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outloc if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outloc. c ] 1 e. No access outloc may be platted abuning an adjacent outloc excent when the intent is to combine the two access outlots * for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. 5. Screening requirements and accessory scruemre standards. Front/bac.k lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory struemre standards of Secuon 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. 6. The requirements and standards of this section shall apply only to those froni/badc lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994, B 3, The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. 4. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the ^.oning district lakeshore yard requii.:ments. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan 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 that zoning district. 3. 4. 0. Access outlets shall be 30’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back let shall be located at least 10 from the side or reax lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residenr^s may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be planed abutting an adjacent access oudot except when the intent is to combine the tv,-o access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. 1.Driveways constructed in :'ccess 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 street yard of the back lot shaU be adequately screened by ^c4? or vegetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminlte intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. E.standards for accessory snucnues. Accesso^ all requirement of the zoning code, witn die toUowm^ an requirements: 1 Acc=.-ty structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closet than W to a neighboring property's side or tear yard. Accessory structures shall not be allowed within yid of fback lot nor within the required rear yard of a tront lot which abuts the street yard of a bade lot. J. No accessory structure shad be allowed within an access oudot. SECTION 3. Otono Municipal Code Section 11.31. Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted m its place: u, f rntr. Inf. acc^ss to lots. aud frontyback lot divisions. Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots. A. of topography and orientation. B..Access front any arterial roadway^ ^ts access exclusively front an aneniu roadway^ S’'un.rmt"th^U rs^ch^^'o^X^ toeti;: s^Sl^be Ssign'S^d arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any artenal roadway. c.Eront/back lot subdivisions^ 'r:rTtckTsTaS n« be reate? Front/back lot back lot to the public or creation of an outlet to p allowed as creditable lot area for L"jeTd[e°tk'o? tout lots. FtontAiack lot subdivisions shaU adhere to the following standards: TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM:Michael P. GatTron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE:August 14, 1997 SUBJECT: #2279/2280 Marc and Tracy WTiitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Subdivision/'\'acation - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. 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 Plan Package: 1. Boundary and Topographic Sur\ ey (Oversize) 2. Preliminar}’ Plat (Oversize) 3. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan E - Notice of Plaiming Commission Action 6/18/97 Re; Sketch Plan F - Hydrology Narrative Excerpts G - Sketch P’an 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 purposej, 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 for 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 witliin the standard 10' drainage and utility easement that would 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 H Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 2 wetlands, and that staff would assist the applicant by defining the 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: E.xisting area (2 tax parcels plus lane to be vacated!: Dry buildable (including non-Orono wetlands): Orono protected wetlands 8.79 ac. 2.32 ac. 11.11 ac Proposed Lot Areas:Dry Wet iQtal Lot 1 with existing house 2.11 ac.1.53 ac.3.64 ac. Lot 2 2.00 ac.0.25 ac.2.25 ac. Lot 3 2.00 ac.0.41 ac.2.41 ac. Lot 4 2.01 ac.0.13 ac.2.14 ac. Outlot A (existing road)0.27 ac.—0.27 ac. Outlot B (proposed road)0,40 ac.—0,40 ac- 8.79 ac.2.32 ac.1 Lilac. PJI-IB District Required Structure Setbacks: Front 50' Rear 50' Side 30' Wetland 26' The preliminarv' 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 e.xtending north from Lyman Avenue. The existing private road segment of Lyman Avenue which extends through the southeast comer of the propert)’, is proposed to be continued as private roadway platted as Outlot A. Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 3 Access to Lot 3 with the existing house is proposed to continue via the existing driveway which is partially located on an :asement 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 driv eway. 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 curv e. This driveway access location begs the question of upgrading Lyman Avenue to handle the additional traffic created by this subdivision. Lot Width: Based on the proposed layout, all 4 Lots abut a private or public road, 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 w idth of approximately 130’ Lot 3 has a defined lot width 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 w’as provided in 1990 for a 4-lot proposal which nev er went forward. The currently proposed subdivision shows 2 proposed Jrainfield 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 propert .es, as compared to the 1990 testing. This application must be considered as incomplete t^.ntil new updated testing information has been provided that coincides w ith 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 covenant restricting its use as a building site until/unless it is served by sewer at some time in the future. Comment 14 of the applicants' "general notes" on the preliminaiy plat drawings, suggests anticipation that public sanitary sewer will abut Lot 4 on Lyman Avenue around 1999. Although staff has discussed the potential for sewer in this area and the recent Ml.fSA 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 primary reason for proposed Outlot B as a road rather than a driveway Oatlot. is to avoid the back lot 150% area requirement which could not be met by Lot 2 if Outlot B was merely a 30' driveway corridor. A secondary reason is that the 150% setback requirements for a back lot would have a major impact on Lots 1 and 2. The result, howev er, 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 ver>' near the existing house to the southwest which exists on a substandard lot. If Outlot B serv 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 Lyman Avenue in general would be somewhat decreased by having all new lots access from Outlot B. The paved portion of Lvman Avenue stops just west of Outlot A, and from there eastward this private road serves WTiitehead's existing residence and 4 other existing homes, plus 1 potential buildable vacant lot. The City Engineer during the sketch plan review noted that the Lyman Avenue pavement is significantly narrower than the minimum 24’ paved 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. StormwaterAVetlands: 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 topography, 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 w'etlands delineation report has been attached to the boundaiy and topographic survey, but the full report has not been submitted, and is required. Proposed Lot Nuances: Lot 1 - Nearlv half of the total area of Lot 1 is wetland basin A located at the base of a 15-20’ high slope. This prov ides 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- 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 variance for setback of the drainfield from the wetland, and again as drawn not matching the site evaluation report. This variimce is more difficult to justify than the variance for Lot 1, because Basin E is an open water 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 existing house which is ser\ed by an ex ’Sting 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 ’he site evaluators report. Lot 3 is currently served by an existing loop driveway 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 are no expected impacts or encroachments on Basin D. Lot 4 - Lot 4 c Ji 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 driveway as shown is only 6' wide, and does not relate to the actual septic site per the site evaluators report. Staff also questions whether the location as proposed in the grading plan has satisfactor>' 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 sew'er being provided to tliis propert>’, suggests that i.ot 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 known as Lyman Avenue, it does not purport to make any changes or imorovements to that road, other than to provide a portion of roadway corridor for its continued existence. Outlot 3 - 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 necessarv' drainage swales to allow drainage to the NURP pond adjacent to Basin E. ITie 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 si'.owing the viability of the drainfield sites as oriented and shaped as shouTi on the provided plat and grading and drainage plans, OR revise 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 necessarv ’ 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 cases will not work, how can the City continue its review without that information? 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 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 driveway 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 secondar>' 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. Whether Lot 4 should be eliminated from the plat. 2.Whether a back lot area variance would be granted for Lot 2 if Outlot B is converted to a drivewav corridor rather than a road, and whether bad lot setback variance inight be granted. 3.Whether applicants should be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue if Lot 4 accesses any where other than Outlot B. 4.>\Tiether a requirement of the plat will be relocation of the driveway serv ing Lot 3 to an access point on Outlot 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 whether 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. Zoning File mi9 August 14, 1997 Page 8 Options for Action 1. 4. Provide additional direction to applicants, and table for farther information and potential revisions. 2. Recommend approval, with appropriate conditions. 3, Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. 'I TRACY AND MARC WHITEHEAD 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata^MN 55391 473-8278 August 14, 1997 RECEIVED AUG I 5 1997 w/i t • yjr UHONO 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 ar ’ 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 vour 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 cur\'e 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 must be dry buildable or not I also met with Mike Gaffron a number of times as I weiit through the process with our septic system, surveying, engineering, and wetland experts. He wont over the variances that would be required for our first proposal, patiently explained all 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 service will 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 w ith a novice developer, but Mike took it in stride. None of my questions were “too dumb ” In addition, I rev iewed the staff recommendations of the proposal vve submitted in 1991, as Mike felt that some of them w ere still relev ant 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, l997/p.2 Both t mcs we have come before the Planning Commission (1991 and now), Lyman 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, within our property limits to alleviate some of the concerns. We moved the drive into the property (Outlot B) to the w est side of the property, which allow s most of the new traffic to have direct access to the public right-of-way on Lyman and rot onto the private road. The outlot includes a cul-de-sac which both staff and Planning Comi^ission Members wanted for ease of turn-around for fire trucks and plowing equipment .Another cul-de-sac could be created at the end of Lyman when the Depirtment of Transportation takes one of the houses at the end for the Highway 12 upg' ade. 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 w idth of L>-man, we are dedicating a portion of our property (Outlot A) to allow space to widen Lyman Avenue, and without a need to piece 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 bt: an acceptable access.” VVidening Lyman will take away concerns about the access to a-id from Lot 4 "^he sewer project will allow an opportunity to both build the sewer and upgrade Lyman tfom 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 ser.ed 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 Decemb**r 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. 1 hope some of you will have the chance to look at the two locations and then decide the best approach. Planning Commissioners/August 14, 1997/p.3 We realize that this proposal will have minimal impact on most of our neighbors. None of the houses will be seen by existing Lyman 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 trying 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 was 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 li v r m 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, Tracy Whitehead P.S. Yesterday afternoon when / went to City Hall to deliver this letter, Mike pointed out a discrepancy involving our septic system layouts that frankly was a surprise to me. The septic systems on each lot were all in the same area as on the 1991 Preliminary Plat, but each had been slightly reconfigured or repositioned to meet a change in lot lines. Mike was concerned that they might not work with the changes and therefore wrote the staff report to reflect that Last evening, I talked at length with our septic system engineer who believes that it can *»c 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. / sincerely apologize to all of you for this last minute problem. It was certainly unintentional. Application # Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed ly'/^cA iTyajU ^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) SS^//g —2.^— ^ APPLICANT Phone (home)_V73_£Z2£ Name (r-/yi^^C -i 7^/^C V S AX jH Phone (work) /QXlyfnJi Address ___________________________City_________________Zip________ OWNER (if different th^ applicant) ^ e j Phone (home) iZ7j Name(/ t~ ISzOtju $ U)LLLSjlliPCl(y' Phone (work) Address ____________________________City_________________Zip_______ Date Pro I (do) uired Touj C?’] 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 w'etland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore it' ^ :• * < 1 PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee IsC\y OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ^^$300.00 Vacation ___$200.00 Easement Vacation ___$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ___$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ___$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ___$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______________ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify) ^I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UNNAMED LANE TO BE VACATED That part of the unnamed vacated lane adjoining Lot 33, ORCNO 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. •1 1 Application # Date Received 7 4-2 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICAT PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 1220 Lyman Ave. Amount Paid 2./1 o#237 I Property Identification Number (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. City Wavzata. MN Phone (home) 473-8278 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 Parcels Development Size 8.79 2.32 11.11 Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units_1 Other (specify)_________ RR-IB PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buiIdling 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 __Units per 1 Acres __Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land \_____Residential ______Other (specify)_________ RUN DATE 05/23/97BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HEJ>INEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNEf^ LIST 36 02-117-23 12 0001 00200 NOOOHXLL RD * HOOOHILL COUNTRY CUB NOOOHXLL CNTRY CLUB 200 HOOOHILL RO HAYZATA MN 55391 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 t R H PESEK C PAUL A RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 33 0010 00030 ORONO ORCHARD RD N J L MURPHY ASS SMITH JAMES MURPHY A SANDRA SMITH 30 ORONO ORCHARD RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0009 01220 LYMAN AVE 6 MARC HHITEHEAD ETAL 6 MARC HHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0011 01200 ORONO OAKS DR J TOMHAVE A B K TONHAVE JONATHAN A BEVERLY TOMHAVE 1200 ORONO OAKS OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 I 38 02-117-23 21 0001 01290 LYMAN AVE MARGARET S FOX MARGARET S FOX 1290 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 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 SMTTH AVE J A FISK A J K FISK JAMES A A JENNIFER K FISK 110 SMITH AVE HAYZATA m 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN (DNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 35-118-23 39 0005 00090 OROTK) ORCHARD RD N DAB STRUYK D A A BARBARA A STRUYK 90 ORONO ORCHARD RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 39 0012 01225 ORONO OAKS DR J DANIELS A J LYNCH-DANIELS J DANIELS A J LYNCH-DANIELS 1225 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 31 38 02-117-23 21 0002 00090 SMITH AVE T E A J H HITCH THOMAS E A JOAItC H HITCH 90 SMITH AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0005 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK A R H PESEK C PAUL A RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S HAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0027 01275 LYMAN AVE K I A E T MCMILLAN HOHARO A ELIZABETH MCMILLAN 1275 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 J D«» 38 35-118-23 39 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G MARC HHITEHEAD ETAL G MARC HHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 / )1 ''• 38 35-118-23 39 0010 01230 ORONO OAKS DR DAT 6ARDELLA DAVID T A TRESA GARDELLA 1230 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 35-118-23 39 0013 01335 ORONO OAKS DR J HENNINGER A D HENNINGER J HENNINGER A D HENNINGER 1335 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 RUN DATE 05/2S/97 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB 35-118-23 A3 OOOA 00038 ADDRESS UNASS16NED STATE OF HXNN STATE OF HXNN IDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) HEMKPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST38 35-118-23 AS 0022 01190 LYMAN AVE B E PALMER A J M PALMER BRIAN E A JULIA M PALMER 1190 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 REPOR) NO. P1A35A01 PAGE 3238 35-118-23 A3 002A01200 LYMAN AVE R S A N N CORNNALL RICHARD S CORNNALL 1200 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 507 00021 • % - * tl rw • u :o 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 KNOHLE06E AND BELIEF 'xy - W7.V CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO; Marc & Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE #225 1 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 18, 1997 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: 06/16/97 VOTE: - FOR - AGAINST Planning Commission 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 whether the third acre for the back lots must be dry buildable, this has been an issue in only one subdivision since that ordinance was 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, >'/97 to be placed on the July 21 Planning Commission agenda. F Hydrology Narrative for Whitehead Addition The proposed Whitehead Addition has five wetland basins lying within or partially within its site. Tire 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 runoff 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 11.07 ac. 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 w ill be maintained by the proposed 12 inch CMP under the driveway for Lot 2. A baffled weir will skim floatables prior to leaving the basin. ij • « •a To: From: Date: Subject: /V- Chair Lindquist & Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gafhon, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 12,1997 #2251 Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Proposed Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential List 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 - StaffConceptual 3-lot plat Summary of Proposal Applicants propose a subdivision to create 3 new buildable lots adjacent to their existing residence. TWs 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 approval*; 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 regrilatory 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. A #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. Dry 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 11.35 ac *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 and 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. The location of this wetland will have an impact on Lot 2's proposed house location. This #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 bas concluded that staffs concerns raised in 1991 regarding the need to have all 4 proposed lots served by a new 'interior road', b 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 negate 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, and any other issues of concern. .L. I% 1/ J Bonestroo Rosene ^ |H Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Roicne. Anderhk and Associates, tnc is an Affirmatiye Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • M;^rvm L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • RoOert G Schunicht PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M Eberim C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Kcitn A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfcfferie. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A IA • Mark A Hanson. PE. • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P VP'iiliamson, PE . R S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St PauJ. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. VN • Milwaukee. Wi June 11.1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Building and 21oning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 JUM V59T Re; Whitehead 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 several significant issues that need to be addressed relative to engineering matters and included with the plan. 1. Streets: Lyman 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 Smith 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. The present access is not acceptable from an engineering standpoint and would limit the ability to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. If the proposed development is to proceed, we would recommend that the developer be responsible for the upgrade of Lyman 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 Outlot 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 ser\'ing three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. All streets require 50 feet of right-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 Outlot 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 • Fax: 612-636-1311 r Mr. Michael P. Gqffron City of Orono Page-2- June II, 1997 to Lot 4 from Lyman Avenue will likely exceed acceptable grades even with 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 the 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 should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek 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 contiol the pond levels and outflows. 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 spUt/'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: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at 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 1I V > fn I m t t lii! K’ H i! u 9J& fn^-rrw^’^ ^ Ic’* W : »<o^ eg v\ev*av»^v*< Lti\^C .') S(- LA .OT^tv<^ <.^ l/g <uJ>lif g^-^. •!^-< <nvf j ■C l ■ c, c, /. r<r ^ L fe . or Lg-< *• u 9PBrook)tion Tests XSoil Borinos 9 Bench Mark Note: This system is to be constructed to meet the Mnnesolo PoHution Cortrol Agency Chapter 7080 6 Local Ordinance Note : Check all underground utilities -n«^o » lo A'.CT^T'O 4,ZW^ 4^At J L « Ji SP» XSo« 9 Be Note: a •i Ch ^T»l. -<-r 1^*-t*^ t ^ ■P, I u<\o ■tjkvM «<bp o^-<.'g4?iJl Y^ov^\Avn^uvr ^ «r- ^g- »c. ^...1 Vu - <.^c. %£" "r^W/^a ‘3■ cr\, AA ]. I'T. 9 Percolation Tests XSoil Borings ® Bench Mark Scale:(kj* PROPERTY OF V,Q-f** (c-A«.-r rtf- ) -rcwM •. «<bp YlfcS'^p . Note: This system is to be constructed to meet theMinnesolo Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance Note : Check all underground utilities S-P Designed TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, Cit}’ Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:September 10, 1997 SUBJECT:#2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:49,622 (total) square feet (1.14 acres) Application: The applicants wish to renew elapsed variances to allow lot 1 to be considered a buildable lot. Variances for lot area are required for both lots. Additionally, lot 1 requires a lot width variance and Lot 2 requires a hardcover variance.________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03: General Provisions • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements *^2283 Cary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2693 Keliy Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page I ANALYSIS I.ot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .52 acres total 110 ft.n/a n/a n/a (.39 acres contiguous) .62 acres 148 ft.79 ft.9.3 ft.85 ft. The subject properties do not meet lot area requirements. Additionally, Lot 1 does not meet lot width requirements and Lot 2 does not meet the side yard requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 22,662 s.f.none none 26,960 s.f.2,510 s.f 9.3% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. 02283 Cary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 2 r Hardcover : Lot 2 Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75"6,025 s.f.none none none none 75 ’-250"20.935 s.f.6,394 s.f. (30.5%) 5,233.75 s.f. (25%) 6,394 s.f. (30.5%) 1,161 s.f. (5.5%) Lot 2 does not meet hardcover requirements. The 1987 resolution allowed for 30% hardcover to remain on the lot. Lot 1 is undeveloped. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Attachment I is a letter from the applicant expressing hardship. Applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Deiermining Undue Hardship 1.The propert>- in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Lot 1 has been used as part cf Lot 2 to date because both are held by the same owners. Lot 1 is not buildable without lot area and width variances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lots of record were approved prior to the current city zoning ordinance. Th*' configuration of Lot 1 along a protected body of water limits hardcover and building area to a greater extent than if the parcel was entirely contiguous. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lot size, lot width, and hardcover will not change the character of the area. A residence could be built upon a lot that has historically been vacant, however. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. M2233 Gary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2693 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 3 • m 5. Economic factors may be a consideration with this application. The property may be sold to a future owner who N^ishes to separate the parcels. 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. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 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 propert>' in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Lot area and width variances are commonly granted in this zoning district to allow lots of record not meeting current zoning requirements to be buildable. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporar>' 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 shape and proximity to water of lot 1 limit the potential building envelope, as well as how much of the lot can be considered contiguous. Lot 2 is a lot of record of less than I acre, which is the current requirement for both lots. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the majority of the lots in the area. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The subject properties are separate tax parcels and have been assessed separately for sewer and water. 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. 1^228} Gary and Bormlt Birnbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 4 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 lots were platted and approved prior to current zoning requirements. The request for lot area and hardcover variances have previously been approved by resolution. Issues 1.Lots 1 and 2 combined consist of 1.1 acres. If the lots were combined, the lot area, width and hardcover requirements would be met. The lots were granted lot area variances and Lot 2 was granted a hardcover variance to allow 30% hardcover in 1987. The resolution is attached (attachment H). The issue of lot width for Lot 1 was not discussed. No other variances have been granted. 3.If the variances are renewed, a lot width variance would also be required as Lot I does not meet the 140' requirement. The non-conforming side setback of 9.3' for Lot 2 is not an issue with this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the renewal of variances and a variance for lot width with several amendments and conditions. Staff recommends approval of the lot area variances of .61 acres for Lot 1 and .38 acres for Lot 2 allowing the lots to be .39 acres and .62 acres, respectively. The .39 acre total for Lot 1 is the sum of contiguous area. Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance for Lot 1 of 30’ to allow the lot continue to be 110’ in width. Staff recommends the hardcover variance to allow the existing hardcover on Lot 2, in excess of 30% be denied. Sufficient amounts of rock landscaping, the patio and driveway shall be removed to comply with the 25% hardcover requirement in the 75 ’ to 250 ’ if Lot 1 is sold separately. Staff recommends the fence located within public right of way on Lot 1 shall be M2283 Gary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue yanances 9/15/9^ Pages -■ •“ —rt—.—1 removed. Staff Recommends hardcover amounts on Lot 2 shall comply with the 25% requirement of the 75’ to 250' lakeshore zone before Lot 1 is sold separately. No variances for hardcover for either of the lots shall be granted in the future. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C D E F G H 1 Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic M£q> Permit Record Survey of Lots Hardcover Worksheet (75' to 250' zone, lot 2) 1987 Resolution Statement of Hardship U2283 Cary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 6 Application # ^ Date Received ^ 7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) / / Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ ‘A ^ (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) »• '-assays PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^6JS fJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) -//7- ^/P - 0307 Attach legal descript.oa to application if not included on required surv’ey. I9S7Date Property Acquired I (3o) (do not) also own th^adjacent parcels of land.t (month/year) Present use of property: ^/^residential Zoning District:______ other (specify) APPLICANT Name ^ ^ Address: KlLZV Phone (home ) ^7 /- ~ ___ Phone (work) i'2,5' 3-^33 City: <S>cC45n^_______Zip: SS3^ ! OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip- Estimated Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ___________ Describe request in detail: Pit- of } rsp flBovc r^7P£firy pier^i frrr/^cHzc (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area Lot Width / Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: UAlC/-//9/Jg^ ______ Sir /jrrnrNfJ) LriTc/l._____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) S a «%ou tr» r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2- < 3- KroaU 4. NO 5. 6. NO 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of ovNners 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'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x H" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/z" 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 Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true Md correct to4he best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigatioij_and verification of this request. f{<^—1 Da,.Owner’s Signature / Applicant must have allJ 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 thi > change prior to the meeting. 8 c c c k. I : I ; In Pernit No. 6b(^-h Ub«i 3(^^x 9iS k-&liy PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit 4-'^-^l ■ f ’<■! ^ 1 y/ttl/'fcL i dM^instiLya c^< F #f I \ # tl k • • •h- • J LYOIARO “ave»4 ue NOflTN g»0»m settt: !’• JO' \ ’aV*City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. . i 9RON^A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SOnOIVIGlON 2 AND Lt-CTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (U> PILE fiiae WIIP.RKAS, Sheldon nnd Helcno Kciplon (horoinatter "tho applic ■•'.•is") are the c-ncr;. c! tho property locutcd at 26'>S Kelly Avenue within the Ci.v of Orono 'here:nuftcr ''City") and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Bloc); 1, Cviinan Cove, li'/nnepin County, Pinnesoca (rioroir;a! tor “tho property"); ar.d WliEKR, 1, the applicants have applied to the City lor a variencr? to Mjn.f'it.il Do.;inq Code Section 10.22, r.uhdivinion 2 to apr.rove an oxv r.r» .• f o/.iMjnq nnrdcov r of C,130 ;..f. or whore only S,li)'o r,.f. or 2SV > r. al icwe i er I i ..r.d per ii-rcticn lo.24, Sehe i v ii on S (h) to npprov*.- ...'i ari-3 •, for hot 2 eor...i.stinq of 2C,'j60 s.f. or .62 acres cf lol ar--. w.'ic-te n.,,‘v<'.o ar 1 a-'i'e is requir-.-cl and pt-r that sarc- sectiC:. to apprv.e .it. a r. ..i variance lor I’.nde vr. 1 op*. J hot 1 tonsr nti n<j of u conti ouixOii. ; • .nV«. 1 ope of lf,,7S7 s.f. or .>0 acres wliero 43,SCU s.f. cr I aero 1 a r . ,;a ; reri. f'i r.r.e;. DOW, 7!IEI'EKOHn, BE IT RESOLVED hy City Crv.r.. ;i o: !>: n , FINDINGS tJcn v.af. :cvnv;-d a.«, I’ar.^r.c; Tile sllfc8. *• •••• :r-..p.-r'y ; jc:-.,te.; in tr..- IF'-li: .Sir.qic rar.ily !,a:-..-a.'.',,- • • i -j * - .?• a..deve*op*ri a nr! h"ji. .;r. :e- ;; a!;sess.',d for h t.. n w .r .. - ..... 2 h.-- r. retained as i.'.depen Jei.t p-iceis ..i.-: h..v<; ..• ..V .. :y co-'.mr-.od for tax purponoi,; eaeli lot is 't : araf- • y Ly ’ J.e Stat ^-. .. An ir.;- p -ne.-nt safe access ca.n h* p.rovided to hot 1 if lic* Vc-1 oped j tl.f; :sture. This .icro-s h.as heon r^.-vi-wed f.y the I'uhl i<; Wi.r);;. Di r aC'wor . *iiO proposed development of Lot 1 at .39 acres appears rensi stcr.: ■••ith the pattern of surroundinq ticvclopmert of the Carr.'jr. iccad r.e'. q hi.G r .ocod. 4 of tl*e 7 lots, or S7?, adjacent to Carman i.o.id .ire S.rniiar in area ranging from .2 to .4 acres. Page 1 of 9 POOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ■4 1 City of OROxNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7. iTo wh the proposed new bulldincr site* and the site with exxstinq residonce are similar in area to other common - ownership lots which have been approved as building sites since 1984 within the LR-lii zoning district as follows; n^ncsi’ead Lot Vacant Lot »830 Srr.iley, 2720 Pheasant Road .65 .59 #1051 Clcsne, 1475 Cherry Placn .ea .64 • 1084 M.axficld, 4175 North Shore Drive 7 .46 #'*24 Lange, 4160 Forest Lake Drive . 40 .45 b. The }otc were created in the early 50's prior to the City's udoption of ordinances that v;culd have provided standards for the dc-VC icp.'.e.nt of icts. 9. Tno applicants have owned the acts for approximately 30 year-. 1C. Lot I contains no accessory struct ♦s ■'•ifl woulvl aj/pcar to seiv<.- merely as ad;li ticna 1 area rcccivinq mi. : ,..ui ntenancc. } 1 A •Cienn Cook, the City Engineer, in a report dated October 6, 1987 .states the £ol lov-Jing : Development of Lot 1 on Kelly Avenue will not result in any drainage problems fer adjacent resident. 7hc run-off from the neighborhood is currently directed vo t he- City cv;.ned property South cf Lot 1. Development of this lot will resjit in ^;dditional run-off to the lake because cf an increase ir. hardcover. Vie do not anticipate that this increase in rur.-ofl will cause any significant adverse effect on the lake. 12. 7City Council has considered this application ir.clud.ir.g reports i.y City staff, co.Tjncnts by the applicant and the effect of rhe proposed vjiianccs on the health, safety und welfare of the conir.ur*i ty. • A ^ m The Cl^y Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to otner property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose- a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would net roreiy serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a ceir.ons t r ab i e hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a 5r.aL:;t a.ot 1 a 1 property right of the applic.int; and would bo in ke-oping V.’. tr: t.!n, spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan • !.■' City. Page 2 of 5 POOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT City of OROIVO RtSOLUTlON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO .:2H t CONCLUSIOMS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS nuf.eu upon one or more of the f^ri- • .t/ council l.ercby grants variances to above, rho Orono ■rea ano (.ardcovar varianeec for Van-. = '^1 dpr-rcvfng lo- “ tna lot to bo dovciope.J, aubjoc- to 1 - t‘>l lowing conditions: 1- a __ . ^ j -a*-.*. WIl O ; i. /»r-r'iicar.t shall roloo-»tr% t ,1. w Lot- i, such dock snail meet ^ sale of .-.innetonka Conservation District * I'r. -fandards of the lake -V't'uc-“.nr:r' "‘<= '/’''e^'rorVur.tr;"a-?-;V;V'-"'. '• - -n n^t^ ^osifJenco a’-J b’li i ^i^icato of Occupancy the ...ly for the dock construction. -'--rnit in obt a: ned 1 r,*.:: The raximu:.- allowed hardcover for l^c ^ . .-c . s.f. or ‘’s',. iepre ver. er*^" 2 is upprevod at 6,100 '• ► or •’”5' ovor^le P*opt'rty that win •• i •,1''^"* ^ny future. 1." “PP/^^veu 3C% iray noccssi- f.*cr.u 1 l.anicovcr •'--an.icr. of existing har(Jcover. ' ’ ^-'tching accounts cf Prior to the sale of Lot l t k« pi^op.jrty r.ust be re^^ovoci / r rivat.o fence lore ted ntiKi, Ur.a.,/atractara can^ba Vocted 'wTtUr^l .To the ar/p\Vca*v'tiV'^bur^a^o''r-^^ 'ty r.ci cc‘-V7V.-^-“ buTa-T Tn= -•■vh.:L'b ^C:..o..^a„to...af, or tbtr. oar^anoo ...fVfTprrV b'r\U'tT;: ^ --uixi uU ter a t i r a 1 ’ V ^f-r n of t }, ^r.i sh.li ha puninhahlc -itho:!:,. gr.,.rc.. .......... ^Lain of title- cf thr prc.i..,t.-. »• = ! «t thi:. JaO'c 3 cf s POOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1 , City of ORONO ^=>/CITY ' I bctof^o- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2283 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 198T before me a Notary Public within and for said county» personally appeared _ _ known to me to be the personjs) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. * KATHLEEN M. HOLTON ; i NOT/WV»UHJC -tWWMHOTA ; 1 DAKOTA COUNTY 't fffffrn notary public aS\ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 198__, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 sl: Jj : Gary Bimbaum, M.D. 2695 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN. 55331 August 20, 1997 Citv of Orono 27X Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55336 RE: Renew al of Variance as per Resolution of City Council #2283; Hie #1188 Dear City Council: We are seeking a renewal of the above noted v ariance for Lot 1 of our property ’. We were unaware until recently that this variance required renewal on an annual basis. We are in the process of selling our homestead and do not intend to build on Lot 1. Nor do we plan to sell this lot sepiarately from Lot 2 of our homestead. Renewal d* the variance is sought to preserv e a substantial property right of the ow ners ctf this property, as cited in Paragraph 13 on Page 2 of the abov e noted “Resolution of City Council.” We hope our application for renew al for this variance w ill be acceptable. Please let me know if there is additional information you may need. Dirnoaom HAi;rvov}.u V.‘ I or% i\ V f\*w ..:4. 1 POOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT\ J. • ^ / t- v« » h'it.At\ / _,' • t;Sftt«rk lore: (riicli* mcl ' •?S*‘v^7^5o rrc>f00-!C00*V» HoH7 -<£ gy->tinq Nardrovcf |y| ilpn#* . - - _six *f u . 135 ., ICfJQth Jt h 5^-fc. ^.2. , «-iX..f. _ •.f. l.f. b. G«rAoe 31 91 — P.f . Cm Driveway ^ ^ t dm Side^slK 3*f ____S.f. ” _2lL^ '.f. • ____________?.f . ^1 m r . f . A . f . Dejk j|(<. r.ti<-. 3U... -7 . la ^ f. Lani5cA;<e , «:e»5 under lA: r. ty r *c sheetirq 1 // _3:6«©w^ ^ f. Other A'-“. C ^ 1 * •3 . ^ *. ••• •»:»:ivr;h; r : • •%r 1' »».^t,rq Hardrovrr % . Tot-I r * . ^ Area hithln tone aoM95‘S.f .» :n 31 -------'•=----------. . ror.L .,,. 0 M K K X i.f. • wl *.f.i'** TO!At. S.r. TO Br ADDFO ,o t,e Bco vod. ir any. 0_.:,••'Lr*2/A 11 on n K Width ~otal ,.f. !•• -' I • W = r .9*1 ,, -J91. ..r.__ _UO r.f.L/ toial s.r. TO Ss- ..,,V rir.ll i|.,-drovrr rrotv^.*i. 33f ,.f. ________ r.. f . (11 ♦ Line (.) .tine . . c: -L^ .r To Im- Mdej rit.(Mif;. t »Mr<1-ovrr 1 . • ••■• ■ •'> » iro .. . .# • ».f JI'* • X X V.• • f • •• n cV. (j) C-> Tint)! ill (<) >. r. r - f .><'('•' 3s .'^/V /-V TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator 7. FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator August 9, 1997 SUDJECT:#2284, James Slechta, having an interest in 3700 Northern Avenue Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning Dutrict: LR>1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:172,968.3 square feet (3.97 acres total, .6 acres in wetland) (approximated by city staff, surveyor did not provide total lot area) Application:The applicant is proposing to construct a 42' x 96' (4,032 sq. ft.) storage building. The proposal requires variances as follows: 1.To construct an oversized accessory structure that exceeds both the maximum individual accessor>' structure footprint and the maximum total footprint for all accessory structures on the zoning lot. 2.To locate 23' from thefront property line at the southeast comer pf the proposed storage building where 30' is required. 3.To construct a storage building with a peak height of 23', sidewalls at 16' where the height of the accessory structure is limited to the height of the principal structure. The principal structure is 16' to the peak. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, Definitions, 13, Building Height Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 9, Accessory Buildings Section 10.25, LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ^2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page~I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1/2 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.; 30' for accessory structures over 1,000 sq. ft. 30 ft. Subject Proj)erty Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3.97 acres approximately of which .6 acres is wetland 442 ft.proposed at 23' from SE comer of storage building 10 ft. to Tract B meets 30 ft. from east/west property lines 270 ft.+ The subject property exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the zoning district. The storage building would encroach 7' into the required 30' front yard. The storage building would be 10' from the west boundary of Tract B. This could present a problem if Tract B was separated from Lot 9, the western part of the parcel. Maximum Accessory Structure Footprint Area Lot Area Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area 3.01-3.51 acres (w/o wetland) 3.51-4.00 acres (with wetland) 42284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page~2 1,400 sq. ft. 1,600 sq. ft. Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas 2,800 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. The lot size is approximated by staff as 3.97 acres, .6 acres is wetland. The table does not address whether the wetland should be included in determining total lot area. If the wetland area is excluded, as the Zoning Code definition of lot area suggests, then the property is limited to an additional 1,421.4 sq. ft, of footprint area for accessory structures. The amount of footprint for each of the existing buildings is as follows: House #1 (Principal Structure)1,200 sq. ft. Garage #1 534.6 sq. ft. Garage #2 240 sq. ft. House #2 440 sq. ft. Porch 144 sq. ft. Total Existing Structural Coverage 2.578.6 sq. ft. Total E.xisting Footprints for All Accessory Structures 1,378.6 sq. ft. Total Proposed Footprints for All Accessory Structures 5,410.6 sq. ft. The proposed footprint for the storage building is 4,032 sq. ft. which exceeds the individual footprint allowed and also the ma.\imum allowed for all accessory structures on a property. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated to staff that he desires to move into the smaller house on the property to be near his parents who live in the principal structure. He indicated that he wants to store his possessions in the storage building. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding the need to locate 23’ from the front property line and the need for a building that exceeds the 1,600 sq. ft. footprint for the lot size. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property m question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. #2284 James Slechta 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page-3 The zoning lot can continue to be used for residential use without the storage building. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property' not created by the landowner. The Zoning Code limits the size of accessory structures. The proposed storage building exceeds the allowed maximum size, encroaches 7' into the required front yard and exceeds the height requirement based on the principal structure. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for a 4,032 sq. ft. oversized accessory structure that exceeds the 1,600 sq. ft. limitation to locate within 23 ’ of the front property line and also exceeds the height of the principal structure will change the character of the area. 4. 5. 6. 7. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. The applicant has not indicated whether economic factors are 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 applicant has indicated that the storage building is for his personal belongings. However, a building of this size would appear commercial in nature and may encourage future owners to attempt to locate commercial uses in the building. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. 1^2284 James Stechla 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page—4 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. All zoning lots in the LR-IC district are subject to the same zoning requirements for oversized accessory structures. This lot is unusual in that is it much larger than the minimum lot size for the zoning district. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which S3\d land is located. This zoning lot is heavily wooded and the lot slopes to the wetland in the center of the lot. This property also has five existing structures. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant needs to provide testimony at the public hearing regarding the storage building being necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his interest in the property. 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 w ill be contrary to the Zoning Code's limit on the size of oversized accessory structures. 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. No hardship has been demonstrated. A smaller storage building could be located 30 ft. from the front property line. The applicant needs to provide the Planning Commission with testimony regarding the need for a height variance. Issues 1.The zoning lot does exceed the 1/2 acre minimum lot requirement for the LR-IC Zoning District. The zoning lot is approximately 3.9 acres in size with .6 acres deemed wetland. U2284 James Slechta 3700 Sort hern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page-5 2. 4. 5. The zoning lot is heavily wooded in the location where the storage shed is proposed. The lot slopes down to the wetland. Any new structure is required to be at least 26' from the edge of the wetland. There are two residential structures on this site, two garages and one porch according to the submitted survey. The proposed storage building would require the removal of trees and vegetation on the site. The impact of removal of the vegetation and uces and its impact on the wetland is not known. The permit record indicates that a permit for a garage was issued in 1973. The zoning lot was connected to sewer in 1986. It appears that no other permits or variances were issued for this property. Ihe street file does indicate that in February 1996 a vacation or division for tax purposes was filed. (File Number 2121). ^2284 James Slechia 3700 Northern Avenue PC-9/15/97 page—6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has had numerous requests for variances to allow oversized accessory structures during the past few months. Staff has consistently recommended that the applicant’s reduce the size of the structure, comply with the height requirement and reduce and eliminate any other variances such as front or side yard where possible. This proposal is for a storage building that far exceeds any other accessoiy structure proposed for a residential lot. The Planning Commission should ask the applicant to explain his desire for a storage building that exceeds the allowed height and size for the zoning lot. Applicant should be advised that any new structure should meet the 30 ’ hunt yard setback. Also consider the appropriate distance any new building should be located from the Tract B property line in case the parcels are divided in the future. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Proposed S'orvey Topographical Map Proposed Building Footprint Permit Record Wetland Map Pertinent Sections of Zoning Code U2284 James Slechta 3 700 Northern Avenue PC-9/IS/97 page-7 i tc c e c Cl Cl I" I -II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I 1 II 1 9\ • Jj33 . tUiimwM 3l9 MpAM CMs ■IlSMN----M1 u ! bl tmtattmn m S u ‘Tf^a 1 I Application # V"_____ Date ReceiTed 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 $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) is I' "1 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3 ^ Property Identification Number (P.IJ).) (Hf^OOSk________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______________________________/ 9 ______^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify). Zoning District: J^R-lCL (p.^: ^ APPLICANT Name Phone fhome ^ 'ys’t - ^ V J Phone (work)______________ Address: st City: /!//£«>•• Zip:__5j&£_7 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name L£o 3Le.<L Phone fhome ’l Phone (work)____________' Address: 3 7*^0 ^e./o /fi/t'L. City: ts*Zip: 9 / DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ oo o Describe request in detail: JZ~ To V;63Z- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcoyer Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore % Other (specify) Cyjpr*=^7^d 0<T’ggSQr^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:________________________________' (attach additional sheets if necessary).V.* A - i 1 >\ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date la order for vour application to be considered complete! 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fiom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). CfOB- HA^|Ll»d6S Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover rW. calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/j" x 11" for reproduction. cjtls VkS 4x>i\dt»hv> 4. 5. 6. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (proviile one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of ail persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. 7. 8. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature 'TM -a /yi 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. J? Owner's Signature />» C't / •'“.J Date ^ y Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the diird 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 • \ FRANK a CAROARELLE (612) 941-3031 ttfid Ed*n Praifi*. MN 85344 C Survay For Jaiagp si^cht*Book__ii2_ Poop w FMo. i p Umymmtm, mi 551^1 i 1 - PoRcrlpeionx Tract *ft* and R.L.8. Mo. 763 and thm South 7/3 of tho Host 3/4 of Lot 9 in •lock 10, Towniita of Langdon fark. Containing 3 acroa# nora or loaa# Mannopin County# Hinnasota. Thia plan, apacif ication or raport uaa praparad hy ua or undar ay diract auparviaion# and that Z aa a duly Raoiatarad Land Survayor in tha Stata of Minnaaota. Signad thia laaa. -day of fye h 1996 • Lot 9 Araa only 63,600 Sq« Ft* Bulldinq Araa Drive Area Propoaad Blda. 2590 So. Ft. 1000 Sq. Ft. 4032 So. Ft. Frank RTwrniMll* St«t. IteQ. lioT •&0» r .**"0 oooft \ r w R* a. ( ^ oi ^" /' VP-£ "f— — £ P^OPC^ ■{61(9 HT; ((o' 23' peal. ; ppirXliPAi. ; ^TiavirraeG' Ft To P:HC- er t -i 5 i • •• • 3^1 6h Dr4Jotfn/.> F PERMIT record Permit No. • • •• ••• Date • •• I • •# 3A 3/^7 9/Asr/?3 % Type of Permit IjJgjtzx. L S 10.03 H 2, Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following table: Lot Area 2.00- 3.01- 3.51- 4.01- 4.51- 5.01- 6.01- 7.01- 8.01- 9.01 1.99 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre or more Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area 1»000 s.f. 1.200 s.f. 1.400 s.f. 1.600 s.f. 1.800 s.f. 2.000 s.f. 2.200 s.f. 2.400 s.f. 2.600 s.f. 2.800 s.f. 3.000 s.f. Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property 2.000 s.f. 2.400 s.f. 2.800 s.f. 3.200 s.f. 3.600 s.f. 4.000 s.f. 4.400 s.f. 4.800 s.f. 5.200 s.f. 5.600 s.f. 6.000 s.f. * Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a) No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line tha the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure s*attacks apply. b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30' or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ORONO CC 255-1 (8-14-89) § 10.03 ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 D. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshore. No principal building shall be located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distance between the natural ordinary high water mark on the lakeshore and the allowable building line. 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Item 1 above shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date: 2-14-74 ORONO CC 255-2 (4-1-84) 1 S 10.03 E. Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 10. Conditional Use Permit Required. All acces sory buildings on through lots located in "R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. Subd. 11. Dwelling Use Prohibited. No cellar, basement, tent, trailer, or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling. ORONO CC 255-3 (4-1-84) } § 10.03 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residentif.l Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restricciont, - No accessory building in the "R” District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 fec=t in height. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of foot print area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas ORONO CC 255 (4-1-84) TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator £ FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator i DATE:September 11, 1997 SUBJECT:#2285-John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue VarianceS"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6,725 square feet (.15 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the addition of a 12' by 26' deck on the north side of the existing residence. Variances are required for front and side setbacks and lot coverage. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.03, Subd. 15(D): Non-Encroachments Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements i^2235 John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page I I r- ^ ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .5 acres 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft. (15 ft. adjacent to street) 30 ft. Subject Prop>erty Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .15 acres 50 ft.30.2 ft.4 ft.48 ft. This is a comer lot. The yard facing Livingston Avenue is the front yard. The yard facing Navarre Avenue is the side yard adjacent to a street. The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width and side setback requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 6,725 s.f.1.483.32- existing 1.843.32- proposed 22%-existing 27.4%-proposed Structural coverage is currently 1% over the allowed 15%. Allowing the deck would further intensify the non-conformance. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as it l ies beyond 1,000' of any protected body of water.i i^7285 John Latte re lie 3305 Livingston Avenue P'ariances 9/15/97 Pagel •1 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the application (attachment A). Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property has been and can continue to be put to a reasonable use without a deck, however, another entrance would improve fire safety concerns. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property does not meet zoning district requirements for lot area or width. The west side yard is non-conforming, which could have been avoided when the house was built in 1976. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for front setback, side setback and lot coverage will affect the character of the area as the deck would have negative impact being located only 18.2’ from the street, forward of most structures facing Livingston Avenue. 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. 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. U22S5 John Laiterelle 3505 Livingston A\\*nue Variances 9/15/97 Page 3 7. 8. 9. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. The Board or Council may peraiit 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 property is a comer lot where the front yard effectively serves as a side yard. This also limits the allowable building pad. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The hardships presented by the substandard lot area and width apply to most lots in this part of Orono. 10. The granting of the application is necessary ’ for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The addition of a deck is not necessary to provide a means of a secondary fire escape. 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. If a means of fire escape is the applicant’s primary concern, an internal stairway, a small landing and stairway is sufficient. Issues 1.The lot area and width do not meet zoning district requirements. The e.xisting house is located 4' from the west side lot line. The deck as proposed would be aligned with the existing residence, requiring the side variance. H228^ John Latterelle 3505 Livingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 4 { I 1 2.Allowing the deck would increase lot coverage to 27.4%, 12.4% more than is allowed for lots under 2 acres in size. 3. No previous variances have been granted to this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an amended proposal be approved for a fire escape. Sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated for a deck of the proposed size. Staff recommends denial of the front setback variance of 12' to allow the deck to be located 18.2’ from the front lot line where 30' is required. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance of 6' to allow the deck to located 4' from the west side lot line. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage variance of 12.4% to allow 27.4% structural coverage on the lot where 22% is existing. Staff recommends the applicant consider a scaled down proposal for a fire escape. Building Official Lyle Oman has indicated that a 3’ by 3’ landing with steps 3’ wide having a run of 9" is sufficient for a fire escape. Staff has attached a revised survey (attachment G) showing the approximate footprint of an adequate fire escape. The location the applicant has proposed appears the most functional as this would lead out from the living room. Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances to construct staffs proposal. This would still require minimal variances for front setback and lot coverage. A front setback variance of 2.8' would be necessary to allow a 3' wide fire escape. It should be noted that according to code, fire escapes encroaching 3' or less into side yard or back yard setbacks are considered non encroachments. A fire escape in the proposed location would still require a variance, but it should be kept in mind that the front yard functionally serves as a side yard on this property, where it would be a non-encroachment. The necessary lot coverage variance would be minimal. No more than an additional .5% of structural coverage should need to be added for a functional fire escape, requiring 22.5% lot coverage where 15% is allowed and 22% is existing. Staff recommends approval of the application as amended by staff mss John Latterelle 3505 Lixingston Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 5 Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Survey-Staff Revision Sketch of House and Proposed Deck Floor Plan of Existing Residence f*2285 John Latterelle 3505 Ltvingsion Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page 6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI00.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) S-P-o 1 p Jr. i) 'V -•V PROPERTY INFORMATION ‘ « Site Address ?rg>X~ /Lt /H/€. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired \|.^(________________________________ I (do) (^5^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: >*^residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT Name— AddreSr ^ LlOfK.OSran Phone (home) ^*7/^ S>*// Phone (work) y 7:5*^ Citv ______36 T1 Cy 2-C />^ Zip: i OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name ____________ Phoneriiome) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REOLTST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: Up 112.* ~~ <dAciOY<~.tv-N rririCi.c-W’d________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot Area ✓Setback:Front Lot Width /Side Hardcover i/lLot Coverage 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 requirementi>:Tr>g- C x ^K^ — Cyvy €>|‘V ~fVrrVvrNC. C ev>i4- fNVi.VNlA^ ^'rg, Pv A-. ------------ ex\V- v*. vn. (\\re_o- \\r>c-\jO\\W-^nonCf^-___________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) required submittals All of the fnllowing information must be submitted bv the application deadline da^e in ordgf for vmir appligation to he considered compleje; 1. —) Completed Application Form 2 ~~T Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtam this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. ^ Plat Map (obtained with propert>- owners list). . • , . u 4. ~ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor and include tardcovM calculations as requited. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 A x 11 for reproduction. 6 ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 A ^ ^ 7* List of the lesal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest m the nrooerty. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. olK As an addendum to this application, please r-.nach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember to yaur annliraiinn is not cnmnlfle if the above info rmation bps pot beep |nc|pi)fd. Thfapplfc^ hefeby'^ag^^ provide all information required or requested by the Zoning AdmWs mo agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by ongtnal fee payment) "cStam expensW incurred in review of this appfication and certifies to the information supplied is true and correct ro the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signatun Date The owner hereby acknowledees and agrees to this application and further authonres reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, apnts. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes ofjj^estigation ^d^erification of this-request. Owner’s Signature Date •g'-/ ^----^ 7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comimssion to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ■/tj / / ! n r ov's:"»''' X 50 i 1 i 0 1 — '-'26± m • — CP • _i ^1 7 --^ i _11 Xa.1 1 »• o ^ (26»| 1t 1 ‘ ’ X- !i '"x 1 X oJ i rvj • 16 1 5C!) 17 ^ C2 ^ i 1 OJ IN.I • Q• 0 f f -rC - X 50 5.0 : 50J \ 50 1 o:‘1 1• 9 Ib! 4 In -7 i< 49)1(43) f * 1 / 1 50 .50 LP 6: Ca- (46^' c:;*» w'V j‘^mi- [2 »oi * I ^ V (55) ^--' 50 i 50 50 50 i 53 mm•I -7, (4 5)1(44) •i\*.‘*i-!*‘*!*i* E-V »: ■^r 0:>. 5C/ ^ - cr. V> k'.*.'.‘ .... (70) 1 #7 1 e oj! i 9 m ro ■^oc:i i/3 • \21 1 22 22 . 1’3 [2 7*1 f CP-):7 (V)(56) 11 1 X ^ ^ 11 63 ! 50 X 50 cn X X 63 __X C.C rs.CaI C.J Pv ■ —• Ca2 1 1 In r“. DO-Cw 9 2n • cn (69)(68) i 50 qp 1 __rV—JL X .■>j ! ; I4’- 't > lYRIC 5D .X — LO 5 9 J( 105) rO| 50 5C \ ;\ ' K \* » O'' . , '6 J 17 ' !49 "* V- * s.- 50 m Si-' '!:• 16 ( 15- 19 20 2 u^50_■ ^■■•- _ 50 _50 _50 _ L.O OJ Ca)C>J '.aJ ro ••• 6 f.Ol 4 ^.7-2 1. 104 }|( I03)j ( i02)/ • r • > V ? 'wH ; 11 1 X 5C 50 50 22 U") 50 2i 50 5| 50-i 50 ml 113) - - •I ro! m tf-'i ; • •*!t “'J' jro f'"' I 114) 50 ' ^-il4o,.i! 13 -I 12 :j(90) (89) 24 50 Iroi 5215 (9!) m —; . co ro • 50- ,5^3 Xu• 50 - OJ Xiw• 50 so ,iOn lo"'"'’3 •6 oj; ^ • (88)• ••00^cn 7^'(o) 1 ,., ‘"I / ' ; • ■ 63 X X .cn ! A. »'•.» j C-4 It I •-: 33 ; 55 LJC (92) 1^-1 c>j 18"‘ f93)(54) 50 oi li.\/ (95) 20 5i (66)1 VJT . t .50 1 50 2li^ in 53 ui N59 “18'52"E Cl OP —T Nir -1 Pm ro DOC NO wr\L 1 'ip 1 V N'87"43'50"E 1 5:c V 3505 Livingston Avenue Permit No 3lf> PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit 17- ->1 !7-7.nn WaZu tntjAii * . • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN LATTERELLE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4. NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA S LIVINGSTON AVENUE *2 UJ 3 UJ > < UJcr q: < > < LEGAL 0£SCI»>TK)N Of PREMSES: Lot 1, 6k>ck 4, Navarro Hoights. Thio survoy intondo to ohow tho bov^xJorioo of tho above doocrlbod property, and the location of an exieting houee thereon. It do99 not purport to ehow any other br^Mrove- nnente or encroachments. e : b’on marker found Bearingi shown are based upon on ossumed dotunv Coins i Grosbirg, I\(I uTt«l\ ih«if lhi> ••unrv u jv pn*pjn*U b\ nu* or uiuU r my direit ^upcr* \ iM»'n. and that I am a duly ri'^^ibttrri'd Civil Fn^^iiufi'r and I and Surveviv under the bv%'* »»i the suiu* »»i \iinni*Miia MjA S CriinN'tg Mintwsiiu lKvn>r Numbi-r UTSS iwn 3-tO-f7 MAI I !'‘tZO' 9730/ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN LATTERELLE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA |£5 LIVINGSTON AVENUE S S 89*59' 34'* W U 3 2 LJ > < tJ q:a: < > < 2 LEGAL DESCRPTION OF PREIASES: Lot 1. Stock 4. Navarre Heights. This survey intertos to show the bourtoaries of the above described property, and the tocation of on existir>g house thereoa tt does not purport to show any other improve- ments or encroochments. e : Iron marker found Beoringi shown are bosed upon on aesisned datum. m COma Corns & Gronberg, Isc.I hiTi bv uftilN that ini'* '^uru’v u Js pa ’p^nn! K mr unJi*r mv direct super- N isuin and that I jm a dul\ fe)^»s!efi*d Ci\ il En^imvr and l and Survi*\or under the laws til the 'stale »*l \tmnvs4»ta MarV S CnvnK’fj; Minnesota Lxense Number 127^5 OAri B-ZO-Tf SUALI KWNo 9730/ i ■■1 BB |H|HHH11H|[B j^HH ■iiiiiiiiiiiiniiliiiiiiiiiiiiiimi \ Latterelie Deck 'M ’ ><» t: 1 i 9. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 8, 1997 SUBJECT:#2287-Brad and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:12,047.9 square feet (.28 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing the replacement of a deck on the lakeside of the e.xisting residence. Some construction has already taken place. Variances are required for hardcover, side setback and lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): L R-lC Lot Requirements 0228'^ Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/97 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .5 acres 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .28 acres 60 ft.64 ft..9 ft.81 ft.-existing 67 ft.-proposed The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side setback requirements of the zoning district. If the deck is completed as proposed, the required 75' lakeside setback will also not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,047.9 s.f 1,912.1 s.f.15.9% Decks under 6* in height do not count toward structural coverage, therefore no variance is needed. #2257 Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shady wood Road Variances 9/8/97 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,084.4 s.f 1,099 s.f (21.6%) none 1,380.4 s.f (27.1%) 1,380.4 s.f (27.1%) 75'-250'6,963.5 s.f 4,430.2 s.f (63.6%0 1,740.88 s.f (25%) 4,639 s.f (66.6%) 2,898.12 s.f (41.6%) Hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' zones would be further intensified if the proposed deck is allowed. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the application (attachment A). 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 propert) could be put to a reasonable use without the construction of the deck. The proposed deck is a replacement for a similar, previously existing one, however. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created bv the landowner. The owTier u as not aware of the need for a permit to replace an existing deck. The previous deck was constructed prior to the current hardcover and setback requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, side setback and lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. U2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson 1 7 TO Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/9^ Page 3 Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 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. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person ’s land is located. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. 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-. Many lots in the vicinity do not meet lot area, size and width requirements of the zoning district. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the area have lakeside decks attached to the principal residence. The applicants wish to replace a similar deck which was existing. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A deck of similar size had been in existence for many years prior to this application. The applicant has removed the dilapidated deck with the intent of replacing it with one of similar size. 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. $228“^ Bradley and Traci Peterson 1 770 Shady \iOod Road Tar lances 9m7 Page A L 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 necessar> to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The limited lot size and w idth, along with the location of the house on the lot makes reconstructing a deck that conforms to all zoning requirements unfeasible. Issues 1.The lot size is approximately one half of the minimum lot area established for the zoning district. Lot width is 60% of the minimum standard. These limitations make the replacement of the previous deck impossible without variances. 2.The property was granted a side setback variance in 1970 for an addition tc the e.xisting residence. No other variances have been granted. 3. Construction of the new deck has already begun. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application based on one condition. Replacement of a previously existing similar deck does not intensify non-confoimities beyond their previous extent. Staff recommends that the variance for hardcover be approved under the condition that mulch with plastic be removed in the same amount of the deck footprint in the O' to 75' zone and the 75' to 250' zone, if necessary. It is recommended the rock with plastic near the lakeshore be allowed to remain due to significant topography on that portion of the lot. Staff recommends approval of the lakeshore setback variance of 8 ’ to allow the deck to be located 67' from the lakeshore. The deck is considered non-structural hardcover and will not infringe upon view s of the lake. Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance of 7.9' to allow the deck to be located 4.1 feet from the northern property line of the lot. The 4.1' side setback is consistent with that of the existing residence. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above condition. ^228“ Bradley and Traci Peterson 1770 Shady^vood Road Variances 9/8/97 Page 5 r Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheets if2287 Bradley and V*aci Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Variances 9/8/9’^ Pag^ 6 Application if Date Received 9 /jto^ 7/ Amount Paid AVO. 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 INFOR>L\TJON SiteAddress _________ Propert>' Identification Number (P.l.D.) Attach legal description to ^^l|^tiyn if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired I (do)((^o no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; residential ___^other (specify) Zoning District:________________________ (month/year) Name ‘^|i.lsl\ Address: tl^t) S'N^t^VU^CtA /U3M City: Zim nH ______ Phone (woric) “J 9^90 Ciri-. (9/^.0^Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City’:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: kllUuiLt lUffTi\)c /ifQC___________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front X'Side Rear Average Lakeshore v/ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: S LJ^yJX TO /j/jC/C LiHtcU U/>,t <-FAtL//)g dH= ■rhiS' NO’lSir^ ^Tu.n- -m/T >T UIAS. (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. 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 8V2" x H" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City statf The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been includedt APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administratoi, agrees to pay additioral fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expeiWes incurrea in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is flue-and coirect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Mil OWNER'S SIGNAT The owner hereby acknb^ledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property^y City st?/ff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purp^ses/^,investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signatur IS f_,investigation and verificalio Applicant must \iavej all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetirtgr Plarming 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 oHE MAP 61Jtnnini;\ ! SEE MAP 8? C >c c c c e. C-- II /yyo .^/icxci.CtO Cj /tb Permit No. PERMIT RECORD Date 9-//'6? % Type of Permit h00i<ufi P367 ^'70 /y)^TF/( ’hh. 303i 11-0:7'^ 3vcr'^Re/>faodc. jysi V 77 Rdy*oo<rc ISOiS ____ Va.4'?7..^rnc V7V7 J- V-77 ^LQ^ (a SVWl 6JO-V3 ^eNouA-TB ___ ^-//.-.S'y....1 /-ferT^ Vt/// "/G"^ / S'G9 IS -s <!.)> 7 Ssi,/=3 -lo-ty ^9,1 Ip i/-l‘)-<7d 9-90 ' Plb^ 1 ?r>_____P f)-' ^PulJ • % • • CITY OF ORONO © 6124730510 08/01/97 13:02 9:03/04 NO:998 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) gyiSTIIMC HARDCnVgR IN ZQPfE A. House ___ 500.1000' Lm(fb wm B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Eailo/Dcck P. Leodicape Underlain By Plastic O. Ocher a X X X X X X X X X X X \Q^4.0 ^l.z. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE SR. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. A /0*)*).0 -h B 5"oSV. ¥X too m •ZI.C0 % PROFO.RED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X »S.F. LenfTfi W1<»i X m S.F. X m S.F. X m S.F. B.Gtrage X S.F. C.Driveway X •S.P. X S.F. D.Sidewftik X S.F, X »S.P. E.Paiio/Deck ^.-7 X /Z-B .7/.*/S.F. X m S.F. F.Landscape X S.F. Underlain X a>S.F. By PLude X m S.F. C.Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 23/.*/S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. A Z.01.M B X 100 •% ^ • B 3) j V \'>VC. ^A B UI . CITY OF ORONO © 612A730510 08/01/97 13:02 g:03/04 NO:998 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE % 100 ranpnaim wAnnrovptt iw ynwr. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ZOe ft ♦ B 4 '9t>3.r X 100 SETBACK ZONE:(CIRCLE ONE)0-75*S00.1000!* E2UST1NC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houle __X •SJ. Lancft WUb R X 2^.-Z,a <=134. /S.F. X a SJ». X a S.P. B. Ovate X Zo ^OO S.F. C. Drtvewiy X (^n.n S.F. X a *"S.P. D. Sidewalk _ • tf?,X S.P. X Z. .D a IRM S.F. «-.T X 3-y /•^.9 «.p; B. Pilio/Deck __4.-7 X 4 a S.P. X a "S.F. X R^Z.O S.F. Underlah) _/C.X •C ife ^a 2<;<. 4 S.P. By Plastic __??-g>X IS.-?a “■Slo.4 S.F. Q. Other I2L X •S.F. s.p. A -g - L zo2>.3 4 3.0 S.p. % A.H oum X a S.F. Ltnftfi Wlddi X a S.P. X a S.P. X a S.P. B.Gvage X S.P. C.Driveway X S.P. X a S.F. D.Sidewalk X 5.F. X a S.P. E.Patlo/Deck /0.4 X Z9-Z. /z. * toil S.P. X 2r«reci i • /fl/. 7 S.F. F.Landscape X _ S.F. Underlain X a S.F. By PUidc X a S.F. G.Other X S.F. S.F. S.F. * - A.' R :n'\ L*. i jf-f F I i- . ■..1 A B /6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 11,1997 #2288-Jason Theis 4108 Highwood Road VarianceS"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:13,437 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.31 acres) _________________ Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of an attached 697 s.f tuck under garage with living space on top. Additional driveway is also being proposed. Variances are required for hardcover, front setback, and side setback. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03: General Provisions • Section 10.22, Subd. 2; Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.24. Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements »22SS Jason Tfieis 41 OS Highwood Road Variances 9/15/97 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. 35 ft. abutting street Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .31 acres 70 ft.12ft.5 ft.206 ft.-existing V 177 ft.-proposed The zoning lot docs not meet the lot area and width requirements of the zoning district. Street and side yard setback requirements are also not met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverajie Percentage 13,437 s.f.845 s.f.-existing 1,392 s.f.-proposed 6.3%-existing 10.4%-proposed Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. 1^2288 Jason The is 4108 Highwood Road fdrirnces 9/15/97 Page 2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 75'-250’ 250'-500’ Total Area in Setback 1,385 s.f. 12,052 s.f. Existing Hardcover 507 s.f. (36.6%) 791 s.f. (6.6%) Allowed Hardcover 346.25 s.f. (25%) 3,013 s.f. (25%) Proposed Hardcover 653 s.f (47.1%) 2,586 s.f (21.5%) Variance Requested 306.75 s.f (22.1 s.f) none A variance is required in the 75’ to 250' zone as hardcover would be increased to 47.1% where 36.6% is existing and 25% is allowed. Hardcover is not an issue in the 250 to 5^^0 zone. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the application (attachment A). Criteria for Oeteimining Undu e Hardship 1 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allow'cd by the official controls. While the property in question can be put to a reasonable use, it currently does not have a garage. The applicant would also like to increase the amount of living space. 2. The plight of the landow ner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot does not meet area or w idth requirements of the zoning district. 1 he topography of the lot also makes locating a garage on the lot difficult. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for side setback, front setback and hardcover will not change the character of the area. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terns of this chapter. U22SS Jason Vie is 4 1 OS Hti;h u ooJ Road lariances 9 15/97 Pa^e 3 5. 6. 7. 8 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. An attached garage and addition of liv ing space is j5ermitted 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. Many lots in the area do not meet area and width requirements of the zoning distiict. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot has significant topography which slopes downhill from the front and northwest side lot lines toward the existing residence. The non-conforming location of the house on the lot also makes expansion difficult. 10. The granting of the application is necessar)' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right of the applicant. There is no garage on the lot at this time. The applicant also wishes to add living space to the existing residence. 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. U2288 Jason Tfteis 4108 Highwood Road lariances 9/15/97 Page 4 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar)' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The lot is limited in width in area. Topography also significantly inhibits development on the lot. There is not garage on the property at this time. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. The lot area and width do not meet zoning district requirements. The existing residence is non-conforming as it is located entirely within the required 35' front setback. There is significant downhill slope from the front and northwest side lot lines toward the existing residence. This could be problematic regarding V'e feasibility of the proposed driveway. There is a retaining wall approximately 38' in length near the northwest side lot line. There are also stairs on the northwest side of the residence. These structures both limit the location of the driveway. 5. There have been no previous variances issued for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application subject to several amendments and a condition. Staff recommends denial of the variance for hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshorc setback where 36.6% hardcover is existing and 25% is allowed. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance of 2' to allow a side setback of 8' as measured by staff on the submitted sur\ ey where 10' is required. Staff reeommends approval of the front setback variance of 5' to allow the addition on the rear of the existing residence to be located 30' from the front lot line where 35' is required. ¥22SS Jason The is 4108 High wood Road yar lances 9/15/97 Page 5 1 i f rI • li^v • A *■: VJ Staff recommends the applicant consider staffs revised plan (attachment H) eliminating the need for a hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' zone by reducing the driveway to 10’ and also eliminating the need for a side setback variance by reducing the length of the . garage to 22' and m oving it east 2'. This allows for an additional 4' of driveway space, providing more room to turn vehicles entering and exiting the northern garage stall. The additional hardcover resulting from the extended driveway would not increase hardcover beyond the 30% allowed in the 250' to 500' lakeshore setback. A grading plan shall be submitted for which ever driveway is approved prior to the issuance of a permit to determine if either the applicant's or staffs drivew'ay proposals are feasible. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey of Entire Lot (9/3/97) Survey With Hardcover Calculations-Applicanfs Proposal (9/11/97) Survey-Staffs Proposal View of Proposed Addition-Left Side V'ew of Proposed Addition-Front Side View of Proposed Addition-Right Side View of Proposed Addition-Rear Side mss Jason Theis 4108 Highwood Road yariances 9/15/97 Page 6 '1 • . Application # Date Received ?•? Amount Paid »rt) • • L.. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI 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) 5^2 2 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ___^ uuof>e\ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) (’^ 'P//“y V^QO'?3 Attach legal description to appli.ation if not included on required survey. Date Prop^ Acquire d _______________________________^(month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential Zoning District:____________________ other (specify). Phone (home ’) ?5 ____________________________________ Phone (work ’) -67 Address: \<cX. City: C)roo o ________Zip: APPLICANT^ Name ZTc 77'^e < S OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Q l.OoO Describe request in detail: ~Ti»<Lk AcXrK\V(oir\ 'm__ Mi.xi ^>r’. ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front ♦/ Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: • f74 kpA- Ao.r.— O^C- t-jriA rnetkf // —fa—r/ p — r\i- 4^e.hcd <ndrc/y£ ^j_fhrCw L— h^yj.. Q/eAtfr j-yj/Jl kC ...ir3<^Of .^\aU L—k^cK .'S ^----- (attach' additional sheets if necessary) 1 Ivn »• 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. 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 Hermepin 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 iVi x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/S" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy ZVi" 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 owTier(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and cqp^t 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 invastigatiafn^d verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must^)»dve all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaiming Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review’ meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. s,suai«ia<i^North Arm Maxwell '% "’“' OROMOf" Arm 'Bav Shtzdjmood Patnt Ip DFERING _ !<i an . WIST ~'Lakt ' »!!Oirfi^ j ® %J I cr>«a/ tt?» Bay t SMOMUMf 1 Carman ^y/lcoosn ISLAND Bay ^ORON yt •j**! ta 24uue« M i<A«rutvat aa 4-iik*ai aa I ^*H /~C MtCMLAMO SPRAY ISLAND Ho^^arJi Poin ENCH .ANTED j...Ma/ ISLAND wawaTOS>^^ isund V i. I ,nko SHOREWOOD 1>V ^,1»t0»p» faauM T Ilf fw u ■ 1 PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date Type of Permit i iu. \1 h€T9by ctrclfy th«c 1 h«v« prtpartd chit lurvey of:Thoc pare of LoCt AO and Al. HICKWOOO LAKE MINNETONKA.Hanntplo Co.» Mlnnatoca. dticribcd at follovt:EaglooiAg ac tha nt cor.of taid Lot AO; chtnet tv'ly along tha ta'ly lint thereof ISl ft; thence daflact right 15*10'00” a dltc. of 27 ft; thence • 'ly 12 feet to a point on taid te'ly line, dls^^I87' ttf*Xy* at Matured along te'ly line thereo^^^-oa taid ne thaoca tw'ly along taid ta'ly line,to a point 16.7 ft **a'ly^^g froa tha tw cor of Lot Al; chance t'ly 12 ft. to a point on than'ly line of taid Lot Al dltc. 11.A ft. oe'ly froa the tw cor. thereof; thence tw'ly along tha touch*ly lln. of Lott Al and AO to, a point 12 ft. na'ly at aeat. along taid t'ly line froa the aw^o^^thereof; thence nw'ly to a point on tha nw'ly line of -• La^ AO, \ditt. 22 ft. na'ly froa taTd tw cor. thereof; Chance na*^ C£RTIF/CI^T'^si//^v£y=Il« o \ the nw^ cor. of taid Lot ^ b.,AQln, 40; thwet st'ly to the point of \ ^HO SXtST. HARD SURFACE AREA TAB. hx Ax- T p«< A Danotet found nail Danotet found iron/fipe Danotet act raba/'and cap RLS No. 19162 Danotet 3" dia ttael pipe A' call. =. / / / AREA:SO. FT ----- 4 ^ &MAC Houte A30 * C,^n Deck 315 - /o» Stalr-stepi 62 Rock 7A Driveway 370 r /O^O Total 1271 - /6.V7 hjrd surface dlv. lot ar«.* PRoPosre ThW. 9.5 X 2/.7% FevistJ 9-1 r? and that 1 aa a duly Reglttered Land Surveyor under tha lawt of MlnneioCo ^ Ahr.ns, RLS 19162 AJ^ iP-A*U*Ui- S-t7-97 - "V/TaES4f:CES TITT¥a4 wWIzTTqwJv / REVISIONS ^a>f • njason n'ce R€%id(Act. NO DATE er 1 But Ah^t^s 2 S.X'.tHAl iST/TS- 3 •‘•‘•'SG/I 4 Mvee '‘"S-rr-77 s *MUt jJJo-Ve V--' ' K e»^U>vKin r / ■t--M.f4..i,.,l l^r/; 1 ; i i J<V >4^^; :!!•’. iH ^h4- 1^i4 Gv'f« povic. 4o kic. Qf'4'^ ; i i • ■ • ' i * * i I '- ■5'ic> i . I : I ■" 5^ pv ^ I i • . fiose , M|5’<^ I + ^‘^7 i : i iJwc^dc p t ««'•)' ^ i Dirwi ! j A ■ •hii.j; TM /;«!, L3i|«« • '!“>’: MH, ' Xl^f;/ I /a N , \\ y ; ^ Il^\ f w I ./ £ l4 / fK nUK ’4^'i^ ' ^ ; aiiHi K'*'^ -i->'l .. — rN-"4: I ?Or-<A^ ^ ^ ’ll -y-5 t / a |}> A/c <>>p- . 3‘^*-'''' sj^fj ^2- i U^olf^ /C? 4- 3^ Aoc ‘{u_ i ! ! : I I • P<'wc ‘ S10 f- //<4 ! • j 6oc<<j ijV\ nsA'^^c> zio»'^<j I • ' N icec^r c:K O^y' f-il ' i I ■ ■ '^joTkJ Z-oi''C; • ,‘ ! ■ V75 f ik i i/,.1 G'Ci l f 6^ ^ j cox Sr- S: a n •D s u i i 'i •1 -J 03 i c\%j corC ^ f O- CiCQ \t•1 !JJIoAe' G /-- t- /^i li 4y 4- 1X.I--V1 !pr'-jjc. 4o kic.. ; X ■ y - E 1-1 I II H ,l<)i i-, cj U«nas^r^?%irri i 6UKKr*P i-- - . . .\/-,^\ 7^ i :'\h -^ 7 / / / L^' /cost j 4|3'<^ ! + j J i ■ Di^clc • 3 »0 - I • . 1. / r..,. 9n .L ««s:<.-i' N* • i Ji WMftfQoh.] 'M«kJ ”OrWl J_f JE. i~«K; .!<,•'■ ■ ' I 2,05 Z I /Vc or •4 1 r <■* ,rdc*»v mi •p«i f ? I /I't ^(oQ, ^1 ' '''"\ ^ * 3$‘ 'S4|lj.ck Vs j Z5o I e^T-e..' a / ■ P<^p- ‘ / iC [ o[C(q A <?'>c e-i < !\5 sUf> ^ Z *r ! I P6+C/! doct J C o*')A0 v<A- -tA,' iin 4^y 1-1 ^ ' 75 -i '-2 w Zjoir'»<^ ly 4- 3"i 15 \Jit\ M ' iSr. :' t ■ 3.70 f- |/C/ "^t^l r'^OO CkrNi; ■SO'/ ■ ^ i' i% ‘G^1 4ij .11 m --------------r—/ /. i - - - ^ >• (.f^w.**** •«..»*«>« *• ••• •• — ^ VZr* ****** ~* **■**» ^ •* •••» •. »% -. — . —.. w^. *—, ‘••►V K • • mmm * • •« •»• • 4 ■ ^ « f* ^**‘*' **** 4^. w. —. [lA’^ian^ 1. J^L^gw gg^ra^aBi^St?X ‘^*^' ‘ r" ‘.It—Hi t"SKBIBBjBpz., \_^FX s\oe ., .. „ SCAUCy^-lrC • • 0 I ■ I; • / •• i Jqsbtn tiveis T// / 5 /S /9 pjl,r‘^t:XTi T^A'7 5>o-4.5 Ho^St C^r iCf T €> 'T^/£ p^op4lJfry‘ L-i^ ^ CS' /H ^ outrpfHAN^ U/fi)CH I 5 O Axf 7-//^ L^T i^/A'iE o/^ T i</o te>/f C p€7Ss/S Lf' OUrA T/^£ L/A^£'T)^ I PfOA/^-^ fHtzAS^t^P^ I T^ U//TH c ^liT' TAf^ 0AA/A/^C€T H^S lUiLL 3^ kZ/Ti^rM ^'p££T oR L£S5 ^/TM /'r^'^T o ^ A/-ifiyCr- /s A pifii /iP'2./^RP f^oj'H o R US //=- OAzt^ C AT^A/A: o fj> FR^. « Sf po fJoT U/R-pT TF IS uARiA/zc.ir TFR^/ V’T^5 P F^R F^IF srf- ^F fp'rF£T Ryp T T/y/vA TH\S 5T/yi^^ /A' THIS 7^ P<r^ F ££"Z. OiJ£. or ^ pT LP/^ST C^'MP /}!op F a T 'fHT 5/TciAT/^^ At'c/AiN kpieSs 3^'Hec^fo£ PAS B fFP i?^T f pofi^i- fxhf<=>^ /A £^z/ec.pirp /T o uzf 13^^ r F^Ac Pf^zexot/’S THL/A-'^ Au/us 3erfAt/£:£u/ rAF A^P A*y kyr/\c^Ai 7 P^>a ^H /A /r hy / A rr^r^T €>R J"^5r ) . pS- Aiy iOlpt£ / 5 JH i j Ar" TAf ^ *5 /IC<r/tCd5£T / ^ /7 fy r^ r /■/^ ccx^Af^' / £~ nAtxe- Ay y ct^esn>^yi MCAT tf7-X-9-7 ‘r/ . (f-y. £:' /(->Sp I hereby certify that I have prepared this survey ol:That part of Lott 40 and 41. HICHWOOO LAKE MINNETONKA.Hennepin Co., Minnesota, described at follows* beginning at the ne cor.of said Lot 40; thence V tw*ly along the te'ly line thereof 151 ft; thence deflect right 15*10*00** a diet, of 27 ft; thence t*Xy 12 feet to a point on said te*ly line. dit^l87* tw*ly, as Matured along se’ly line chereoWroa said ne thence sw'iy along said se*ly line a point 16.7 ft ne ly froa the sw cor of Lot 41; thence s*ly 12 ft. to a point on the s*ly l«ne of said Lot 41 dlst. 11.4 ft. ne*ly froa the sw cor. thereof: thence sw*ly along the south*ly line of Lots 41 and 40 to^m point 12 ft. ne'ly as aeat. along said s*ly line fr •v^^^BO^thereof; thence nw’ly to a point on the nw'ly line of - La€ 40, \dlst. 22 ft. ne*ly froa sa'Td sw cor. therinf; thence ne*l“ ^ the nw' cor. of said Lot 60; thnpce se*ly to the point of \ £>aiT HARD SURFACE AREA TAB. S50 -5 cx3 TRopo^eo *50 +• <. 9 T 315 - /0«y- ^0. 3 3o ^ So House Deck ^ Stair-steps ret ,toSl H-,*3> tq ft. Rock Driveway ___ Total 7515 hard surface dlv. lot area* %5 Tbtal 2.0,Z, fleiftsfJ 9 ’i‘97 ~ ^ and that I aa a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of Minnesota • Denotes found nail 7* # Denotes found Iron/^lpe Q Denotes set reba/and cap RLS No. 19162 Denotes 3** dia steel pipe 6' call. r- a j{ sw‘ly along th** sc'ly line tlicrtiol i;>l l;t.utt»encc deflect right 13"10'00” a dist. of 27 ft; thence s’ly 12 feet to a point on said sc’ly line, dist^'^lSv sw'ly, as nwasured along se'ly line tliereof^froai said ne thence sw’Ly along said sc'ly line ,to a point 16.7 ft ne'ly ^ froiD the sw cor of Lot 41; *:hence s'ly 12 ft. to a point on Opo^rqp/^Y?% the s'ly line of said Lot 41 dist, 11.4 ft. ne'ly fron- the sw cor. thereof; thence sw'ly along the south'ly line oi l.ots 41 and 40 to,a point 12 ft. nc’ly ns reeas. along said s'ly line from t thereof; thence nw'ly to a point^f^^thc nw’ly Hue thenc40, \dist. 22 it. ne'ly from saTd cm cor. the 00 r- ID f*jnr Ok Oi KD to the nw'‘ cor. of said Lot 40; thqsctrtfe'ly to th beginning Denotes foiind""naTr“^ ^^enotes found iron/f)lp< Nr%IQl '.hf a8S rr-0^0^ Ql i)! swMy aloTi[; the sc*Jy line thereof 131 ft u thence deflijct rlj;ht 13®10'00** a dist . of 27 ft; tliencc s*ly 12 leet tn a point on r*nid .se*ly line,RW^ly, as Tueasiired along seMy line thcreo^^from said ne ce^iV thence sw’ly along said se'ly line jlo a point 16.7 ft ne’ly ^ fron the sw cor of Lot 41; th«*nce s'ly 12 ft. to a point on the s'ly line of said Lot 41 dist. 11.4 ft. ne'Iy fron the sw cor. thereof; thence sw'Jy along the south'ly line of Lotr: 41 and 40 to. a point 12 ft. no'ly as mcas. along said s'ly line from the sw^or^Chcreof; thence nw'ly toO^^ a point on the nw'ly line of :yunv£ir •i)r»i CH <j0 g "zr L®f 40, \dist. 22 ft. ne’ly from said sw thereof; thence ne'l to the nw' cor. of said Lot 40; thejcce se'ly^Co the point . ' /V Lot area • Denotes found na % Vienotes found iroPyi^lpe •it't nnH /*or> RT ^ No 1Q1A7 4 4 TOLER/ IlCEPI A "Jirrai TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:August 11,1997 SUBJECT:#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR*1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District {\I2 Acre) Lot Area:22,420 square feet (.51 acres) Application:The applicants were before the Planning Commission and City Council earlier this year (February 1997) requesting average lakeshore setback, hardcover, and structural coverage variances to allow removal of their residence to allow construction of a new residence. The previous residence has been removed and a new house is under construction. During the construction process the owners determined that the access into the garage will be difficult. The applicants are now requesting approval to construct a boulder wall in the required sideyard at the south property line. A conditional use permit is required to change the grade of the side yard. A variance for hardcover may also be required for more driveway and the retaining wall. Note:The application that was completed was for a variance. Staff has determined that a conditional use permit is also required. The legal notice indicated only a variance, not a conditional use permit. Also, the applicant reused the property owner's list from 12/96. This list may not be valid if any property within 150' of the subject property has changed ownership since December. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 21. Exceptions #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Cusco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—! i "grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches ..require a conditional use permit ’ Section 10.03 General Provisions, Subd. 15, Non-Encroachments, D. and F. "In side or rear yards only....fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and oj)en off-street parking" "side yards only; ...nor shall a fence or wall constructed wiihin a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade." Section 10.22, Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations, and Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. U2290 Sieve and Elianc Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/l5/9y page—2 ANALYSIS T .nt Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.) 100’30'10'75' and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 22,420 sq. ft. (.517 acres) 55'55' to new garage 10’ on each side of new house; 0 proposed for driveway and wall 170 ’ + The subject property meets the lot area requirements. The property does not meet the lot width re^iuirements. The proposed wall is considered a non-encroachment in the side yard if the grade is not altered and the height is less than 6'. A conditional use permit is required because the grade would be changed within 5' of the property line. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage % nf Total Lot 22,420 sq. ft.3,435 sq. ft.15.32 A variance for 72 sq. ft. was granted in February 1997. U2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—3 i Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Approved 2/97 Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’6,117 sq. ft.13 sq. ft.None None None 75 ’-250'12,436 sq. ft.3,685 sq. ft. (29.6317%) 3,562 sq. ft. (25%) 3,685.78 sq.ft. (29.637%) 51 sq. ft. (.53%) 250’-500'3,867 sq. ft.1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) 1,335.25 sq. ft. (34.52%) OR 1,322 sq. ft. (34.18%) 175 sq. ft. (4.52%) or 162 sq. ft. (4.18% The proposal to build a boulder retaining wall and revise the driveway increases hardcover in both the 75-250' and 250'-500' setbacks. There is a discrepancy between what was submitted and wha< -raff estimates to be the hardcover amount in the 250'-500' setback area. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See Exhibit D. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property’ in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be used for residential purposes. The request for hardcover variances and a conditional use permit for gradiiij^ within 5' of the property line are to make ingress and egress from the garage safer and easier. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is created by the narrow lot width and the location and placement of the new garage. The problem was discovered at the time the footings were being installed H2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—4 .. 1 i •t i 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. for the new garage. 3. The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for more hardcover will not impact the character of the neighborhood. However, a conditional use permit to change the grade will change the appearance of the lot along the lot line and may have a negative impact on the adjacent property regarding snow removal. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if rea.sonable 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. Driveways are permitted 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. Properties in this area do not meet lot width requirements. The circumstances are based on the design and location of the garage. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page~5 i I 1 The Zoning Code does not allow grading within 5' of the lot line and limits hardcover in all lakeshore zoning districts. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance for hardcover is needed to increase the size of the driveway to improve turnaround area. 11. Tn? 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 Public Services Director, a registered civil engineer, has reviewed the proposed boulder wall and does not recommend it due to safety concerns. He suggests that an engineered w all be installed instead of a boulder wall. 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 to the applicants. Issues 1.The zoning lot does not meet lot area requirements. Previous variances were granted for average lakeshore setback, structural coverage and hardcover. 2. The garage and house w'crc designed to preserve several mature trees on site. 3.There is a change in grade between the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. 5.The Public Services Director recommends that an engineered wall be installed approximately 5* from the property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a boulder wall not be installed along the property line. A boulder wall consumes too much space and is not deemed reliable for the proposed driveway. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to submit a proposal for an U2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—6 engineered wall to be installed 5' from the property line which may eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 1 O' required side yard if it does not exceed 6 ’ in height. Hardcover variances may still be needed. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Topographical Map Hardship Statement Survey—Proposed Boulder Wall Previously approved hardcover variances Hardcover calculations Original Floor Plan #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page~~7 I J K L M N O P Plan submitted 6/97 Entry Elevation Permit Record Acknowledgements Minutes Minutes Code Excerpts Resolution bEE MAP 61Jennini^x C »c c c. e: Cl B'(aiV\e 5levo 6ilus3Z3<; b€- Corvi» 'kcrvvcD Application # \ Date Received crv -fk«''v>A.{- -ftjb 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 $22o!bo After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A r • PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address J? 2- ? -r"j «■/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not includecf on fequir^ survey. Date Property Acquired_________ I (do) ^on^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential Zoning District: ^ fl.' } (month/year) other (specify) 7 ^ Aw-^ APPLICANT Name _____ Address: A »r City: Phone (home ) Phone (work ) 7 «S- 7 v */" OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work) City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: Sjczo ^ k„,JD___________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front Xside 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: .n______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) i % • \ \ i. ■'<iw 1 f5\'\ ••-2-reiPP V93. 58 # ^ 1 Jj IJ \;^2e^=cj^4^oij C5V ]D ^%i.a;tLV5r==^'>0'<b~ vvjE>wj_ A- £cxju.jb>e^:i_> "2:0UCYV\ ucr VAOiC ’ocLoe:^ -T^ aooo 40< rr o^ 4XjLTont:;&\ uS'^ . to aOP^^ih/m^^V ^l 4=T. AC S=OVvJT TO "T?aC>C^ 'TCIj / i::>5z:c<isixPT\oO c^ UiJoaiii^ CoOti\T\bO^- &\a:cii3AUL5^ OP; o<s:^^s OArefeOjoJ lcjt uO v qth- . TV^ce5^sr v3 \jenr csL.v5?^\CLJk.^^T• 3^4:150^ ^Quo^zd:\cj^^ TE:vjr^4Af0^2j2: / c:xcr~ "xus-^Tt:) TVV^ gXy^L-L-^ LOV-A:\AOOCr ^CiUt-CMOG- A ^iET^V'Ov^G- v£)V-TSA\Vj *“0^ iC .-Roc^ S^feACJcS 0^^\OAOCJt£ \0 eiS:\yA=T\0\J CdbWJfe-t. - , U ----------------- . . .... -*—-<l»!>^ I#2290 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ELAINE SILUS IN LOT 19. SPRING PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA X ComN & GRONBFRf.. I\C. l'_* I •rtVif K k \ *•♦^*1 ^»4 A>.»# * '•- ■ (=" ITEM #8 List of Exhibits (cont.) I. J. Floor Plans Resolution cr..¥\ !0 - *r , . Pertinent Ordinances: HARDCOVER ANALYSIS 1. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Hardcover Allowed Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Request 0-75 ’27.28% 6,117 sq. ft. 0 13 sq. ft.0 None 75'-250’55.46% 12,436 sq.ft. 25% 3,109 sq. ft. 28.64% 3,562 sq. ft. 29.64% 3,685 sq. ft. 4.64% 576 sq. ft. 250'-500’17.25% 3,867 sq. ft. 30% 1,160 sq. ft. 36.95% 1,429 sq. ft. 31.23% 1,208 sq. ft. 1.23% 48 sq. ft. TOTAL:100% 22,420 sq. ft. 19.04% 4,269 sq. ft. 22.32% 5,004 sq. ft. 21.82% 4,893 sq. ft. .0278% 624 sq ft. Overall, the proposed design reduces hardcover by 111 sq. ft. However, the proposed design exceeds the hardcover requirements in both the 75-250 ’ and 250'-500' setback areas. The proposed design requires a 4.64% (576 sq. ft.) in the 75'-250 ’ setback and a 1.23% (48 sq. ft.) in the 250’-500’ setback area. 92206, Elaine and Sieve Silus 3235 Casco Circle-^Variances CC 3/10/97 Page 2 i 4 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Cr SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House (-7 2S0-500'500-1000' Length / 7 X X X Width 5'^ (. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk Z. 2. E. Patio/Deck /V F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE ?2,72,. Z g B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 11 Length X X X Width 2. T3 B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other XX._ZJ=i /V X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE JC. - B yz ^3 6^X 100 = /ST 2LSZ S.F. /_____ S.F. .F. 7 X.. S.F.«• 17 S.F. V.. S.F. S.F. \ ; » 7^ _ S.F. >^.;n S F ‘ • - S.F. S.F. s " S.F. S.F. S.F. ____________S.F. _____________S.F. re,.if % A B Z 2.*52 / orta S.F. S.F. S.F. X ?. t» f S.F. S.F. (“7 0<J X Z-rT^ Vo y p S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___________S.F. 7.9.4.*-; % A B "ZjSc^toSco* HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET T\ SE1 BACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF. A. House X f 75-250'500-1000' Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERI'Y AREA IN ZONE f B 3 8^7 X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ; ONE A. House _____ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic t G. Other X X X 20 S5 X X X X X X X X X 26..^ sro TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 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 A B £y.hibi4-/-|o'*dY«0 BsyB i^a Dis^i'ail A5 ^u©HlTT^:> ^:MD pE^ICVOO 2./^'? vr^ I l/a“s I'-o’ ^=' 1-’c5><=3 PC./^.Si -2^ri<? ‘S^‘ i r- ■ f \\ \3i> •• -•. '-V ~Z t^co Mn.«% ||Jto DtMiKK — Po^ Ar -Z ■e.-fo^ ^ r~iw Twipqf «y|»g fi*V V»l*»<fcp -t bftr# 41.4 7^ T U --^li^rT-^ o »tfWOONiT1IUCTDNO» T>«. SILUS HOMF SMCAKOPOMTCiClf QfVMX MMNitOTA lUtI •njCf BRSNHCMAMC t«nun«MCMOlMAV mVZATA IM Itatl 4n4»1t •uwuTTwiy imBwyxmetum iHOWt¥woo.MH umi omiw • iMiign ^ ^ T . A>v«n rMtii ^ %v» /0/S Ja S'/ ^ooo Jo^ -7 ADDRESS PERMIT RECORD ;ss Cja ^'/7'G a P' <^'6^7 7, -/ ' / c/ ■ ys U'io '^"7 cco SL^^C.41 ^yueo^ ^2.^^ y^/r?o /^/yo .i I P 7cy. .?? \ V Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) T)Avi- of '^>13 CA‘3^0 C [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner 7 Date Property Owner Date *********.****** A^iSr********^**^ I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. j/ 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. iMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#1 - #2211 Zoning Amendment - Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas \\ithin the City. Council Member Goetten said the Council has many of the same concerns e.xpressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended. V''an Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Hawn. McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process. ACTION ITEM (#5) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVT SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VA1UA^CE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0.28% increase over the 15% allowable. The lot width requirement is 100’. The property in question is 55' wide. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal w'ould result in a 123 s.f increase of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback and a 221 s.f reduction in the 250-500’ setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two adjoining properties. Van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackberry tree located on the property. H 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#5 - ^2206 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one-story residence with basement in order to keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure. They also are attempting to save the hackberry tree. He noted the proposed deck does not extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house. The proposed house would be farther back on the property Silus said the garage by the street will be removed and the driveway will become more centered He informed Stoddard that the deck will be cantilevered and have a railing. Hawn expressed concern about whether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree expert re\iew the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the structure. If the tree carmot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back further on the lot. Hawm informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of substandard lots. The ordinances require that new construction meet the zoning requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus said their only other alternative is to build a two-story house, and they would prefer not to do so. Smith said she agreeds with Hawn but sees the proposal as an improvement to the property. She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the future. Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure w ould be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in structural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but was more neutral in its changes from the existing structure. There were no public comments. McMillan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment letters from the neighbors. Schroeder asked if the 3-car garage and drivew ay could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COmOSSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18. 1997 (#5 - #2206 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of the requested variances with the additional finding that the structural coverage is excessive and no more improvements should be allowed in the future. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Schroeder. Schroeder indicated while appreciating the reduction in hardcover, the structural coverage should be maintained at 15%. (#6) #2207 JONATRAN AND THERESA HOFER, 3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:05 P.M. The Atfidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting variances to lakeshore setback, hardcover, and average lakeshore setback for the construction of an additional of a great room above the garage. The residence is located in the LR-IC Zoning District which requires 1/2 acres and is sewered The subject property is 6,500 s.f. in size or 29% of the minimum lot size. Since there is no dedicated right-of-way but a prescriptive easement only, Van Zomeren said a street setback variance is generally not required. Hillside Place, a 25’ utility easement, is located to the west of the property and cannot be built upon. The house located east of the subject property is located on the property line as well as on Dakota Rail easement. The proposed addition will not extend beyond the existing foundation. The existing structure is located 45' from the lakeshore. The garage is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback exists at 43.27% which includes the roadway and garage. A 22.67% variance is requested in the 75-250’setback. The structure is located 15'in front of the lakeshore setback. Van Zomeren noted the hardships to include the lot size, the proximity of the structure to the lake, the Dakota Rail and Hillside Place easements, and the substantial portion of blacktopping for Crystal Bay Road. Van Zomeren reported that Staff recommends approval noting there is no other alternative without incurring additional variances. Mrs. Hofer indicAed the>‘ have not resided in the residence and have just purchased the property. It is their intent to make the necessary improvements and add some additional living space over the garage. The deck was eliminated from the plan. Smith inquired if they purchased the property with the intent of adding onto the residence. Mr. Hofer said their intention was to improve the property. They were not aware of the need for any variances as they did not intend to build outside of the footprint. MEOJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10,1997 (#7 - #2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction - Continued) Jabbour said he did not see the need to require the mitigation in Orono as the sites in Excelsior and Independence would benefit Orono. In regards to the pv*)tential concerns vsith granting conditional approval prior to EAW completion. Radio Informed Jabbour that there might be no benefit in distinguishing between public and private projects as a private resident would say there is no difference. It was recognized that the County will have 3-30 days, or between March 15 and April 15, to make their determination fi’om the comment reporting end of March 12. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to continue the agenda item to a Special Council Meeting to be held on April 1, 1997 at 8:00 a m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Settles asked Gafiron to check for the information required by the Council. Kelley asked if an EAW would be required on CoRd 6 reconstruction project. The County representatives will verify and report to Gaffron. Radio said the County is put on notice that the EAW approval would be required to obtain the permit. (#8) #2206 ELAINE AND STE'^E SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3851 Silus asked for clarification of #1 in the conclusions of the resolution. He questioned the timing of the hardcover removals. Sihis asked that the temporary storage facility and unattached garage be allowed to remain during construction. He said he would remove those structures when the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he would not obtain the occupancy permit until the structures were removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3851. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2210 KENT E. AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3852 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No, 3852. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2187 DONALD ANT) ROBIN HELGAGER, 3625 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CUP - RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL Neil Heupel represented the applicants. Ay S 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions; Front “ 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear -30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted; 8-14-89 Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements; A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off- street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over 42 inches but not in excess of 72 inches in neiont aoove original grade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted; 1-28-85 o\ ORONO CC 256-1 (4-1-84) § 10.03 E. Rear yard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. ' Source; Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles, and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting power, water, heat, communica tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Subd. 18. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stoc’ farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January 1, 3975 with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) i § 10.03 Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building, nor to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. _Any unusual eartn filling, removal or grading rrocosed by a builder shall~~be referred bv the fluiiQing inspector to the Planning Commrssibn and the COUftCir'fflr Action in accordance with this Charted The Building Inspector: shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterationsi , • . ., . ^ Tl^-f i4^ irv^plied c.u .-p. 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose an^ changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. needs a Cordihoral userermil- Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakeshore to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. Subd. 23. Permit Required. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary rip-rap of lakeshore property. It is unlawful for any person to rip-rap lakeshore property within the limits of the City without a permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 167 Effective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. Application for Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing showing the location of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the City Engineer may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount prescribed by the current City fee schedule payable to the City. Source: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 ORONO CC 258-1 -1-84) CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OE THE CITY COUNCIL 3851NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO ML'NICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SU’BDIVISION 16 (C-6) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2206 WHEREAS, Elaine Silus and Steve Silus (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue and of the tract of land lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lies betw een the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of said Lot 19 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), and Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), to permit removal of the existing residence and construction of a new residence. Per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), the deck for the proposed residence shall be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback where no such encroachment is allowed. Per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is proposed at 3,685 s.f. (29.64%) where 3,562 s.f (28.64%) is existing and where 3,109 s.f. (25%) is allow’ed. In the 250-500' setback area, hardcover is proposed at 1,208 s.f. (31.23%) where 1,429 s.f. (36.95%) is existing and where 1,160 s.f. (30%) is allowed. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), structural coverage is proposed at 3,435 s.f. where 2,510 s.f. is existing and 3,363 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2206. Page 1 of 5 L. . CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 K 1______ 2. 3. 4. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The total lot area is 22,420 s.f. (.51 acres) in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 18, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The proposed residence conforms to side yard setbacks and height requirements. B. The proposed residence seeks to preserve a mu.ure hackberry’ tree located at the street side of the property. C.The proposed residence reduces overall hardcover (5,004 s.f existing; 4,893 s.f proposed). D.The proposed residence more closely conforms to the average lakeshore setback than the existing residence. E.The proposed design (one-story) will minimize the visual impact of structure on a lot that is substandard in lot width. F.The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 i k a is ttS-S CITYofORONO 3*^o;s RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 88 5 1 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), to permit removal of an existing structure and construction of a new residence to be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback line, hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ setback area of 576 s.f. or 4.64% and a 48 s.f. or 1.23% variance in the 250-500' setback area, and structural coverage variance of 72 s.f. or .32%. Approval was subject to the following conditions:. 1.All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed as shown on the approved survey and shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction, except that the storage area in the existing garage may be used during construction. The existing garage/storage area shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 10, 1998). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 I CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 8 5 1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 1997. . Dorothy M.^alin, City Clerk 0 Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of March, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ’ ^ ^ y ^ ^ CAROIEAHASIMAN N0TNrrMUC> MMEW COUNTY MyftliwllNw6NlWiJW.31.y00 Notar>' Public Page 4 of 5 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1 ____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _________, 199^ . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared r/g-.V-.,^ 6l| .a ... known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notwrnjuc^ COUNTY My Commission Eolres Jan. 31. 2<XX)Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (diey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 I'S ‘ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren. City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 9,1997 SUBJECT:#2291 -Steven Sigel Having an Interest in 1399 Park Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:22,010 square feet (.51 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the removal of an existing two car garage and replacing it with a detached garage. Expansion of the existing driveway is also being proposed. Variances are required for hardcover and side setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements 1^2291 Sieven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/9^ Page I rz'** - L ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .51 acres 78 ft.40 ft.12 ft.-existing 7 ft.-proposed 80 ft. The zoning lot does not meet lot area and width requirements of the zoning district. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 22,010 s.f.2,571 s.f-e.xisting 2,859 s.f-proposed 11.7%-existing 13.2%-proposed I If a garage with the proposed footprint is constructed on the lot, the structural coverage requirement of 15% will still be met. ^229! Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/13/97 Page! •—“T---------- ^— Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75’5,655 s.f.none none none none 75’-250 ’13,925 s.f 3,526 s.f (25.32%) 3,481.25 s.f (25%) 3,963 s.f (28.4%) 481.75 s.f (3.4%) 250'-500'2,430 s.f 901 s.f (37%) 729 s.f (30%) 873 s.f (35.9%) 144 s.f 5.9% Variances for hardcover are required in the 75’ to 250' and 250' to 500' setbacks. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See attachment M for the applicant's written statement of hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls. The property can be put to a reasonable use without constructing a new garage. A garage of smaller size or different location can be constructed without variances. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot size and width do not meet zoning district requirements. Many other properties that do not meet zoning requirements in Orono have smaller garages to conform to zoning requirements. 3.The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, and side setback will not change the character of the area. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. »229l SievenSIgel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page 3 rlr?f tvla* ■ »v 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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 garage is permitted 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. Many lots in the immediate vicinity do not meet the zoning district requirements for area and width. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most of the lakeshore lots in the immediate area are smaller than the subject lot, therefore having greater limitations imposed on them. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A new garage and driveway can be reconfigured and redesigned to meet the side setback requirement and more closely comply with hardcover limits. - • 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. U2291 Steven Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/97 Page 4 r 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 variances as proposed would serve as a convenience to the applicant as both the applicant and staff have produced proposals mor^ closely meeting zoning requirements. Issues 1.The lot area and width do not meet the zoning district requirements. While it is possible to easily meet side setback requirements, meeting hardcover requirements is more challenging. 2.The southwest side lot slopes downhill from the house and proposed garage abruptly, making its location there unfeasible. 3.An Oak tree 4' in diameter would need to be removed according to the applicant’s plan which would comply with required setbacks and hardcover. 4.The property was granted variances for height, hardcover in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback, side setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback in 1988 for the remodeling and expansion of the existing house. A provision of the resolution was if the existing structure was entirely razed, the applicant must comply with lakeshore setback, side setback and hardcover requirements in the 0'75’ zone. 5.If the requested variances are not granted, the applicant could build a three car garage meeting all zoning requirements, including hardcover, but would require the removal of a significant tree. 6..-.e applicant has mentioned in their statement of hardship that they would also like to constn'.ct a retaining wall on the north side of the garage, possibly further adding to hardc.'ver. The applicants should be asked if this is still their intention as it is not mentioned elsewhere in the application. 7.While no variance is necessary, if the applicant chooses to proceed with the two story option for their garage, the garage height would appear significantly greater than the house due to dowTihill slope of the yard. U2291 Steven Stgel 1399 Park Drive yarumces 9/15/97 Page 5 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a three car garage subject to the foHowing conditions and amendments. Staff recommends that the variance for hardcover of 28.4% in the 75' to 250' zone be amended or denied according to the attached survey amended by staff. Staffs proposal (attachment I) still allows the applicant's three car garage. Hardcover is reduced in the 75' to 250' zone by reducing the width of the proposed sidewalk to 3', slightly reducing the size of the driveway and reducing the length of the garage to 22'. Coinciding with this proposal is a dramatic drop in hardcover in the 250' to 500' zone due to a greatly reduced driveway in this zone. Public Services Director Greg Gappa has advised that this driveway proposal is feasible. This option would also protect the significant tree and avoid problems associated with having to relocate utility pole support cables. If this option is approved, the necessary amount of hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback would be reduced to approximately 27% where the applicants proposal is at 28.4%. Hardcover in the 250' to 500' zone would fall well below 30%, requiring no variance where 35.9% is being proposed, requiring a variance. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 27% hardcover in the 75' to 250' zone where 25% hardcover is allowed. Staff recommends denial of the variance of 35.9% hardcover in the 250' to 500' zone as this requirement can be met. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance of 3' to allow for a 7' side setback as staff has demonstrated the 10' requirement can be met \ bile preserving the significant tree. As a condition of approval of either the applicant's or staffs proposal is the allowance of no further hardcover on any portion of the lot. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C Application Plat Map Location Map U229! Stexen Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variances 9/15/9: Page 6 - wT, I,- D E F G H I J K L M Topograohic Map Peraiit Record Survey-Existing Survey-Applicant’s Preferred Proposal Survey-Applicant's Proposal Compliant With Hardcover Survey-Staff Proposal Garage Proposal-Single Story Garage Proposal-Two Story Hardcover Worksheets Statement of Hardship fl229I Steven Sige! 1399 Park Drive fariances 9/15/97 Page 1 r... Application # JlJLj/ Date Received ^ Amount Paid ^Ji"70, 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) o o o -i J r - . ‘’I s PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address S' i Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on i.quired survey. Date Property Acquired I (do) (4230^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify), JZoning District:____________________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name Address: A^-^VgK.oooT> Phone (home) _____ Phone (work) ^61 3 City: Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name bo</hcA^ C Address: /if 9 _____ Phone (home), _____ Phone (work)_ City: ^p^rJo _____Zip: Estimated Constmedon Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST _______ Describe request in detail: <£:«. u ^« tA TADct fpo -______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front ^SiSide 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: ^€4= _________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ' A f REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of tht folloiiving information must be sabmitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be conaidcrgd gnmplrt^? 1. 2. 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 Countv Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Suivey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy i'/t" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital stanis) of all persons with an interest in the property. This w’ould include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovvncr(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true anc/correct to ^e b^st^f his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission* members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date 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 '4-' VAC DOC NO 6074255 A .V o \ V \ 4 \ , 'N \ 7 \(86.) aX \.; <w/yi <»}<'' A \ X x' c \ y V*.*.* \ / ■wm ■ /% ^ % \\ , ^ X ,/<? ', (60) ,;.. \ \ \ \ \ Xa V- V <:::>x:v:y;v:::\ '.X; .\(79) «ii\^'^%; ' x'^ \^ \ 2 4^(I6H'"P\ X, \ lOn / |.(17)\ '\/''fXeai2.- V\0 -.r \75 ‘ft-' rCC' \ .0. <0' \( I9)\ X(2o)\ V ■' (13)^ /# y \ \ \\1(74) L 1' x '-'- 20 \^ (72) So ' I 9 /X 4)\ ■\25 53 DO^r NO 49A22^^^70 \ PART OF 4 SAGA HILL PARK C (27) 29^ j2^5 \ OJ c »c • c c c c c r II II SURVh'YOns CKRTIh'ICA 7'/;' ■) ARtA SUMMARY (COMPU H H (> NMM HU) «iMi mt *jjr _ nr rm • A« (W<i IW%M« •iMW.tMlN fNi#! ii«n ft1 m non arai pfim fO «i Hon «• Mii« f«| OM mmamr^ fte| P«OM» «• luwacc M«« MMBi r«Ma • « >g « r«s% «r (MMati*** «tio«u a MM • I fWlO tM Mi • I ill AM n m l«M M r«r>aor rm ««•» M «M*«r m aMoa MMT n • M ■ a mm • a mmco «« «ina« a aao I M« a ur« «*• t »/• m II» IliAi.v ‘•Ai a »••• mil MMJisi n.ri'i/ f>M i IM< •••• II «■«••» m • nr Mil NO 9/R-7II II|;A i t»*4'f|N'IMiN t«f « iMa • Maai* •• <mm m rm. mm ■mtmrn m “■mam fatM-* a »aa«« **a« aan • MaaMM ■Paa *a f>ma mm Ml tmmmt »«ai ■ aM a «a »«a f iaa«t «a»a a ‘ a M aaa • a a •• «t M • mmmt «— »aaia •m^-m •• at >aa> •* aa • -aa* aa a* ..aa 'a»< •' awa m aa«a a a aaaaa la«a •»« f a-a auaMMa a-a ta« Va aa aaa aa a •«« mmmtmrn tmmmi m*m aa •# aa a>T« a-a a *aaa i «a mm > «n a«i aa^ aa* »a* aa »• »f aa a >a •• a^i# "‘aMa mt aa»aaaa«f aa la aai aaa» aaaM«» .aaa a <a4 lal i* i« <• a aa aaa a 1*10 l‘Allf I) I III SlIVi: SIGLL nirrARfri iir IIMMUNH planning \ NGINKFRINO SURVFYING >nin »’•! 0A« ninvr I Al AM MNNIVMA. SMy/ • 1H*# |f.i/) Iin M^)U f»«a>«aa »t a ••M*a — • W a a> ».aa a mm aaa a ai ■ MEOlum SUR VEYORS CER TIFICA TE 0 AREA SUMMARY (C0M»^U!ER GCN lRATCO) ••rr Mt m» iwii call urnn -m (i» M naai voi m cait momi cn au V« ait a«u« (O aa* mm tmm (II oaaaai mm aaiaoi m amm wui mmm caaa • M ym 9 iiaacaaa aia«8 « m • ( iM « aa • I mi jail »««l Ml n 9W-im (ai mmn, aaa mm laaataaa . • V aataaa m IM «a« • MaaCTaa «ia«s • I mmm k0* mm* t IJl ilit* r» J06 NO «7ir-74l LCCAi 0CSCM»H0N « Saa 4 w aa •••••a •• *• «« aw aaaM 'XSwaTa*^ to " **crSst: a aa a« a O «to«M•• «a *j mm m • a 1 M 14 a— 4 a • a toa ui • toM •* a»• totok toto« • toto* a Jto aai aa aaa M amrnm -air M i»^4‘^toa. mrnmJ» a^mrnjmrnmJirW Umm^rnt hm m tmmrn ito mm* «« a aa I a La* •% Urnmmmmrnmm aato*t **7*aa*ia m «M i ^ 19 i« M ^RtPARCO FOR: STEVE SIGEL PWPARI O «Y HEDLUND PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING .>005 PfH OAK 0N«C lACAfl. MNNCSOIA. 55177 PHOM (617) 405-MOO • *a*M *aay aa aa ato aa rnmmm to a* a aaa tto atoa* ••mrnmm l*a w a^ a a« Kaa* af » 4 3fWAPK frto j laM aar|« n. • mi a * %t a«i m «•«• OAir AiNunr a.mr neoLum t<r*«a«^ w»a*a* (T* si/iivinoHs viaiTincAr/-:■w my «/N ?*yUr,Ai ntfa» *« t, »• <C..I '*••«i«^ m «• tm0 0) c / •— l«kgv««> ——o* «»• >WM«« fm»m *«Mn« M»4 ■« ■• '--•••t ^ i«« w a^* • to '< -MV*-* *> ••»««•••« «M to *M t to t« tato* ■» «toto to t«to • ~ toto W ^•r sT^ '•- / X tvd^-- ^I'-K > ■ <■ to. to toM toM •• to. ,»mm to ■■• ito it \ I Ito M «• to* mm to «3 Am.A SUMMA1?Y (aiUnillR r.lMI<AHI)) \/' \ '■ \mN.*> \-K ^ Hi^ -\ 1!IX \\ \ '^1 \\ ..V V- V '■-■ v - ttmmm H0€ im«ma |WU ............... « r* UM {•I IM* *|<«W to CM !»«• MBU« tl) «• MK «|i totoit |«| am «M naa <to«iaa«r% fV) m^mcm «• <Mto« in«to iitohi roto# . ■ m iMtoBCrttoa to tn0 - fanMtoMtoaKiMtf \ ittoi ta towwiwia to /tMf>.rr>a « • w« toto • I •»a •u Ml* H«* MM nil fAi«ii rnii Sll.Vl’ siai. pm rAin II ny rto Mto #«« (<to) IWtoto >• IMtoJ 1*1 Ito.tot toto* MMto Hutotooto* • • •« toitotorritoa to /<a4 - %to« •* tototoaiitoa toi<*toi« « 4tato ( to* •• «>• MM* I •* toU nn m MIOIUNO fM.ANNING I NGINI hf<IN0 SUKVCYINC KM*'i I'M HAM IIMWI I Ai;vi. MNiNIVtIA. V»M/ • (61 n vr. IWiOH i/i to^ •■•MM* '! •♦'.’•MAin' • •*•«• laM aaaa II «»>i to • a •• •• to ffti MAII AIMJr.l M |•^•^/ Jfto' Mil toto Mto • to* * •*, to^to**. i«to Wtofto toto* mi M*. to to* *• to. to ItoMtoto. Mean7//^ Va-aa^l V 1 5W1P fiY^pdiaA Garage for 1399 Park Drive - Option 1; Single Story Garage for 1399 Park Drive - Option 2: Two Story 52* V J.l o o hardcover CALCULATiOK WO^SHFET . *S»-- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’^250*250-500’ :/ 500-1000’ 9^ /JW-* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ ^ A. House \<U<cf6 Length Width X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERI’Y AREA IN ZONE lifiSde V X 100 A. jr lli House •---------------------------^ Length Width X -- X = X = B.Garage C.Driveway Ccx-:iD-£:7 X r= D.Sidewalk X = E.Patio/Dcck ^Oc .... X = F.Landscape Underlain ‘ 'IJ X By Plastic X — G.Other X ;.F. S F. S.F. S.F. B.Garage % C^XOe'^-Aj'^«335 sf.(:5^ c.Driveway X S.F. X «S.F. D.Sidewalk COv^Jo\€"\B vOlO S.F.^) —^ X B S.F. E.Patio/Deck H3S S.F. Q X B S.F. F.Landscape g.3c,S.F.CS'’ Underlain X B S.F. By Plastic X B S.F. G.Other X —S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B S.F. Q) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (p S.F. .F.(|)S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5- B L'^SlS X 100 _ S.F. _ S.F. % A B HARDCOVER CALCUL / I* SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250’ C" i 250-500’ • 500-1000 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway C: D. Skiewallc 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 9oi -5- B ji43o X 100 30. PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE <^73 ^ B ^430 X 100 ='56-H S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. g) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B Hardship Description for 1399 Park Drive - Garage Addition 5' - ^1 1) The existing garage did not pass inspection by a professional home inspector and was documented to be structurally unstable. As such it is unsafe, it is an insurance risk and it negatively impacts the visual appearance of the neighborhood. 2) As new owner, wie intend on removing and replacing the existing garage with a three car garage that is styled to match the heme. 3) The front walk between the garage and home is currently a series of rectangular platform decks with landscaping and lighting. As a demonstration of our willingness to comply with hardcover requirements, this deck style front walk will be removed and be replaced with a 4 ’ concrete sidewalk to make available sufficient hard cover capacity for the garage. 4) With the removal of the original garage and the addition of the hard cover that is made available by removing the deck sty le front walk, there is sufficient hardcover capacity to allow construction of the three car garage, in compliance with City of Orono hardcover restrictions. 5) Unfortunately, to comply with the hardcover requirements, the garage must be oriented such that one 4 ’ diameter (150+ fr tall) oak tree must be removed This oak tree is one of the largest trees on the lot and is healthy and growing. In addition, at least six smaller trees (4 to 8 inch diameter) must be removed. 6) There are two utility pole anchor/tension cables that are anchored in the area that would become the driveway, if variances were denied. This utility pole provides NSP electricity, Tri-Ax cable tv and GTE telephone services to the neighborhood. In addition, NSP has located a high voltage transformer on this utility pole. These anchors are secured within the lot borders as specified by the legal description of 1399 Park Drive. 7) There is no other place on the lot to locate the garage without further exceeding hardcover requirements due to the steep slope of the property on the south side of the yard. 8) The proposed garage addition will also include a retaining wtill on the north side of the property to prevent further soil erosion and root exposure of trees on the adjacent property. 9) We are requesting these variances so that we can position the garage in a manner that does not require killing and removal of this magnificent oak tree and the smaller adjacent trees. This variance request is our attempt to save the mature trees on the street side of the lot. This lot has already lost two trees to storm damage during the recent storms and the matxire trees provide the character of the lot and nicely frame the home on the property. \ 1 /3. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:Septembers, 1997 SUB.IECT;#2292-Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:13,783 square feet (.32 acres) Application: The ^plicant is proposing the construction of a 684 s.f two stor>' detached garage and additional d^ive^vay. Variances are required for hardcover, structural coverage and front setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03: General Provisions Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonka\%a Road Variances 9/8/97 Page I • »u,Tn. Ml fp«.TT ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Propem* Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .32 acres 51 ft.92 ft.-existing 20 ft.-proposed 10 ft.109 ft. Lot size and width do not meet the zoning district requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 13,783 s.f.1,528 s.f.-existing 11% 2,212 s.f.-proposed 16% A variance for structural coverage is needed to build the proposed garage. if2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road yariances 9/8/9 Page 2 FT Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75’3,850 s.f.64 s.f (1.6%)none 64 s.f (1.6%)64 s.f (1.6%) 75’-250'8,995 s.f 1.982 s.f (22.03%) 2,248.75 s.f (25%) 3,118 s.f (34.66%) 869.25 s.f (9.66?/o) 250’-500’938 s.f none 281.4 s.f (30%) 402 s.f (42.9%) 120.6 s.f (12.9%) Variances for hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ and 250’ to 500' setbacks are required. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Attached is the applicant ’s statement of hardship (attachment A). 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 was newly constructed in 1996 without a garage. The property can be put to a reasonable use without the proposed garage. However, a garage would provide the applicant with a means of protecting the applicant various vehicles and equipment from the elements and open view. 2. 3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. While the zoning lot does not meet the requirements of the zoning district, part of the hardship has been created by the applicant. The existing residence and deck were constructed in the past year and could have been designed in a manner to allow for a garage without requiring variances. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover, structural coverage, and front setback will 02292 Tom Okirstrom 770 Tonka^va Road Variances P/5/9 7 Page 3 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propert>- exists under die terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application Undue hardship also includes, but is not limite"^ 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 garage of the proposed size is permitted 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. Many lots in the vicinity do not meet the minimum zoning district requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the area have garages, while the subject property does not. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial .operty right of the applicant. The garage and driveway can be reconfigured to more closely comply with hardcover and structural coverage requirements. M2292 Tom Oktrstrom 770 Jonkawa Road Varianc€S 9/8/97 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The variance will not impair health, safety', comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the limited lot size, it is difficult for the applicant to construct an adequate garage and driveway that meets all zoning district requirements. Issues 1.The lot area and width do not meet zoning district standards, which impedes meeting zoning district requirements, particularly hardcover. 2. There are no previous variances that have been issued for this property. 3. By constructing the existing residence and deck at 22.03% hardcover in the 75 ’ to 250* setback, it is not possible to meet the requirements. 4.The front setback could be eliminated by moving the garage back several feet, but this would dramatically increase hardcover. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Statf recommends approval of the proposed garage subject to several conditions and amendments. The issue of hardcover is problematic as the hardship was created by the applicant to some degree. The attached revised survey, prepared by staff (attaclment G) proposes reducing the size of the garage to 528 s.f, reducing the width of the sidewalk to 3' where existing and proposed and narrowing the width of the driveway. A turnaround for the revised driveway is being proposed to address safety concerns presented by the volume of fast moving traffic on the street, as well as poor sight lines. Staffs proposal reduces hardcover to under 32% in the 75* to 250' zone where 34.66% is being proposed. Hardcover in the 250' to 500* zone is reduced to under 38% where 42.46% is being ^2292 Tom Okerstrom 7^0 Tonkawa Road Variances 9/8/97 Page 5 proposed. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 32% hardcover in the 75' to 250’ zone where 25% is allowed. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 38% hardcover in the 250' to 500’ zone where 30% is allowed. The 64 s.f shed near the lakeshore must be removed prior to any new construction as this will reduce hardcover in the 0* to 75' to none and help in compliance with structural coverage allowances. Staff recommends denial of the variance for structural coverage. By reducing the footprint of the garage and removing the shed, this requirement can be met. Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance. The proposed garage could meet the required setback. This would require a longer driveway, however, resulting in increased hardcover. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of either staffs or the applicant’s proposal that no future hardcover expansion be allowed on the property. Staff recommends approval of the application to subject the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C D E F G H 1 Application and Statement of Hardship Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Survey as Amended by Staff Hardcover Worksheets View s of Proposed Garage U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances 9/8/97 Page 6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received" ^ ^ Amount Pmd ^ 'lr).oQ iPi oo \ 8 S* 6? PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 7 "70 '7^/y/C^LJA. . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)______Q ^ Attach legal description to applica^n if not included on required survey. Date Proper^ Acquired____ // ^____________________^(month/year) //7 i^r)Dns? I (do) Cdo not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_____L. R f ^_____________________ APPLICANT Name Z5 Address: 17 0 TZt^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ _______ City: Phone (horned 4^ 7/ •" ^ Phone (work) ^7/^ 0 077 _______Zip: >Sy*SS~^ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S /.3_ :g‘QO« Describe request in detail: *7o»vi / .S'ui.e. .AJL^utl^h (aJ€.. Q.rYtvi'^cI ilis io i-* "/o iYsj Crh ^A rYtvi 4^eX- /-S s if% (attacfi^ additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:)/ Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore • • HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing ^ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: T^xajl. 4t> / i 'T :T-f LuuL hAeP (X. UJtiiA Ibi, ^ t\AA SjjO\i\h (X \jdhl'0,UxjC^ Co^-ici 'Mu dcc/'5 r REQUIRED SUBmXTALS 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 €Klshri^ pi®P 4. MO 5. 6. X 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels arid—map^from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center,(^8-3271)^ LjC-SolI Certificate of Survey (signed oy a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & 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 application is not complete if the above information has not b^cn 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/^r knowledge. Applicant's Signature cT 9/^ / A 7 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agree? to this application and further authorize'^ reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultantsya^nts, Commission members, and Council nof&ism^ Owner's Signature ^^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 r-r--^ . /T 7 - > .•>*■ , i *• • >IV-^ u - '/"CiU.—/o(^£1^0^ SAouJjn. UJjl M. /n rvlCcQ _^ //^/c/tjeJ S ur (/^, IXJji, OAJl JyCi^ - Os^- Se.A b(^(/c cu^ CK. hCi/icIccjLWi —A'kiL Sou'Hr^ C'fV'o*'^;) Corv\Su\ i<KSl^ r^ A.A.r M ... I 1 Lr. _________ //^ r-.f .,0 _ ,——CAjili la^ OUf/prox , (O c/os^A Kd —tk^—S.hrj^<J'. . A)0r ^ (^fy^j^) CorydU\ toool^ —=:S=L—o±\-^_ c(6ve^ ._‘:/t> —'T^ t/oyu'OM^ fs /ujuhel^ ^ —Our:- /6'/' Sizje. /s ^>7^// —C-0‘^_^. -fW/ COou l.pl kji -------/o93/hb(^— 'j~t^ cJoorS —fi.o.'l' {tLC€ bUji ^-h-ee-f' (^ So ^O^ajol^ C ou Ic J ----InOrVNJcJLv-C. (os^^ # ryyiou/hA 'H^ ^y VOC uQ OuU. —-----AjL.^UYUBcy'jt/t'^ , . CaJJL^_(XAJS^ . C0^A)0 /Ai ——AAAywuALii:^— hOd^.C6Ci£A?^^ ^tr\ OUrz- ---------1 _______________________ _____(7-. ... ______ ^ ZZ^2^1 C/Ktr "77o TowKwn ^ / O sj. CrrxJd CU-C<f PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo.Date Type of Permit !H2>/*t?3 1 - ^/^Ofc.'ci' 2Sc. ^ C d- /t~/aaJ 3\SSi 7<<5 <^-/'4- 7t» -------------------------------------------------- 4 JUS HS^I „Sr- 3o 7t SAC ;0- ^'74 Seuj^ H _SOJLt_P .PJ'TV 7'73'i^e-V^vo cstiL_ iTS^o ww/- 79 LaJSZ^C^ SLd—f}^ 0 !^Ji,C'tt ^ ^ (Id /cP •; o '9 6?^'~7Le.t-0 <JL^ P^SO fxu /P'^ 3 -9 (f ^(cS^/cP 'c57 -^4^ • » W I H i.»i C U. PfOpos^ TCP of Block Gorogt Floor 05*2^9 Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building - FviU f^cu^ov^en-1" iz^ OHUU HY-LAND SURVEYINP land SURVEYORS 7845 Brooklyn a»d. Brooklyn Park. Minnc*o«i 55445 540>19S4 CITY OF OROrlO < SITE PlkU j4_ Cir.AC.i:.'Q PLAN g ArPrtoveo - weoJ («'s*. 0 A?i’f.r-.CD V;:TH ?.c/:3!0NS G O'Si-'-iAy DA"E__^_LZ-iltt Cf w INVOICE NO.PI^ f. B. NO. SCALE I" ■ —£L.________ V«i * * t'o Denotes Iron ktonumont a Oenotee \MPod Hub Set For Eicovotiofi Only .0 Denotes Eiltting Elevation Denotes Proposed devotion Denotes Surfoce Oreinoge o o ■Pro?*5e^VISION BUILDERS TOTAL AREA; 13.440 SQUARE FEET The northwesterly half of Lot 14 "PartiM's Point First Division**. For purposes of this survey the southeasterly line of the northwesterly half of said Lot 14 has been assumed to be a line drawn from the midpoint of the southwesterly line of The only •esementi shown if# from pi JU of record or Womuuonprovijltd by northeasterly parallel with the northwesterly line of said Lot and its northeasterly extension. I htrobv corllfy that this aurvry vti prepared by me or ie«er my direct aupervlalon, ard that I am a rkjly legittered Land turveyv'* State of Minnesota. 8sMy«dbyuaff)ia.£l--------eevof. Note: Boundaries fron a survey by Gordon R. Coffin dated 8-15-75 Signed .d^fof Qev. C7c^* Miitcxi E. Hytand,4dinn. Reg. Na 20262 0-e.V. 3/^<rsfroi^ yyo Ffupond TCP of Bloch Propostd Goroqt Floor Propoitd Lo««it Floor Typo of BuHdii>g -0HU)UFoil__(b 4n'T HY-LAND SURVEYINLAND SURVEYORS7JU BraoVlyn Bind.. Brooklyn Pirk. MiimeMa S5US560-l9ftt>gorg Olrttifirate ^ CITY OF OHONO< SITE Plan ^ GA.A:>!N:3 plang APFflovcO - weijj pjss:. □ A-i’F.OvCO V.'ITH H;.':3:0\’SSt__________________C /?'-!INVOICE NO.I^Mli.F. B. wn 155-n SCALE » 20^o Otnofct Iron montO Oonorot Wood Hub Sif For Cieovofion OnlyDA"t.la-Cf <■fQQp.Q Doootoj Eiittinq Clovotion D«notfi Proposod Eltvotioii Oonotts Surfoeo OroiiioqtT>ro?»}^^(^iCiih^ (harJeooiiA) p'-opfriy VISION BUILDERS total AREA: 13,440 SOUARE FEET The northwesterly half of Lot 14 "Parteii's Point First Division ’*. For purposes of this survey the southeasterly line of the northwesterly half of said Lot 14 has been assumed to be a line drawn AfrMArd *"idpoint of the Southwesterly line of.oflly..,,n*Hirto«n«.fromp!.!.oft.eord«fl«fomu.o,p„v«i,db, northeasterly parallel with the northwesterly line of said Lot and its northeasterly that this survey uii prepared ty eie or tnoer * Y direet ovporvlilon, and that I am a chily Rcglatfred Land VJ.O. -9<.s;a #2292 Note: Boundaries from a survey by Gordon R. Coffin dated 8-15-75 crveyor *i***j®^ flnneiota^ nBtyvdbyusmia.-day of Sicaed Milton E. Hytand.Qdinn. Rcq. No. 20262 Qev. OcA. Oec.'l, M«««l CrsfrOrtA "770 (t o HARDCOVER^^^CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other Sl\id ^x ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ o X 100 PROPOSED HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X 9/J/97 . 500.1000- qhiaJl S.F. QY D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ ® .X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3 ESQ 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 I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House yp ________ Length HARDCOVER CALCULAJTQfJWORKSHEET RCLE ONE) 0-75’ QS-ISO^ 250-500’500-11 3o rsi,') ’’“''’if- ;VL</ Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X E. Patio/^^ F. Landsc^ Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other JSL X X X X X X X X X I TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE for S.F. 77 3&0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 9¥9S-"S.F. B N.A B . X 100 =S 0 o 3 V. V PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 30 . S.F.#i Length X Width S.F. X "S.F. 1 X £3 'S.F. B. Garage X (,S¥.S.F. C. Driveway X S.F. X S 'S.F. D. Sidewalk 5-v/o X 3'/z,sy*- m S.F. X 3'^2-S3 7 7 ¥^¥ E. Patio/lj^P /3c5 X (D^B 34,0 . S.F.if .S.F.X S3 F. Landscape 3»X ^*7 S.FSit Underlain X a S.F. By Plastic X a .S.F. Or Fabric G. Other X s .S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3119 S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3 1 1 -r B X 100 =■39.M ■ S.F. B ■ % V f <5c\ I 4: 5 ’O HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKS SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ 75-250 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landsc:^ Uaderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway II X X D. Sidewalk X X £• Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other Width X 100 Width 9/3/97 • • SOO-IOOO- S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^05ir -5- B ^ 3o X100 = 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. «-/ 0 ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B ___S.F. A ___S.F. B £[__% OK i Rea.r (s i ___ [~m IS y I (0V£/^) ----------------L- f la^r __ .7^?^ I Si^su £/^1/A^»''r ^ ^V« y T*.A''k< A\^k4* -sic^ ^ I<? \/<t^o^-^n pg, P-.lfi ■ (pw / TO:Chair Lindquist and Oronc PLmnrig Ccrmnssicn Nlecbers Ron Moorse. City Adminis^ator FROM:Michael P. Gaf&on. Senior Planning Cocrdoaur DATE:September 12. 1997 SUBJECT: #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr.. ^80 West FemdaHe Rjad - Variances - Purlic Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single FamDy Lakesbrre ResdemtiL. 2 acre. se\^ered. .Application: A- Request for street setback and ietbact variarces fcr consruciion of a 24'x24* garage/storage building. Also required is i \'ariance for accessory stracrcre located nearer the front or street lot line than the exisiini residsice. B. Request for variances'City permit tc reconscruct an existing fence IccaieJ \rithin the right-of- uay of West Femdale Road and less .lan IS" from the lake. List of Exhibits .A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Sur\ ey Detail of Garage Parcel F - Comprehensive Survey of .Applicanfs Property G - Garage Plans H - Photos I - Topographic Map J - Hardcover Calculations Note: The proposed variances, if approved, are subject ic legal combinaiion c: the afected parcels per Council's conditional lot line rearrangement 2pp^ro^al granied August 11. Completion of that rearrangement process may be delayed petdicg c:un acdoc on regarding the ownership of die 20" lakeshore parcel at the east end of Parcel F. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B): Required from Nmrd setback is 50 ’. Section 10.03. Subd. 9(D): "Tso dencbed larage :r ccher accessary bunding shall be located nearer the front or street lot line thin the prirscipil buiilcng or ±ai lot. .* Zonhg File =2295 September 12, 1997 Page 2 4. Section 10.55, Subd. 8: Wetland setback required = 26 . Section 10.03, Subd. 15(C): Fences which exceed 5 1 2' in height v<-±in 2. rent cr street yard are considered an encroachment; VV'est Femcale Road is no: ecas;;ere-d i m^or thoroughfare, therefore this location does not qualify fc: a 6' fence. Section 10.55, Subd. 8: No structure or hardcover aliov%ed wirin 75 jf Lakeshcre: md Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-5): "Fences. Docks. Retaining WaD. >'.'o fence sdall be placed within the shore setback zone. .." The shore serack z:ce is ±ai a.-ea vwithn "5' cf Lake Minnetonka. Section 6.07. Subd. 1; "Obstructions in Streets and Pri\ ere Roads. I: s a nn.=demeanor for any person to place, deposit, display or offer for sale an> fence, goods :r other ebstnetions i^n. over, across or under any street or private road winoin ha\'ing obnmed a •^xitten permit from the City and then only in compliance in all respects winh ne lemis and conditions of such permit, and taking precautionary measures for me prtcecdon of the public..." Proposed Garage Replacement .Applicant proposes to remove the dilapidated garage located on ‘Parcei Fr" (see smr* ey. Exhibits E and F>. The existing 20'x24’ garage encroaches 2.8 ’ into the Wer. Femdele Roid mghi-of-way. That garage is in a precarious state and needs to come down as soon as pos.nbie. .Applicant p^poses to construct a new garage to replace it to be i rcaned ■xfhhin Parcel H v.-i± i street lot line setback of 1'. Normally, an accessoiy building on a property corngmre; siach as this, including Pa.’cels A. E and H, would have to be behind fr.e fron: ine cf ±e h.'ias*. in me norJi half of Pa.*cel A. Such a location w ould not accomplish applicant’s in:en: as noned in me lener of request E-xhi'rit D, to have a place for storage of lake use related equipmemi. The proposed garage will be approximately 20’ from the wefand ic ±e nirth. which is part of Femiale Marsh. The garage will meet an 11* side setback from ±e n.rthvAesterjy i:c line «here a 10’ setback would normally be required. The garage doors will face ic me side roiiher than mwm'ds the sreet and applicant proposes to not pa\e in front of those dorrs, bur mair.nin nhis as a yani area, and use that building strictly for storage. The proposed garage is a smgie sirry wim hip rcof and standard siding, on a floating slab. The defined height of the garage will ’ce 12. and dres not require a height variance. .At 576 s.f., this 24'x24' garage should be riiamveb a3obrusi^ s except for its location near the road. Please review the applicant’s hardship statement in the lener of recuest. ZonLng File #2295 September 12,1997 Page 3 Issues for Consideration 1. Should the garage be Iccaied nearer ie weiard ir order n: rnair.nin a greaier setback from the street? 2. Should a garage be allowed to b; relocrec on this prrtion cf the rroperr.. or should applicant be advised to £nd a confrmning ^ocaticc for a new storage garage? If so. would Planning Commission consider graming an;* onber >pes c: variances for 'iiat stracnare? Note that although Parcel F has reen ccccepmally ap;ro ’* ed :y Ccancil for combination with Parcel H, E and A, no locanon on Parcel ? is otnsidie the C-75 zone, and it '.vould cot be appropriate to construct a grage on Parce. F. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should re\ie« xhs anpltcanrs reqnest. his hardship statatnent and any other options or revisions that might be arprorriane. and male a recommendation as to whether the applicant should be allowed to consruct the garage per hi proprsad. B. Fence Replacement Applicant proposes to replace ±e exL^nng weed fence ber-een the traveled portian of Femdale Road and Parcel F. That fence is locate: in the right-:f-wa>. an 3^e^age cf aboin 6’ from the paved roadway and probably ranging from 15-2C’ from he 3cr_al lot hie. Tne easterly halt of the fence is located within 75' of the shoreline. The fence ticlay ccosists :f loose, 'propped up' segments of wooden fence, in extremely deteriorred state. Nca that his fente does not sbrw up on any of the sur\ ev work which has been submined lo-iate. .\pplicant proposes to construct a nev. & hip cedar screemng fente to be located within the right-of- way at a distance of 6-9' from the edge of me pa\ ememL .\ gate wo uld be inrolled approximately 12’ from the west boundary cf Parcel F. Please review the applicant's lener cf request and nardshp scaumenu The primary reason for the fence is for privacy, to discourage trespassing, and "penni: more of die parcel m be enjoyed by the propert)' owner". It is likely that part of the reason the fence is deierloraiec is the: in the past it has been so close to the right-of-way that winter plowing probibly piles snow against it. The zoning code addresses fencing as a non-encroachment and prehihts it fr:m being locaced jess than 15 ’ from the lake, but does not address the issue of fences in the rghi-of-vay . Kow^e\ sr. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 6 requires a permit from the City for any orsnructon including fences, within a Cit>’ right-of-way. Zcnir-g File -2195 Sscraber 12, 1997 Pize 4 Tie Cii> ioes nci normally require permits for a fence located ihe roundries o: i propert>‘ inless it las been subject to a variance for location or heighi Tie Cit> normaly requires at least a 10’ clear zone off the pa*.ec rojdw'a} for shcilder purposes as %'iil 2S Slow stcmge. In cases where a propert>‘ boundary is iess thji 10’ th; pcrvei roadway. Ciy siaf'has strongly encouraged residents to maintain a 10 fence jetbaci from die pa*, id road to a*. lid ar> pctendal damage to that fence. Iz ±e apriicant s case, replacing a non-conforming fence thi: encrraciief 15-20 into tie right-of- way would Domally only be approved subject to it being located zl tbs propern bconiary. West Fsmcale Read it this location has 60’ of right-of-way. ^proxiini-ely 3C fr-oni ie ceirerlineon eldier siie. The paved roadway is approximately 20' in width, aid a feice located 1!’ from ±e pr*ernei: would still be 10-15’ into the right-of-way from tie projern liie. In son s crinion a 6* M0° 1' oraque fence 10’ from the pavement will be an obtrusion itto the visual character of friis netzhbcriood. Minicipal Code Section 6.07 requires the propert>‘ owner :o obtain a rermit from tie Cit>’ for placement of fence in the right-of-way. If the City chooses :o issue such permin the lack of a 75’ sefrack ::r the easterlv half of that fence must be also addressed. Please review the applicant’s memo of request and hardship statement Staff Recommendation Suit does not recommend approval of this request. The existing fence is deteriorated to a point that it should just simply be removed and a new fence be Iccaied m a ernfomung lotation. A cenfemtang location would be far enough into the property that tie t'ente wrouli not :e a \isual inrusion mto the natural look of West Femdale Road as one ravels :t. On ±e other hand, a new 6' r.rcLade type fence 10’ from the road will be, in staffs crinion. less than attnctiAe. Planning Ctmmisrlon must be convinced that there are adequate hardships *: allow this fence tc re located less than 75’ from the shoreline. If Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval cf replatenaent of the fence within the riiht-of-way, staff recommends the following minimum coiditions of aprroval: 1. me fence should be located at least 15’ from the pa\ ed roadway: Tie applicant should attempt to leave as much existing shrtb’cei^ in front of it ts possTole f:r screening, and should be required to plant additicral screening materials bet\>>een 10-15’ frtm the pavement in front of the fence; J Zoning FUc #2295 September 12,1997 P22e 5 3. Applicant should be required to execute a hold hannliss agrienaen*- reilie\-iiig the Cirv’ from any responsibility for damage to or maintenance of ±ai fence locked in die Cir*‘ right-of- wav. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the garage and fence replaieroen^ as prrposed by appicanL Recommend partial approval or revised approval for on-e cc both cf these rvvo pnjects. Table for further information 4. Recommend denial of one or both of the projects. Other. Application _____ Date Received^ A CITY OF ORONO - V a RLOTCE .APPLICATION Initial .Appliciricn ?ee S2I0.D0 (S50.30 ps: S3ch adciticnal variance) Renewal Variance Fee SllO.30 ^ (no cnarge frzm :riginal arpliiaron* ■V ^ance pr non-ccnicming itrrrnres S220.C0 “Ve^rac. rees *Dcub.e amliiarfoc **ee) Amount Paid #2Sa3 PROPERTY' INFORALATIO.N Sire.Adn.-es3 Propem- Icennf caticn Nuirirer (P.:.D.)_ 'See Lthi:lt A attached ipn^carion i: no: inriuced on required sur\ev. ua;.e .rr>. nert\' .-.ccuired See Ejchi b f - *A attached I «jiac>(no rot, also cwr the arjaten: pa.-tels o: lard. Present^ase of rrcperr/; _vY_resicennaI o&er (roecif\-) Zoning i.*.snncn^_____________ * • /month/'year) APPLICA.NT Name ’cr.ls" Hro;>s, Jr Awdress. w. ~er~dale 7“-.r. Phone (home ) 473-735J.______ _____ Phone (work) 3'A2-2964 —_________Zip: «5n3Ql OWNER /z ci^ereni tear anrlicant" Name Address:Cir: Phone (home)_ Phone (,wor.k)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe mq-jer. in denil: Zip: Isdma'ed Cor^sruedon Cost S fee = 3^-s^-or .icn aniitinna. snee'j 11 necessary) V.ARLA.NCES REQLTRZD ___Lor .Area Ic: Wdi Hardcover Lot Coverage Seicack:crent Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specir. ) UNL'SUAL PROPERTi' CONDITIONS 7T^I cr imusua! property conditions preventing compli^ji^, 2cniiix Cods r^cuirim^ntsi (atia:h adiucnal sheets if necessary) • i 2 REQUIRED SUB.NUTT.AJ_S 7T \\ D All of the following inf-:rmar!:n miit ~be ?ubm:r:ed bv the apnlicatinn deadline date in order for vour application to be cr~.>icert'i con~.Tlcte; 1. 2. 4. 3. 6. 7. 8. Completed .-.zz'.icilzz: ?: Certified Prererrv- I’-vnen 9 must obtain diis ILs:. li: Finance, A-6'.}, Cz-z Ce: Certificate cf Sur.ey (r. calculations is reiilred. repioduction. Topographic rar. ey erdsi grace are prerosed. In. ad Sketches or plans c: floe: List ol* the legal nir.es (i: the propert>'. Tnis •s.-cnic As an addeniuna :: this persons you vdsh r.:h5e; Lis: :: ounets v^ihut 150', labels and plat map (you itc mir tror. Hennepin Counu* Department cf ::en 5-S-32“l . gr.ed :y a _:ensei sur\’eyor) and include hardcover h: hiilzlcz. provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 11" for .■Additional items as mnv -S —- proprsed elevauons) if any changes in existing --tJtt- prcvice one (1) copy 8/4" x 11" for reproduedon. d; elr-ahon vle-.vs provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 11"). tcluce mariiL rmtus o: all persons with an interest in ncluit name s) of ippl:cant(s) if not current owner(s}. ipplimhcn, please inarh a separate list of any other :: thn arol:cation. m 9 e reciested Cin’ srjiS. Tne Applicant and Prope.-.y Ov.ner mast s:in ihis iprliciuon. Please remember that vour ya.ri.ance application is not complete :f the above infnrr.ation has not been included. APPLIC.ANT’S SIG.N.ATOUE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all mfomioon retuirtd or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to piy addinonil fees naff nme no: covered by original fee pav-menf and/or consultant expenses incurred n re'*'.e%v of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tru^^^d zzt^. to the best ;f hisaer knowledge, Applicant’s Signature / Date W97 OWNER’S SIG.N.ATLTIE The owner hereby acknow.edges lad agrees t: mis appIioati:.c and farther authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City ram, otrsmlunm. agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes onnvestigi^pr. md verifoautn of mis requtsn Owner's Signature ^ ■_____________ Date ________ Applicant must have all subminals nto me Cir* cffices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Pla.-_ning Commssion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present a: aL sciecaled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an app.oamt lu umable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an aumorizei aotm arend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this channe orlor :: mse meedr.i. RUN DATC Oa/ia/97MTOf 502 PROP ADOR OmER NAHE TAXPAYER HAIIL/ADDIt PROP ADDR m«ll:N MAir TAK!*AYI:R MAHE/AOOR pROf* AUilR nil«H IIAIffi TAKPAVrR MROt* ADUR R IIAMP lAXPAYfcN NAHI./AnDR PROP ARDR OHNCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY imORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTS8 02-X17-2S 43 0001 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1315 ETM or S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 5S414 SO 0M17 7I 41 0004 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASniGtlED I.UlinK H lt4iiiY r«)RNEST DANK C/0 tw/sr ntki EsrAtE 6TII A MARQITTTP irLO l«4 LL*i/Y uu*io 3H Of 11/ rt nt on?I OliJAb lEimUALfc RU M JANE R iir!LSf)ii }\mm J B NEISON rRUSTEE III6« rCRNIiAlt oil M HAYZAIA Mil r/iTOl 30 02-117-75 44 OHIO 0U9UD rr.MMUAlE 1(1) H c niinoKS .Ml tea oihmiks CIN4LEV JN A tAIIOL U blUifJE.b 9QB fERltDALR DO H HAY2AfA HN B5591 38 02-117-23 44 0010 00030 AODRtnn UlAfltilONCD THE lUTURE CONSERVANCY NATURE COMSLRVAriCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 MPLS MN BS414 I. *•* ^ h ,.. •• I 50 02-117-23 45 0002 01070 FERNDAIE RO H NORNEST DNK MN NA ASSO TRSTE NORHEST BANK MN llUrjl Ilf At ESTAIC 61H A MARQUE riE ins III 55^174-0046 07“ll7-?i 43 nmifi 00030 AODRESr. UNASSTCTITO liriiiiy M nKAiii* III NIIY M SKAHP 1045 H riRIlUALt RU MAY/ATA MM r.r,X9| to n;* OKILb ME MAID orRAID innii M n 7 ft 9t norr lEHNUALE NO H r IK CONMIMliY sr Al r MCtOURTNFY miiiiiAir iiiiAii HAYZAIA MN 5bS9l 30 02-117-25 44 0016 U1IU50 ADDMLDS UNASOlONt^D ilir iiAiMiH rcitnrpv^rrY MAIliht tUUStNVAlA Y 1315 bill ST S E SUITE 514 MPin m f.n‘>i4 58 02-117-25 44 0019 noonn re Rim At t: on H C G A C BROOKS JH CAROL 0 A CONILY RROOKS JR 960 PERNDALE RD H HAYi!ATA MN BC591 7 #••• , *• >. I *) L' RFPOflT NO. PI43E401PAOE ^Sa 0Z-117-2S 0003 01070 FERNOALE RO H HENRY H SKARP HENRY H SKARP lu'tb H ri HIlUALE no NAYZATA BUiYl W n«-117-fl Al OOOA nnoin Aiinnrna lAtAsnToMFn ILltni; M ll.mv NOHNESI tlAM( HN tRUSI HEAL EStAte A3H A MAROiirnF IRMb Iti in 0/ 117 7. >>3 nii7<. oiiiMb MinniAi.E «u H IIMIRY H f4KAnn HENRY H nKARP lO'tB rCMNIAIF nil H 7UYZAYA IM lifiS9l 5tt n?ll/-l3 AA 0017 UOYbO iriilNIALE HU H r • .1 novo UH a inib I.HAHltb !• rtOYtl 9I|0 M ST FT UNO ALE HI) HAYZAIA I»1 S5191 TOTAL OATCfl BOe 00014 2. Variance for Storage Building: j i-i l\ i'‘wj Conley Brooks, Jr. proposes to remove the old garage on Parcel H (required as a condition to the approval of Orono Application No. 2269), and to replace it v.ith a new storage building. Exhibit B4 attached is a survey of the property depicting the current location of the existing garage and the proposed location of the new storage building. Exhibit BS attached is a copy of the proposed plans for the new storage building. The current garage on the site encroaches by a few feet on the West Femdale Road 33* easement from the center line. The proposed structure would be sited so as to be outside the road easement. Other variances are requested as necessary to position this structure on the site. It is requested that consideration of these variances take into account the beneficial eflfect of the removal of the former Skarp house across the street and the general cleaning up of a very sub* standard lot situation. Conley Brooks, Jr.’s need for this structure arises for at least two reasons, which represent hardships for purposes of this application. First, the house at 980 West Femdale Road has no storage space for such items as lawn furniture, utility trailers, lawn mowers, snow blowers, bicycles, and all the other paraphernalia which one accumulates and has to store (particularly on a seasonal basis). Even including the parcels prospectively combined into 980 West Femdale as a result of this application, there are few, if any, places where such a storage stmcture could be sited, since the property is mostly marsh or within the 0-75' zone from the shoreline of the lake. The house at 980 West Femdide has a 3-car garage, but there is little room for anything but cars. Secondly, in addition to the storage deficiencies at the 980 West Femdale house site, there is no place to keep items related to the waterfront portion of the property (such things as spare lifejackets, ropes, gas cans, water sports equipment, etc.). The proposed structure would allow for relatively convenient storage of such items, servicing the lakeshore portion of the property across the street. Since most of the lakeside land is vrithin the 0-75' zone, the best site for such a stmcture is across Femdale Road, away from the lake. There has been a garage stmcture on the proposed site for probably in excess of 50-60 years and that stmcture has never caused a problem for the road or the neighbors. The proposed £801:931813 3 ^ V ^ f^,,J tcl structure would not have primary use as a garage (though it could conceivably be used to store a car); its vehicle access would not &ce the street and it would not require a surfaced driveway. The nearest neighbor, Mr. McCourtney directly across the street, has no objection to the proposed structure. There are no other neighbors within sight. • i . • £B01:921S13 2 3. Variance for Fence:iw • ^ D- r.. ■•*■- I <4sad^ Conley Brooks, Jr. is proposing to remove the existing dilapidated fence along Femdale Road West for the entire length of Parcel F, and to replace it with a new fence. A drawing depicting the location of the current fence and the proposed fence will be submitted to the City under separate cover. The existing fence along the road was part of the original Sharp property. In height, it is mostly 5-6' high, with some missing sections which have been replaced with 3-4 ’ fence. It ranges from about 3.5' from the road edge at the eastern end of Parcel F to approximately 8' from the road at the western end. There is a relatively heavy tree line directly behind the fence. The proposed new fence would be 6’ high, made of cedar, and installed by Sterling Fence Company. The distance from the edge of West Femdale Road would vary from 6-9', depending on the location of the trees to be preserved. A gate would be installed in the fence at a point between trees beginning approximately 12’ from the westerly property line, in order to allow vehicles access when necessary. Variances are requested for the location of the fence within the roadway easement and for height. The reasons for the request are as follows; 1. Parcel F is a lakeshore strip which is very narrow, so there is relatively little usable land. Location of the fence close to the road (but not as close as in the past) would permit more of the parcel to be enjoyed by the property owner. 2. There has been a pereniual problem with fishermen and other people parking along West Femdale Road in order to access the lake across the private property of others. No-Parking signs have been posted but are frequently ineffectual. Location of the fence closer to the road would tend to discourage parking trespass. 3. Parcel F is low-lying and is extremely exposed visually to West Femdale Road, compromising the privacy of anyone using Parcel F for whatever purpose. A 6' fence would enhance this privacy and discourage trespassing. The proposed fence would extend to the property line between Parcel F and Parcel B. (Parcel B is the 20 strip, the ownership of which is the subject of a Torrens court proceeding £601:921813 2 A/ r.RfiAL DESCRIPTION // (ff'-fi ir^%K:is.>5u iv<*. :.,j r.^. \A >v>« « .'% A' o, ^o exhibit 64 'k ■i r: 4 “D-z "»'■ J ■ ■ • 0= A 1 :-• > .-K* ;. • • • ^'; ? d' ^ ' ' • i 0»• ..'iv. ■' •• *. .' *. J * » > I -1 • I S •:/;•••- 4 SI H ■ mhfak^ > r- S f !" Oo ■3» z rn P O 2 S ^ 2 p Z ^ 2 ^ r~ 3 o ^ ;;J -< -j0 o N rn 1 ^ O ro oo ;d ^ .-< O e o to •/ ' . • .* ■ r.U -* •• r • * %N* •• V ’ •: • .• _. •..• * • • •.... . •* \f *• ■■/ • V k . * • •• *• 1 M-o .; ^ ■ 12-0 . •K"’'~ ----------- -------------------- " ' '■' ' 1^. - PArACH UNIT •• • *. . 1 • i 4 *«V ---------------------------------------h- ------------------------------------.1 % *! % h . ; • V'-.r V > . « • % % z••D• •9 ' ir CVJ . T < u 1' I ' b •n 0 26/J2’* -iiwnMlWA 1 a S’* t.-$.ccPAt o Zoor TPv^t^ Z4‘Vc 5rLTWD tOOF X 1 * 0 F^uoVnH^ *6»iA^ A"COHC.. IHICKCH to \'l"v\z" AT Pt<2»HtTC(2. COHTIVJUO^J P^ovipt Uxiff* \Ol[0\>^lr Ot*r- X ot <Tv 2' § < 0 -rr 1 IZ'O ZAAZ C6 MUtU ^,.- iz o y" \• *1 Z^-o n rv^C Pt KM'll *. . 1 c\ 77' % . . i > ^ *• • . • • y> • •• t* i <f •• • •* • 9 .. . • ^ • i. a • ••• 4 4tils _r -J' J T^7 ^ r- . ' •/ ' ' ,.'^ii^'.;.^' -S'-i^Vvr-'' ■^r-: -: ;-»f* *. r. r:»*.:;r'. J; I:' :^ r^'’" ‘ ■(<'?. r> • ^!! j.1 isrf U«(«r921.7 ttAKX»CU V C,K SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) i »» vyiN.ivoAxx^i:< 1 75-250* 250-500 ’ EXISTING HARDCOMER IN ZONE A. House X Lensdi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X "*• D. Sidewalk X X . E. Paiio/Deck X X ffi Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other 'N / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- _ _ _ ^ B ^ T A Proposed hardcover in zone House X Lenfth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X O. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ B 500-1000 ’ ^ ^ Width X 100 = Width m X 100 S.F. —5 S.F. S.F-. S.F. t t. S.F. y 7s S.F. S.F." S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. 37S S.F. 2 2. tSO S.F. /. 6*9 % A B - . c<*. 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.Ft . S.F. I I • S.F. :;S.F. ■ A S.F. B % SETBACK ZONE: (CIRC: HAKiJL.UVt.K >> v^ivivoni:.!:. i COiJLfY ^ ICLEONE) 0-75’ OS-2S0Q 250-500* 500-1000* . EXISTING HARDCQ\TR IN ZONE A. House Ljngih X X X B. Garaee (it^ /vj C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk fAfT X X Cd/frr E. .SaUei^Dcck F. Landscape Underlain ___________ By Plastic ___________ Or Fabric X X X G. Other U^J ll TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ - B . Width X 100 Width X 100 = y9?o s.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. y?e s.F. ^/OO S.F. S.F. 7Ja s.F. 2 s.F. Zzo S'J^o S.F. S.F. 2? S.F. S.F. S.F. yio s.F. /-Ty7r(^S.F. /07jJOS s.F. /y. 7/cy s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; S.F. I I* S.F. S.F. S.F. % A ® A/COf, A B TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator August 10,1997 SUBJECT:#2297, Daryl E. Hansen, architect, on behalf of Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area: Application:The applicant has been retained by the property owner to design an ad dition to an existing residence. The proposed addition is to be located the same distance from the edge of the swimming pool as the exterior wall of the existing residence, approximately 5'2 ’’. A variance is needed to continue the encroachment into the required 10' separation between principal and accessor)' structures. (The swimming pool is considered an accessory structure). Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 12, Crowding Principal Building. 'r.«v accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered.. r moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory structui •; ’* #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—I # 1 ■! -j: ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200*50’30*50’ abject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear 2 acres (approx.)150 ’+63+ft.13.06 and 12.37 > 200 ft. The subject property does not meet the lot width or side yard requirements, Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant hr.s indicated that the hardship is the location of the e.xisting residence in relation to the pool. The proposed addition will not encroach closer to the pool than the existing residence. 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 in question can continue to be used as a residence, however, the proposed addition is to allow the property owner to have space the is wheelchair accessible that provides a room for a person to provide live-in care. The most logical place to add space to the existing residence #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page~2 is behind the garage. The house cannot be expanded from side to side and the pool restricts additions to the rear. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lando'vner. The owner’s situation is due to a change in health, the need for accessible space and live-in care, and the existing location of the pool and the residence. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not change the character of the site or neighborhood as the addition has been designed to fit in with the existing style and roofline of the residence. 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. Residential uses are allowed in this district. U2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 EJgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—3 8 9. 10. 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. This situation is created by the location of the residence and the swimming pool. It is unique to this particular property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Swimming pools are considered "accessory structures" in the Zoning Code. Accessory structures in all residential districts are required to be ten feet from each other. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance is needed for the proposed addition to be constructed as designed. 11 . The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrarj' to the o ^nt 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 hardship is the location of the pool to the e.xisting residence. The plan could be redesigned so that the house is at least ten feet from the pool. That would reduce the proposed addition by 80+ ft. and require changes to the roofline. Issues 1. The lot does not meet the lot width or side yard setback requirements. 2. The proposed addition does not further encroach into the 10' separation U2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page —4 3.There are no safety concerns with the addition being less than ten feet from the pool. No doors open to the pool which would be a potential problem—small children could run out a door and fall into a pool. Another reason for requiring the 1 O' separation is to discourage people from trying to dive out into the pool from upper floors. This is not a potential problem with this residence. There are also no fire safety issues with this proposal because a swimming pool doesn't catch fire. 4.It appears from the site plan that several trees will need to be remov ed to construct the addition. 5. The permit record shows that the swimming pool was constructed in 1969. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the addition to be located the same distance from the existing structure. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Proposed Floor Plan Topographical Map Acknowledgement Form from Neighbors Survey Permit Record U2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith 1045 Edgewood Hill Road PC 9/15/97 page—5 Application 0 919l3T Date Received ^ Amount Paid *• CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 8 PROPERTY INFOR>LATION Site Address A" cr»a 8 ------- . - - -I - ^ f' V w ^ ^ f r » j 0 1 J ^ Property Identification Number (P.lD.) // 7 • n ' u) o --------------- Attach legal description to application "if not included on required ^urvev '' Date Property Acquired______________________________________(mornh/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: __residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: -i A APPLICANT Vtyyi m. l<‘T(if different than applicant) ' Phone (home) Phone (work ) Zip: OWNER Of different than applicant)N HUA/ fO.Citv Phone (home )<^*T^ Phone (work) ________ kif Zip:<$4^ I DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) % VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IO* fe/!f^WenneiAJ- blwD feS. pOQl_____ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: frU^.—*T^> Orr~ " ftonHfuJ -Trie 4<iApi€ fooir io ueuj uJ#>^ (^u(o iwfSsfirMrIt) -we OeoUfti. i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following inforinatioii roust b6 submitted bv^ the application deadline date id order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count\' Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include haudeover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application- • Additional items as may be requested by City staff. , The Applicant and.. Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. . 7 . . . 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 tme and jeorrect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Dale 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 ven^cation of this request. i\ 0 ^ . • • •• Owner's Signature _____Date Applicant must have all submittals into.the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planiilng Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of.e.ach 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 ineeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent atterid in your, place and to advise the iBuilding & Zoning Office of this change prior to' the meeting. • • 8 |0H5 5 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form of g CtJ>Og>cil [p^t name(s)] U',n [print address] hs^ve reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located fJ‘il ^JL also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property ’ Owner Date ♦********^****** ******************************************************* **♦♦♦♦ '3.6U<et>^e. JrttKScw ^'3.SU<et»^e. JrttKScw ^ I (we) K£fT<4 [print name(s)] of t^tigu^cop diU rsiL. [prnt address] have review'ed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located /ov'S' Utli /^Q also referred to as Land Use Application No. 3 3^ "/o . 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'^qu[res Council approval. Property Ownbr^Date •—t Property Owner 0 cLy^ Date sLs ffi 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 lO days prior to the scheduled meeting date. msmm B I To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator September 12. 1997 Subject: Proposed Amendment of Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinances The City Council on August 25 directed staff to process an amendment of the zoning and septic codes regarding the period of time for septic system upgrades, and triggers for upgrades, in the Shoreland District. Council Objective: 1. Allow property owners within the Shoreland Overlay District up to 10 years to replace septic systems which are 'Non-Compliant' solely due to lack of 3' separation from seasonal saturation. The current timeframe is 2 years. 2. Revise ordinances so that a building permit or variance application will no longer trigger an immediate system upgrade in the Shoreland Overlay District for systems which are 'Non-Compliant' solely due to lack of 3 separation. List of Exhibits A - Proposed Ordinance Language B - Current Shoreland Ordinance, Section 10.56 Subd. 16(R) and Subd. 17(C) C - Septic code as adopted 2-10-92, Section 12.30 Subd. 4 D - Septic code 1st revision 7-26-93 E - Septic code 2nd revision 5-13-96 F - State Code Excerpts (Chapter 7080, and June 1997 Statute Revisions) Rationale:The City is intending to review its policies over the next few years regarding exicnsion of municipal sewer to the rural area, which includes areas within the Shoreland District. This review is being undertaken in part due to the high number of requests for sewer from rural property owners who have Non-Compliant systems that must eventually be replaced. These requests are a reflection of the fact that the current cost of a replacement septic system approaches the cost of mumcipal sewer. One possible outcome of the policy review is that a number of developed residential areas could be slated for sewer. If this occurs, it would not have been prudent to be requiring expensive system upgrades followed shortly by expensive sewers. Areas outside the Shoreland currently are allowed 10 years to comply when the Ordinance Amendment September 12, 1997 Page 2 3' separation is the only reason a system is Non-Compliant. This timeframe was chosen based on a number of factors including: The sheer number of systems needing replacement is likely to require a number of >ears to deal with, both from a City staffing standpoint as well as based on contractor availability and weather constraints. Continuing the City’s long-standing program of requiring immediate repairs or replacement of failing systems needs to be a higher priority than replacing systems which may be polluting for only a few weeks or months out of the year during high seasonal w ater tables. The City's current 2-year timeframe for the ShorelanJ areas was adopted in 1993 when it was concluded that the 1-year timeframe in the 1978 code was too short a period in which unsuspecting homeowners would have to make large expenditures for new systems. Also, 2 years was the timeframe suggested by the DNR in their model Shoreland Ordinance. Minn. Rules Chapter 7080 and State Statutes - A Moving Target The most current set of State Rules regulating septic systems is Chapter 7080 which was most recently published Januaiy' 16,1996. While rule changes are pending (they are always pending, this is the most elusive moving target ever created by a State agency), the Legislature has made some statute changes adopted as recently as June 1997 w hich are as yet not reflected in the rules. State Rules Chapter 7080, Section 7080.0060, Subd. 4, requires that a non-compliant septic system (one that is failing, or that doesn't meet the 3' separation) must be upgraded prior to issuance of a building permit for a bedroom or bathroom addition, or when a (septic code?) variance is involved. Staff finds no specific timeframe in the rules for replacement of systems which merely don't meet the 3' separation. Apparently the 1996 Legislature failed to pass proposed changes requiring a 5-year timeframe. Systems which are found to be an 'imminent threat to public health or safety' (those which discharge to ground or surface water or cause a backup into a building) must be made compliant within ten months. But, the 1997 Legislation now has apparently allowed cities to relax ordinances and allow continued use of existing systems which have at least 2 of separation. This will, however, have little impact on those systems already identified as non- compliant in Orono; Steve Weekman indicates that 99 out of 100 tagged so far have 1 fo.it of separation or less. \ Conflict with Shoreland Regulations, Chapter 6120 Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120, the Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland, Section 6120.39C9 Subpart 4(A) states that "Local governments must require upgrading or replacement of Ordinance Amendment September 12, 1997 Page 3 any existing on-site sewage treatment sy^em idlentified as a non-conformity under a program established under 6120.3400." Section 6120.3400 Subpart 3(D) states that local government programs must be developed and implemented "to identity' and upgrade sewage treatment systems that are inconsistent with the sewage treatment system design criteria" of Chapter 7080, and must require reconstruction of existing non-conforming sewage systems "whenever a permit or variance of any ty'pe is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property...". The proposed ordinance will be in conflict with this Section because the intent of the Ordinance Amendment is to delay for 10 years any requirement to upgrade. DNR staff have been advised of this proposed ordinance revision but have not formally responded as of this writing. Staff Recommendation At first blush, stall % iew s this as a step backw ards in Orono's quest to protect the lake. How ever, staff is also keenly aware of the negative ramifications of forcing septic upgrades immediately followed by installation of municipal sewer. Some Shoreland septic systems that don't meet the 3’ separation are polluting on a daily basis. Others may be only polluting during the few weeks or months of the year that the soils are saturated. Ignoring all of them for 10 years may not be appropriate. But defining which ones are the worst polluters may be very difficult. The Council directive to amend the code resulted from an appeal by a property owner to make use of a substandard site for replacing a s^ ♦ .n that doesn ’t meet the 3' requirement. The only available conforming site would be costly to u^e and foul up applicants back yard layout. This is an area w ithin less than a half mile of existing sewer lines, but also in an area of larger lots in the rural area where need for sewer is low and costs will be high. Stafl questions how realistic it is to expect that this area will be sewered in the forescecble future. If the City is to approve the code amendments, it must also unwaveringly commit to doing the 'rural sewer study ’ that is being used as a rationale for the relaxed upgrade timeframe. Options For Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval of the Code revisions. Recommend a revised amendment. Table for further discussion. Recommend no changes. Other. . 1 Proposed revision to Shoreland Ordinance, Section 10.56 Subd. 17(C): (This section was adopted on February 24, 1992) A-! Subd. 17. Nonconformities. AH legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue subject to applicable State Statutes and as regulated elsewhere in the Orono Municipal Code. In shoreland areas, the following standards shall also apply: A. Construction on Nonconforming Lots of Record. Development or use of existing lots of record shall be regulated as set forth in Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 of the Orono Zoning Code. B. Additions/Expansions to Nonconforming Structures. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconf orming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements set forth in the Orono Zoning Code. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to provisions of the zoning chapter. C. Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems. A nonconforming sewage treatment system talso defined as a Non-Compliant System) as defined in Section 12.30 and located within the Shoreland Overlay District must be upgraded and made conforming, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any t>pe is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property . except that systems which are non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall have ten years in which to become compliant per the provisions of Section 12.30 Subd. 8tB¥4aV Further, the All other nonc o nfo iming non-compliant sewage treatment system provisions of Section 12.30 shall apply to all shoreland areas. Proposed revbion to Section 12J0, Subd. 8(B)(4): (This section was last revised on May 13,1996 per Ord. #147,2nd Series) 4. Owners of Non-Compliant systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair or replacement per Subdivision 5(C) as follows: (a) Systems located within the Shoreland District found to be non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the seco nd tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two len full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allow'ed for die completion of repairs. (b) Systems located outside the Shoreland District found to be non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past Decemoer 31 of the tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that 10 full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs. (c) Systems found to be non-conforming because they are either "failing" or "prohibited" as defined in Subdivision 2 of this Section, shall be repaired or replaced w ithin 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar year after the date of the repair order. (d) Sewage tanks requiring pumping in order to eliminate surface discharge shall be pumpvo within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to eliminate effluent discharge until system repairs are completed. A'2. 1 1 1 I I I I i i I I SHoftfetAWfc* i>ie.£>//U4^c •E- treatment per Municipal Code Section 12.30 nust'^'be "^®On-site SSwafe Treatment. Anv premises used for human treatment sys ems ust be setback Level in accordance with the setbacks ^^s^ems shall cnhHivision 16 (C). Non-conforming sewage trea-me ^ ' i 7 ‘of t-his the Ordinary High Water Subdivision regulated and upgraded in ac^ordance w h Subd. 17 of this ordinance has been removed and documented in a puolic repo Y Subd. 17. Nonconformities. ^ ^ continue nonconformities as of the tl^uto^s and^s^'^eau^at^^ elsewhere in llTo7on°o Cofe! ^Vn^^hlrfland areas, the following standards shall also apply: A Construction on Nonconforming Lots sirfor*tT"in"leclLS^o"o!!^ 3 Additions/Exoansions to Nonconforming Structures. All addftltns "or e^ansions to the outside ^dime^^ of an existing nonconforming in^the Orono Zoning Code. rn^/‘'a\Vutio°nTr nus. » variance pursuant to provisions of —' C. Noncontorming Sewage Treatment 30 property. _^|^hero„ 12?30 shall apply to all shoreland areas. 'a? provisions Subd. 18. Subdivision/Platting Provisions. A. Land Suitability. Each lot created through 1.J- ,-e.-:,^n including Planned Unit Developments or Plannea |“^t^:n\\^°"oevelopoen\s -thcri-f/1 sewhere and ritttfng" codes? .urtbV suTtable'in its ^"“itlblllt? VAf^^use with minimal alteration. In analyzing che suitability proposed u snecific use, the City shall consider susceptibility ?o ftStdiSg, eKtIence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with to tloo y develooment, severe erosion potential, steep severe . °Aate water supply or sewage treatment topography, j^g^r-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water- S*'’? iierntion, ?portant fish and wildlife habitat, presence of /?ant\istorlc sites, or any other feature of the natural ?i??iikelv to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare .f future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. ORONO CC /IDoPTCCi 376-20 2'Zy-92-(2-24-92) I . ■ 1 12.30 shall extend the right of entry to the City Inspector by explicit approval of the owner requesting such permit, which approval may be filed in the chain of title for the property. Failure of any party to grant the City access for this purpose shall be grounds to classify any system on the property as Non-Conforming. The City Attorney shall thereafter take such action as is necessary to enable the City to perform the inspection and to enforce all the provisions of this Section, and to assess the cost thereof against the property. 2. Inspection Report. Within thirty (30) days after the inspection of each system by the City, the City shall provide the results of said inspection in writing to the owner of the system, including the classification of the system as to conformance with City requirements and potential for existing or future problems. Notice of non-corforming or failing systems shall include orders for maintenance, repairs or replacement, the procedures for obtaining all required permits, the deadline for completion of the construction or pumping and the penalties for failure to comply with the order. 3. Code and Conforming Systems shall be inspected by the City at least once 4. Owners of Non-Conforming Systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or replace ment. Systems found to be non-conforming shall be brought up to conforming status per Subdivision 5 (c) within one calendar year from the date of the order. Systems found to be non-conforming due to failure or pollution hazards shall have remedial action required within a reasonable period of time as follows: (a) Sewage tanks requiring pumping shall be pumped within 48 hours. (b) Sewage tanks or systems found to be clogged, overflowing, leeching or otherwise discharging pollutants shall be pumped within 48 hours and thereafter as needed and the system shall be repaired, altered or replaced within 90 days. Systems required to obtain and maintain a MPCA State Disposal System shall m.eet the requirements of MPCA Rules Chapter 7080.0030. If the State Permit lapses, orders shall be issued to ceasc use of the system within ten (10) days, such use to be discontinued until reinstatement of the State Permit. c 6. Failure to oboy a lawful order requiring repair, alteration or replacement of a Non-Conforming System shall be cause for the City to enjoin the owner or occupant from further use of the system. Upon notice, the owner shall have ten (10) days to show cause to the City why the property should not be condemned for occupancy according to Minnesota Statutes 463.15 et.seq. ORONO CC 502 (2-10-92) 5gfT7t Co6g ORDINANCE NUMBER 118 SECOND SERIES an ordinance to amend municipal code section 12.30 BY REVISING THE REQUIRED TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF NON-CONFORMING SEPTIC SYSTEMS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. The City of Orono Municipal Code, Chapter 12, is hereby amended by deleting the existing language of Section 12.30, Subd^^^(B)(^^^nd^^eglacin^i^witt^th^^ollowina lanmiacTP* ■ 4. Owners of non-conforming systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or replacement. Systems found to be non-conforming shall be brought up to conforming status per Subdivision 5 (O’ as follows: Systems found to be non-conforming due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired, altered or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the second year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs. Systems found to be non-conforming because they are either "failing" or "prohibited" as defined in Subd. 2 of this section, shall be repaired, altered or replaced within 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar • year after the date of the reoair order. Sewage tanks requiring pumping in order to eliminate a discharge shall be pumped within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to limit or eliminate ef'luent discharge until system repairs are completed. SECTION 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect and sha] 1 be enforced rom and after the date of its adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council, of the City of Orono, Minnesota this 26th day of July_ _ _ _ _1993. ^DcSrbthy Mv^allin, City Clerk Eaward J. Ca3aahan, Jr., Mayor f2.eV//S/OAJ 7-2t»-93 SXCBRPT" o(L^ ^/V7 Section 22. Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by amending Section 4. Owners of Non Conformin g Non-Comoliant systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration , or replacement. Syst ems found to be non conforming shf^ be brought up to conforming -stanHi per Subdivision 5 (c) as follows: (a) Systems located within the Shoreland District found to be ROft- conforming non-compliant due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics, shall be repaired, altered or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend past December 31 of the second year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least two full construction seasons (May thru November) shall be allowed for the completion of repairs. (b) Systems located outside the Shoreland District found to be «©r- t cinfarming non-compliant because they are either "failirT-r-^ ■"pfohlblt ed'’ as defined in. Subd. 3-of shall be repaired. 4 calendar vaar aft&f the data of the repair ord er; due solely to lack of 3 feet of unsaturaced soil or sand between the distribution device and the limitine soil characteristics, shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period of time not to extend oast December 31 of the tenth year following the year in which repair orders are issued, the intent being that at least 10 full construction seasons (Mav thru November) shall be allowed for completion of repairs. (c) Sewage tanks reqaifittg pufnpiFtg in ord er to eliminate a discharge shall be pumped-withia 48 hours and as oft en as necessary thereafter to ehnrunate effluan: discharge until syst em repairs are compl eted. Systems found to be non-conforming because thev are either "failing" or ‘‘prohibited" as defined in Subd. 2 of this section, shall be repaired or replaced within 90 days if feasible but in no case later than 1 calendar year after the date of the repair order. (d) Sewage tanks requiring pumping in order to eliminate surface discharge shall be pumped within 48 hours and as often as necessary thereafter to eliminate effluent discharge until system repairs are completed. S5BS8BB1 Section 25. This Ordinance shall be published in the THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall be effective immediately. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 13th day of May , 1996, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. allin. City Clerk Edward J. Callman, Jr., Mayor Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper the week of June 8/ 1996 2 eiP 5ir.al • als. a tees Iso "ents. .“led Id be s of part the eys it the part sewage dual ?e icable a rged t he •- ion Subp. 11b. Clean sand. "Clean sand” means a soil texture composed by weight of at least 25 percent very coarse* coarse* and medium sand varying in size from 2.00 millimeters (sieve size 10) to 0.25 millimeters (sieve size 60)* less than 40 percent fine or very fine sand ranging in size between 0.25 millimeters and 0.05 millimeters (sieve size 270)* and no more than ten percent smaller than 0.05 millimeters and no larger than 2.00 millimeters. Clean sand also means a soil texture which meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification C-33 (fine aggregate for concrete) or Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) specification 3126 (fine aggregate for Portland cement concrete). The ASTM specification is found in the 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards* volume 4.02* which is incorporated by reference. This document is provided by the American Society for Testing and Materials located at 100 Barr Harbor Drive* West Conshohocken* PA 19428-2959. The MnDOT specification is found in the MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction* 1988 Edition* and the May 2* 1994* Supplemental Specifications* which are incorporated by reference. These documents are provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation located at 395 John Ireland Boulevard* St. Paul* Minnesota 55155. All references can be found at the Minnesota State Law Library* Judicial Center* 25 Constitution Avenue* St. Paul* Minnesota 55155* and are not subject to frequent change. Subp. 11c. Commissioner. "Commiissioner" means the I, II .iance inspect ion ^^ *^Com^Subp. lid. Compliance inspection^ '^^!ompliance inspection" means any evaluation* investigation* inspection, or other such process to make conclusions* recommendations* or statements regarding an individual sewage treatment system to reasonably assure an individual sewage treatment system is in compliance as specified under part 7080.0060. Compliance inspections must be conducted by a qualified employee or under a license independent of the owner and the installer. Natural Resources. Subp. 12a. Designated registered professional. "Designated registered professional" means an individual who is included on the agency’s ISTS professional register with specialty area endorsements that correspond to the license* who has been designated by the individual's employer as its representative for work to be done on an individual sewage treatment system* and who is subject to the obligations of a license. An apprentice may be a designated registered professional if the individual has specialty area endorsements that correspond to the license* has fulfilled the contractual requirement under part 7080.0815, subpart 1* item B or C* and has a restricted license due to the need for experience. Subp. 12b. Disclosure. "Disclosure" means any conclusions or statements regarding an ISTS made by the owner of a property with or served by an ISTS to fulfill the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section ^15.55, subdivision 6. ISTS information provided by someone other than the property owner must meet the requirements under part 7080.0300, subpart 6. Subp. 12c. Distribution box. "Distribution box" means a device designed to concurrently and equally distribute sewage tank effluent by gravity to a soil treatment system. Subp. 12d. Distribution device. "Distribution device" means a device used to receive and transfer effluent from a supply pipe to distribution pipes Oi. downslope supply pipes, or both. These devices are commonly known as drop boxes, valve boxes, distribution boxes, or manifolds. Subp. 12e. Distribution medium. "Distribution medium" means the material used to distribute the sewage tank effluent within a soil treatment system. This medium includes drainfield rock, gravelless drainfield pipe in a geotextile wrap, or a chambered system. Subp. 13. Distribution pipes. "Distribution pipes" means perforated pipes that are used to distribute sewage tank effluent into a distribution medium. Subp. 14. Dosing chamber, or pump pit, or wet well. "Dosing chamber, or pump pit, or wet well" means a tank or separate compartment following the sewage tank which serves as a reservoir for the dosing device. Subp. 15. Dosing device. “Dosing device" means a pump, siphon, or other device that discharges sewage tank effluent from the dosing chamber to the soil treatment system. Subp. 15a. Drainfield rock. "Drainfield rock" means igneous rock, or similar insoluble, durable, and decay-resistant material between three-fourths inch and 2-1/2 inches in size with no more than five percent by weight passing a three-fourths inch sieve and no more than one percent by weight passing a number 200 sieve. .Materials greater than 2-1/2 inches in size shall not exceed five percent by weight. Subp. 15b. Drop box. "Drop box" means a distribution device used f*.r the serial gravity application of sewage tank effluent to a soil treatment system. Subp. 16. Dwelling. "Dwelling" means any building or place used or intended to be used by human occupants as a Subp. 16a. Failing system. "Failing systenrmean^any system that discharges sewage to a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, or leaching pit and any system with less than three fret of soil or sand between the bottom of the distribution medium and the saturated soil level or bedrock. In addition, any system posing an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in subpart 19a shall be considered failing. Upgrade requirements for these systems are found under parts 7080.0060, subparts 3 and 4, and 7080.0315 or 7080.0350. ?iibp. 17. [Repealed, 13 SR 2752) nt ield as a tant rths ety ade 50, Subp. 17a. Gas deflecting baffle. "Gas deflecting baffle" means an obstructing device on the septic tank outlet that limits the escape of solids that are carried by septic tank gases. Subp. 17b. Gravelless drainfleld pipe. "Gravelless drainfield pipe" means a distribution medium consisting of a corrugated distribution pipe encased in a geotextile wrap installed in a trench. Subp. 18. Greywater. "Greywater" means sewage that does net contain toilet wastes. Subp. 18a. Hazardous waste. "Hazardous waste" means any substance whicn, when discarded, meets the definition of hazardous waste in chapter 7045. Subp. 19. Bolding tank. "Holding tank" means a tank for storage of sewage until it can be transported to a point of Subp. 19a. Imminent threat to public health or safety. "Imminent threat to public health or safety" means situations with the potential to immediately and adversely impact or threaten public health or safety. At a minimum, ground surface or surface water discharges and any system causing sewage backup into a dwelling or other establishment shall constitute an imminent thre^_^_ _ _ _ _ 'lSTS™"*^'fS?S^neanTTn individual sewage treatment system as defined under subpart 21. Subp. 19c. ISTS professional. "ISTS professional" means a person who conducts site evaluations or designs, installs, alters, repairs, maintains, pumps, or inspects all or part of an individual sewage treatment system and is required to comply with applicable requirements. Subp. 20. [Repealed, 20 SR 1995] Subp. 21. Individual sewage treatment system. "Individual £.'ewage treatment system" means a sewaqe treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or othe. establishment, or group thereof, and using sewage tanks or advanced treatment followed by soil treatment and disporal. Individual sewage treacrent system includes holding tnnks and privies. Subp. 21a. Invert. "Invert" means the lowest point of a channel inside a pipe. Subp. 2Ib. Landscape position. "Landscape position" means the identification of the shape of the land or geomorphic setting of the soil. Terms used to describe landscape position include ridge, sideslope, footslope, closed depression or pothole, drainage way or swale, terrace, or floodplain. Subp. 21c. Licensee. "Licensee" means the person to whom a license under part 7080.0705 is issued. The designated registered professional is subject to the same obligations as the licensee. The license must be applicable to the work being performed. Subp. 22. [Repealed, 13 SR 2752] 7080.0040 [Repealed# 20 SR 1995] 7080.0050 (Repealed# 20 SR 1995] HIlilMOH TBCHHICAL STAHDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL SENAGB TREATMENT SYSTEMS 7080.0060 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA. Subpart 1. Treatment required. Each individual sewage treatment system shall be designed to receive and treat all sewage from the dwelling or other establishment served. Subp. 2. Hand carried greywater. Hand carried greywater shall not be discharged directly to surface waters# drainageways# or in a manner harmful to the environment or to dlttmkmmiru Subp. 3. Compliance. Individual sewage treatment systems shall be considered in compliance if: A. an existing individual sewage treatment system is not a failing system as defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 16a; or B. new construction or replacement meets the technical standards and criteria defined in part 7080.0020# subpart 46a. _ 'Required upgrade. Systems not in compliance shall be upgraded, replaced, repaired in compliance with this part# or discontinued. If a compliance inspection indicates that a system presents an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 19a, the owner must upgrade, replace, or discontinue use of the system within the time period established by the local unit of government in areas with local ordinances and by the agency in areas without local ordinances. This time period shall not be longer than ten months after the owner receives a notice of noncompliance. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 7080.0065 PROHIBITIONS. A. Sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from a soil treatment system shall not be discharged into any well or boring as defined in chapter 4725 or any other excavation in the ground not in compliance with this chapter. B. Footing or roof drainage and chemically treated hot tub and pool water shall not enter any part of a system. Products containing hazardous waste and hazardous substances must not be discharged to a system other than in normal amounts of household products and cleaners designed for household use. Substances not intended for use in household cleaning including solvents, pesticides, flammables, photo finishing chemicals, and dry cleaning chemicals must not be discharged to the system. C. sewage, system surface SA: MS HIST: : 7080.0( 7080.01 7080.0( 7080.0 7080.0 Sub Sub field indivi Sub Sub evalua P. establ E locati propo£ withii ( eleva* accep- DNR; ( chara< surve; Su Su setba to evaluate submitted research to determine if the proposed alternative standards will protect public health and the environment. After this determination is complete, the consultants must recommend whether to certify the alternative standards. The specialists must state reasons for their recommendation. Subp. 8. Requirements for more restrictive standards. Local units of government may adopt anc’ enforce more restrictive standards for a designated area provided each more restrictive standard is clearly labeled, identified as meeting at least one of the three criteria in the definition, and submitted to the commissioner under subpart 5. Local units of government must submit local ordinances with more restrictive standards to the commissioner with an explanation of each provision that is more restrictive than technical standards and criteria. Subp. 9. Enforcement of local ordinances. Local units of government shall enforce local ordinances that regulate individual sewage treatment systems through permitting programs that meet the requirements under part 7080.0310 and inspection programs that meet the requirements under part 7080.0315. Local units of government may also enforce local ordinances that are applicable requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 115.071, subdivisions 3 and 4. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 HIST: 20 SR 1995 7080.0310 PERMIT PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SISTQtS. Subpart 1. General requirements for permit program. A. A local unit of government with a local ordinance to regulate individual sewage treatment systems must have a corresponding permit program that specifically addresses the following: (1) permit application requirements; (2) permit review and approval requirements and procedures; (3) recordkeeping; and (4) reporting. These program elements must contain the minimum requirements under subparts 2 to 5. Permits are required for all new construction and replacement. B. A local unit of government with a local ordinance to regulate bedroom or bathroom additions must comply with subparts 3, item B, and 4. Subp. 2. ISTS permit application requirements. ISTS permit applications must include exhibits described under subpart 4, items A and B, and include general requirements to adequately identify the property and owners, a site evaluation report, a design summary and drawings, applicable construction information, and any other information requested by the permitting authority pertinent to this process. Exhibits for site c must I persor applic permit reappj change autho] Sul permit i local exhib; applii eithe: not b< appro* compl gover: addit sewag requi. Sul gover: notic- enfor- taken Permi in pa summa ( Su; gover: demon: the r< inspe< the n; emplo: of go* methO( varia: exper exper 3a. • year i March SA: M: site evaluation, design, and applicable construction information must be complete and include a certified statement from the person who conducted the work. In the event of a change in the api'lication information which served as the basis for issuing a permit, the permittee must file an amended application for reapproval prior to initiating construction, detailing the changed conditions for approval or denial by the permitting authority. Subp. 3. Permit approvali requirements and procedures. The permit program must include the following requirements: A. A qualified employee or licensee authorized by the local unit of government must review the permit application and exhibits to determine whether the proposed system will meet applicable requirements. The local unit of government will either grant preliminary approval or denial. Construction shall not be initiated until preliminary approval is granted. Final approval shall be evidenced by issuance of a certificate of complianc ter December 31, 1995, a local unit of government shall not issue a permit for a bedroom or bathroom addition on property served by a system unless the individual sewage treatment system is in compliance with applicable evidenced by a certificate of complian roca requirement ;ecor<ikeeping requirements. Local^^hits o: government must maintain copies of certificates of compliance, notices of noncompliance, permit applications, issued permits, enforcer,ent proceedings, variance requests, and other actions taken. Records must be available for review by the commissioner. Permit files must also include: A. site evaluation records including items identified in part 7080.0110; B. design records including calculations and summaries for all system component sizings; and C. as-builts. Subp. 5. Reporting requirements. Local units of government must submit annual reports to the commissioner to demonstrate enforcement of the local ordinance. At a minimum, the reports must include a copy of the standard permit and inspection forms used if they are different than agency forms, the name and address of the program administrator, all qualified employees and contracted licensees authorized by the local unit of government, the number of permits issued, the number and methods of inspections conducted, the number and type of variances issued, the number and type of alternative and experimental systems, and the monitoring results for experimental systems as specified in part 7080.0910, subpart 3a. The reports shall contain information from the calendar year and shall be received by the commissioner no later than March 1 of the following year. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 BIST: 20 SR 1995 7080.0315 INSPECTION PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT STsms. Subpart 1. Inspection requirenents. The inspection proqran conducted by the local unit of government to fulfill the enforcement requirement under part 7080.0305, subpart 9, must specify the frequency and times of Inspections, the requirements of an inspection, an inspection protocol if an inspection cannot be completed within a timely manner, and, at a minimum, the . 2. Compliance inspection. A compliance inspection shall be conducted: A. to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Persons conducting compliance inspections for disclosures shall also meet the requirements of part 7080.0300, subpart 6; B. for an existing system if a local unit of y government issues permits or variances for the addition of a bedroom or bathroom on nrooertv ht, fha eueVAtn.m or bathroom on property served by the system; C. for all new construction or replacement; D. by a qualified employee or under a license authorized by the local unit of government who is independent of the o%mer and the installer; E. to reasonably ensure an individual sewage treatment system is in compliance as specified under part 7080.0060; and F. for disclosures as described under part 7080.0300, ibPATt_ 6_ _ _ _ •ubp^^^^^cerM^^cat^^of^c^mp^anc^^no^^eiS noDCO^liance. A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance must be submitted to the local unit of government and the owner within 30 days after any compliance inspection. A certificate of compliance or notice of noncompliance must include a certified statement from the licensee or qualified employee who conducted the compliance inspection, identify the type of system inspected, and indicate whether the individual sewage treatment system is in compliance with part 7080.0060. At a minimum, a notice of noncompliance must be issued for systems not in compliance as described under part 7080.0060. If a compliance inspection indicates that the system presents an imminent threat to public health or safety as defined in part 7080.0020, subpart 19a, the notice must also contain a statement to this effect and state that the owner must upgrade, replace, or discontinue use of the system within the time period established by the local unit of government. This time period cannot exceed ten months after the owner receives a notice of noncompliance. SA: MS s 115.03; 115.55; 115.56 HIST: 20 SR 1995 7080.0 Sub treats any pe alters indivi to thi under part 7 requir Sub P constr subite qualif and th treatir 7080.C noncon any cc also b compli stater the cc inspec treatn minimv not ir inspec to pub 19a, t state of the commis the ov. submit compli or a V indivi E under under Sub 6120, agency commis CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 AN ACT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RECEIVED SEP 1 2 1997 CITY OF ORONO relating to the environment; modifying requirements relating to individual sewage treatment systems; ajnending Minnesota Statutes 1996, sections 115.55, subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and by adding a subdivision; and 115.57, subdivision 7. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. (DEFINITIONS.) (a) The definitions in this subdivision apply to this section and section 115.56. (b) "Advisory committee’ means the advisory committee on individual sewage treatment systems established under the individual sewage treatment system rules. The advisory committee must be appointed to ensure geographic representation of the state and include elected public officials. (c) "Applicable requirements" means: (1) local ordinances that comply with the individual sewage treatment system rules, as required in subdivision 2; or (2) in areas not subject to the ordinances described in clause (1), the individual sewage treatment system rules. (d) "City" means a statutory or home rule charter city. (e) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the pollution control agency. (f) "Dwelling" means a building or place used or intended to be used by human occupants as a single-family or two-family Section 1 r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 unit. 35 36 (g) "Individual sewage treatment system" or "system" means a sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, other establishment, or group thereof, that uses subsurface soil treatment.and disposal. (h) "Individual sewage treatment system professional" means an inspector, installer, site evaluator or designer, or pumper. (i) "Individual sewage treatment system rules" means rules adopted by the agency that establish minimum standards and criteria for the design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. (j) "Inspector" means a person who inspects individual sewage treatment systems for compliance with the applicable requirements. (k) "Installer" means a person who constructs or repairs individual sewage treatment systems. (l) "Local unit of government" means a township, city, or county. (m) "Pumper" means a person who maintains components of individual sewage treatment systems including, but not limited to, septic, aerobic, and holding tanks. (n) "Seasonal dwelling" means a dwelling that is occupied or used for less than 180 days per year and less than 120 consecutive days. (o) "Site evaluator or designer" means a person who: (1) investigates soils and site characteristics to determine suitability, limitations, and sizing requirements; and (2) designs individual sewage treatment systems. Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. (LOCAL ORDINANCES.) (a) All counties that did not adopt ordinances by May 7, 1994, or that do not have ordinances, must adopt ordinances that comply with individual sewage treatment system rules by January 1, 1999, unless all towns and cities in the county, have adopted such ordinances. .Countv ordinances must apply to all areas of the county other than Section 2 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 cities or towns that have adopted ordinances that comply with this section and are as strict as the applicable county ordinances. Any ordinance adopted by a local unit of government before May 1, 1994> to regulate individual sewage treatment systems must be in compliance with the individual sewage treatment system rules by January 1, 1998. (b) A copy of each ordinance adopted under this subdivision must be submitted to the commissioner upon adoption. (c) A local unit of government must make available to the public upon request a written list of any differences between its ordinances and rules adopted under this section. Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. [RULES.] (a) The agency shall adopt rules containing minimum standards and criteria for the design, location. Installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. The rules must include: (1) how the agency will ensure compliance under subdivision 2; (2) how local units of government shall enforce ordinances under subdivision 2, including requirements for permits and inspection programs; (3) how the advisory committee will participate in review and implementation of the rules; (4) provisions for alternative systems; (5) provisions for handling and disposal of effluent; (6) provisions for system abandonment; (7) previsiens-ellewing-leeai-units-ef-government-te-adopt alternative-standards-end-eriteriar-previded-that-r fit“tbe-aiternative-afcandards-and-etiteria-may-not-appiy-fco new-eenstruetien-ar-replacement-ef-systemsT-as-defined-by-the egeneyr-and fiit**the-eemmisaiener-must-eertify-that-the-alternative atandards-and-eriterxa-adegaately-proteet-publie-health-and-the environmentT~and procedures■for the.commissioner to approve new individual sewage treatment system technologies; and Section 3 1 2 3 4 5 € 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 (8) procedures for variances. Including the consideration of variances based on cost and variances that take into account proximity of a system to other systems. (b) The agency shall consult with the advisory committee before adopting rules under this subdivision. Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 5, is amended to read: Subd. 5. [INSPECTION.] (a) An inspection shall be required for all new construction or replacement of a system to determine compliance with agency rule or local standards. The manner and timing of inspection may be determined by the applicable local ordinance. The inspection requirement may be satisfied by a review by the designated local official of video, electronic. photographic, and other evidence of compliance provided by the installer. (b) Except as provided in subdivision 5b, paragraph fet (b), a local unit of government may not issue a building permit or variance for the addition of a bedroom on property served by a system unless the system is in compliance with the applicable requirements, as evidenced by a certificate of compliance issued by a licensed inspector or site evaluator or designer. A local unit of government may temporarily waive the certificate of compliance requirement for a building permit or variance for which application is made during the period from November 1 to April 30, provided that an inspection of the system is performed by the following June 1 and the applicant submits a certificate of compliance by the following September 30. This paragraph does not apply if the local unit of government does not have an ordinance requiring a building permit to add a bedroom. ■fbt-A-eompitanee-inspeefeion-ander-this-subdiviston-is required-for-ail-new-eonsferaetion-or-replacement-of-a-systemT-as de€tned-by-ageney-r«leT (c) A certificate of compliance for an existing system is valid for three years from the date of issuance unless the local unit of government finds evidence of an imminent threat to • I Section 4 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 public health or safety requiring removal and abatement under 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 section 145A.04> subdivision 8. (d) A certificate of compliance for a new system is valid for five years from the date of issuance unless the local unit 5 of government finds evidence of an inuninent threat to public 6 health or safety requiring removal and abatement under section 145A.04, subdivision 8. (e) A licensed inspector who inspects an existing system may subsequently design and install a new system for that property, provided the inspector is licensed to install individual sewage treatment systems. Subd. 5a. [INSPECTION CRITERIA FOR EXISTING SYSTEMS.] (a) An inspection of an existing system must evaluate the criteria in paragraphs (b) to (h). (b) If the inspector finds one or more of the following conditions; (1) sewage discharge to surface water; (2) sewage discharge to ground surface; (3) sewage backup; (4) a cesspool; or (5) any other situation with the potential to immediately and adversely affect or threaten public health or safety. then the system constitutes an imminent threat to public health or safety and, if not repaired, must be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued within ten months of receipt of the notice described in subdivision 5b, or within a shorter period of time if required by local ordinance. (c) An existing system that has none of the conditions in paragraph (b), and has at least two feet of soil separation need not be upgraded, repaired, replaced, or Its use discontinued, notwithstanding any local ordinance that is more restrictive. (d) Paragraph (c) does not apply to systems in shoreland areas regulated under sections 103F.201 to 103F.221, wellhead protection areas as defined in section 1031.005, or those used in connection with food, beverage, and lodging establishments regulated under chapter 157. Section 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 (e) If the local unit of government with jurisdiction over the system has adopted an ordinance containing local standards pursuant to subdivision 7, the existing system must comply with the ordinance. If the system does not comply with the ordlnance» it must be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued according to the ordinance. (f) Iff a seepage pit, drywell» or leaching pit exists and the local unit of government with jurisdiction over the system has not adopted local standards to the contrary, the system is failing and must be upgraded, replaced/ or its use discontinued within the time required by subdivision 3 or local ordinance. (g) If the system fails to provide sufficient groundwater protection, then the local unit of government or its agent shall order that the system be upgraded, replaced, or its use discootinued within the time required by rule or the local ordinance. (h) The authority to find a threat to public health under section 145A.04, subdivision 8, is in addition to the authority to make a finding under paragraphs (b) to (d). fet Subd. 5b. (COMPLIANCE NOTICE.) If a system inspected under this subdivision 5 is nofc-in-eompiianee-wifch-the appiieable-reqairemenfes required to be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued under subdivision Sa, the inspector or site evaluator or designer must issue a notice of noncompliance to the property owner and must provide a copy of the notice to the ioeai unit of government to-whieh-appiieafcion-for-the boiiding-permit-or-varianee-was-made with jurisdiction. The notice of noncompliance must specify why the system must be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued. A local unit of government must specify the upgrade time period in its ordinance. fdt-if-the-inspeefcor-or-sibe-evai«ator-or-designer-€inds fchat-fche-sysfcem-presenfcs-an-imminenfc-fchreat-fco-pablie-heaith-or safetyT-fche-inapeetor-or-sifce-evalttafcof-or-designer-nasb-ineiBde a-sfcafcement-fco-fchis-effeet-in-bhe-nofciee-and-the-properfcy-owner maat-apgradeT-repiaeeT-or-diseonfcinae-use-of-bhe-sysfcem-wifehin ten-months-of-reeeipt-of-fche-nofcieeT 1 Section 4 : 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAiTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 fet Xkl Except as provided in paragreph-fdt subdivision Sa, paragraphs (b) to (d)/ if a system installed between Hay 21, 1989, and January 23, 1996, does not comply with applicable requirements, the property owner has five years from the date of the bedroom building permit to bring the system into compliance. Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 6, is amended to read: Subd. 6. (DISCLOSURE OP INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM TO BUYER.) After-Attgusfc-3iT-1994T lil Before signing an agreement to sell or transfer real p»-operty, the seller or transferor must disclose in writing to the buyer or transferee information about-the-status-and-loeation-of-individBai on how sewage treatment~syeterns~en~the~preperty~er~sefving'~the~prepeety generated at the property is managed. The disclosure must be made by delivering a statement to the buyer or transferee that either^ aewa^e-treabmenb-ayatem-on-or-'serving-the-proper^y-or-'a diseiosBre-sfcafcement-deseribtng-the-system-and-indieafcing the sewage goes to a facility permitted by the agency; or (2) the sewage does not go to a permitted facility, is therefore subject to applicable requirements, and describes the system in use, including the legal description of the property, the county in which the property is located, and a map drawn from available information showing the location of the system on the property to the extent practicable. If the seller or transferor has knowledge that an abandoned individual sewage treatment system exists on the property, the disclosure must include a map showing its location. In the disclosure statement the seller must indicate whether the individual sewage treatment system is in use and, to the seller's knowledge, in compliance with applicable sewage treatment laws and rules. Unless the buyer and seller agree to the contrary in writing before the closing of the sale, a seller who fails to disclose the existence or.known status of an..individual sewage treatment system at the time of sale, and who knew or had reason to know Section 5 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 of the existence or known status of the syscemrj^ (b) A seller or transferor who fails to meet the requirements of this section is liable to the buyer for costs relating to bringing the system into compliance with the individual sewage treatment system rules and for reasonable attorney fees for collection of costs from the seller. An action under this subdivision must be commenced within two years after the date on which the buyer closed the purchase or transfer of the real property where the system is located. Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, subdivision 7, is amended to read: Subd. 7. (LOCAL 0RBiNANeE-MA¥-BE-MeRE-RESTR5eTiVB STANDARDS.) (a) [EXISTING SYSTEMS.] Counties may adopt by ordinance local standards that are less restrictive than the agency*'s rules in order to define an acceptable existing system. The local standards may include soil separation, soil classification, vegetation, system use, locall^ied well placement and construction, localized density of systems and wells, extent of area to be covered by local standards, groundwater flow patterns, and existing natural or artificial drainage systems. The local standards and criteria shall be submitted to the commissioner for comment prior to adoption to demonstrate that, based on local circumstances in that jurisdiction, they adequately protect public health and the environment. (b) [NEW OR REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS.] Counties, after providing documentation of conditions listed in this paragraph to the commissioner, may adopt by ordinance local standards that are less restrictive than the agency's rules for new system construction or replacement in areas of sustained and projected low population density where conditions render conformance to applicable requirements difficult or otherwise inappropriate. Documentation may include a map delineating the area of the county to be served by the local statdards, a description of the hardship that would result from strict adherence to the agency's rules, and evidence of sustained-and projected low population density. The local standards must protect human health and *the Section 6 8 L. CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 1 environment and be based on c^nsidaritions that tnay include# but 2 need not be limited to, toil separation^ soil classification. 3 veqetationr system use, localized well placement and 4 construction, localized density of systems and wells, extent of 5 area to be covered by local standards, groundwater glow 6 patterns, and existing natural or artificial drainage systems. 7 The local standards must provide cost-effective and long-term 8 treatment alternatives. The draft ordinance incorporating the 9 local standards must be submitted to the local water planning 10 advisory committee, created under section 103B.321, subdivision 11 3, and then submitted with justification to the commissioner 30 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 days before adoption for review and comment. (c) (NEW OR REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS; LOCAL ORDINANCES.) A local unit of government may adopt and enforce ordinances or rules affecting new or replacement individual sewage treatment systems that are more restrictive than the agency's rules. fbt-if-9tandards-are-adopted-fchafe-are-more-resfcriefcive-than fche-ageney*^s-roies7“the-ioeai-imit-of-government-masfc-sabmit-the more-reatrietive-standarda-to-the-eommiaaioner-aiong-with-an expianation-of-the-more-reafcrieti ve-peoviaionaT (u) (LOCAL STANDARDS; CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.) Local standards adopted under paragraph (a) or (b) must not conflict with any requirements under other state laws or rules or local ordinances, including, but not limited to, requirements for: 26 \ I 103F.201 dydudua XII diiv/ CX41I1U oaCdSf to 103F.221? unuer seciCions 27 (2)well construction and location.regulated under chapter 28 1031; and 29 |3)systems used in connection with food.beverage.and lodging establishments, regulated under chapter 157. The local standards must include references to applicable requirements under other state laws or rules or local ordinances Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.55, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 8. (NEW TECHNOLOGIES.) New individual sewage treatment system technologies may be Installed as warrantied Section 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 systems if not specifically prohibited in local ordinance, provided however that the manufacturer or designer provides to the commissioner documentation of the following; (1) how the technology must be used and installed, how it is expected to perform under those conditions, the anticipated design life> and the period to be warrantied under clause (4); (2) pertinent existing data, including in-field testing data> that the system will perform as expected; (3) financial assurance or documentation of the manufacturer's or designer's financial ability to cover potential replacement and upgrades necessitated by the system failing to meet the performance expectations of clause (1) for the duration of the warranty period; and (4) a full warranty effective for the designated warranty period.in clause (1), which must be at least five years from the time of installation, covering design, labor, and material costs to remedy failure to meet performance expectations in clause (1) for systems used and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's or designer's instructions. The commissioner must make available a list of warrantied systems for which documentation has been provided to the commissioner under this subdivision. Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 115.57, subdivision 7, is amended to read: Subd. 7. [ORDINANCES; CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.) A municipality may not establish an individual sewage treatment system loan program unless ordinances parsttant-*te-rtties-adopbed tmder in compliance with section 115.55T-SBbdivisi©n-3T are in full force and effect. All repairs and improvements made to individual sewage treatment systems under this section shall be performed by a licensed individual sewage treatment system professional and shall comply with ageney-ruies-adopted-pBrsaant to section 115.55T“9abdivision-3T and other applicable requirements. All improvements to wells under this section must be made by. a well.contractor or a.limited well contractor, as appropriate, licensed under chapter 1031. Section 8 1 2 CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 Sec. 9. [LOCAL STANDARDS STUDY.] The coHunissloner of the pollution control agency shell 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 conduct a study on the local standards established under Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55. subdivision 7, in protecting public health and the environment. By February 15, 1999, the conmiissioner must report on the study to the house and senate committees with jurisdiction over environmental policy. Sec. 10. [EFFECTIVE DATE.} This act is effective the day following final enactment. k-, CHAPTER No. 235 H.F. No. 244 This bill was passed in conformity to the rules of each house and the joint rules of the two houses as required by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. Philip C.lLan ulhcrs HjJ^ iJ. Sf/vak*r $tf ih* Huust vf Ueprtttnlatiuti H. SpearAll: president of the Senate, Passed ihe House of Repi csentatives on May 19, 1997, EdWord A. Burdick Chief CUrk, House of Repretentatioes. Passed ihe Senate on ^'•ly 19, 1997. Patrice Dworak Tirst Assistant Seeretary of the Senate, Tins bill is properly enrolled and was presented to the tiovernor on ____^ 1997.f Approved on 7^1997, at Filed on L’u , 1997. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 18,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commisaon met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Goetten was present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW (#1) #2275 TED AND MYRNA WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH - SUBDIViSlON - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03-7:15 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 to divide an existing 11.66 acre lot into two lots. Lot 1 and Lot 2 with Outlot A. She indicated that the property is unusual in that it is an existing lot that is platted to water. The property meets the zoning requirements for the speciEc zoning district. The question remains whether the outlot in Shadowood should be opened for access to Lot 2. Staff recommends it not occur as there is sufficient area along Outlot A Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval with conditions as noted for screening and retention of the loop driveway on Lot 1 . Mr. Wolf said he was not aware of the recommendation for st reening and questioned where this would occur and for whose benefit. Van Zomeren explained the reasoning for the screening. Wolf said he did not care to have screening to protect views from his property and noted there were bushes on the neighboring property screening that area. Wolf noted the large mound system and trees on the back portion the property. With the house located far back on the property. Wolf did not understand the reasoning for the screening request. Van Zomeren said Staff wanted to ensure that screening was in place if the property were to be developed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#1 - #2275 Ted and Myma Wolf - Continued) Lindquist said he would like to see screening between the two lots. Wolf questioned whether the City docs not want him to be able to view the lake. He inquired how high the screwing would have to be. Lindquist said screening normally includes adding trees. Wolf asked about the trees currently on the property. Lindquist said the Commission docs not specify what type of trees. Wolf asked when this must be addressed. Van Zomeren noted that the subdivision code notes the screenii^ requirement. She read page four of that subdivi»on code citing the need to include screening. Van Zomeren noted the topographical elevations on the property and informed the Commission that an inventory of the trees on the property has not occurred. Lindquist asked that an inventory be taken of the property prior to the application going before the Council. Wolf responded that the lots contain acreage and are not small in size. Lindquist said the request would be subject to Staff approval but the inventory should include the area within 50 ’ from lot lines. Smith asked for Van Zomeren's opinion regarding taking an inventory. Van Zomeren said it is difficult to only "eyeball" a large lot and wants to ensure that vegetation is not eliminated and screening is added. Van Zomeren felt an inventory would give Staff direction. Smith asked if screening is required for the outlot. Van Zomeren said the applicant's lot would mainly be impacted; and if the applicant did not wish to have additional screening at that location. Staff would agree. Wolf noted that there is a garage on that side of the property. There were no public comments. Smith asked Commissioners for their opinion regarding an additional driveway or if the continuation of the loop driveway was satisfactory. Lindquist noted that the driveways were far apart. Van Zomeren invested the distance was 120'. Berg and Lindquist said thqr would be supportive of the additional driveway. Schroeder questioned whether the back lot is 150% of the front lot. Lindquist said Lot 2 is to the rear. Van Zomeren noted Lot 1 is about 4 acres. McMillan inquired whether the acreage includes dry buildable. Gaffron said it did. Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2275 subject to an inventory of the vegetation on the property auad approval of screening plan between Lots 1 and 2. Access is to be provided by Outlot A and not an extension of Outlot B. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Item #2 follows item #3) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 ACTION ITEM («) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD, 3551 UVINGSTON AVENUE - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:15-7:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffi-on reported that the application is a request for lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on a small lot located at 3551 Livingston Avenue. The lots in this area were platted in the early 1 900's before zoning codes were in effect. There is an existing house on the property. The zoning district requires 21,780 s.f in lot area and 100’ width. The property is 6,725 s.f and 50' wide Required setbacks are 30' front and rear and lO' side. The house is within the 500-1000* setback of the lake where 35% hardcover is allowed. The lot is allowed 1500 s.f structural coverage. Gaffi'on indicated that the costing house is in poor condition. The applicant plans to remove the house and either rebuild on the lot, as a building site, or sell it as vacant land or sell the lot to add to a neighboring property. There are no house specifications as of yet for the site. Because of that. Staff reviewed the lot area and zoning requirements and calculated what a conforming residence nught include. An example would be a 28*x36' house with a 24'x20' attached garage for total lot coverage of 1488 s f Adding a I6'x30’ driveway (480 s f), 3'x32* sidewalk (96 s.f), lO'xIS' deck (180 s f), and lO’xlO' shed (100 s.f) would resuh in 2344 s.f of total hardcover or 34.9%. A garage as noted would be an endload facing Livingston Avenue at the fi’ont setback line. Gaffron reported that no adjacent land is available to increase the lot size. The homes in the area are on mainly single lots. The example residence would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Gaffron recommended approval subject to the structure meeting all zoning codes with approval of lot area and lot width variances only. Gaffron said the existing shed would be removed with the house and recommended removal witlun 90 days of variance approval. Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, noted she has lived at that address for 17 years. She indicated the house in question is vacant and is concerned with the potential size of an new residence for the property. Cuff said she currently is unable to view the existing house with the tree coverage. Lindquist explained to her that the property would be allowed a 1500 s.f house but no other variances beyond that allowed. Hawn was informed the current house is 720 s.f Gaffron noted this is one-half of the footprint allowed. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#3 - i^2253 David Reinhold - Continued) Schroeder asked for verification that the lot is buildable. Gaffiron sud in his opinion h was, noting denial of hs buildability would limit the applicant's options. Gaffron noted that there is an existing house on the property. He indicated that a set of conditions would be required for approval resardless of the structure itself before anv permit is allowed. Schroeder was told that the Comnussion typically reviews a specific building plan for this tvpe of variance request. Stoddard asked wt^ the application was on the agenda. Gaffron said the applicant needed veiification that the lot is buildable. He noted as long as other standards are met, the request is only for lot area and width variances. Schroeder asked if the approval could not be obtained at time of the building plan application. Gafifron informed him that the applicant wantec Uie confidence that the lot is buildable. Commisnon questioned whether they could approve with reviewing a plan. Gaflfron noted that a similar situation was recently approved for lot area variance only without a building plan in order to allow the current owner to sell the property. Hawn noted that an approval would clarifV the »tuation for a potential buyer. Berg indicated that if the plan meets all other reqmrements, the application would not have to be reviewed again. Hawn indicated that a neighboring property owner wanted to speak with the applicant. Schroeder noted that there is more value in the land if it is biuldable. Smith asked what the preference was of the applicant for the property. Reinhold said he preferred to sell the lot. Smith indicated she agreed with Hawn that the best scenario would be to sell the lot to the adjacent neighbor. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2253 for lot area and lot width variances subject to Staif recommendations 1-6 as noted. Smith informed the applicant that it was important to note that if a residence was built, no other variances would be approved. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEW («) #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - SUBDIVISION - PUBUC HEARING 7:30-8:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. ....... - ^ Tracy Whitehead was present along with surveyor, Walter Gregory. Gaffion reported that the application was reviewed as a sketch plan at the June meeting and direction was given by the CommisMon at that time. The property abuts Lyman Avenue, which becomes a private road with an easement as it moves eastward. The driveway serving the existing house is on this easement. The currem four-lot plan has a revised access location. The proposal includes vacating a dedicated 20' right-of-way which abuts the Luce Line. This riaht-of-wav appears to have no value to the City. The utility companies were notified. Staff is awaiting response to see if any easements are required. There is a 10' perimeter drainage easement that will be required. Gaffron indicated that Staff recommends approval of the vacation. The property for the 4-lot subdivision totals 8.79 of dry buildable with 2.32 acres of Orono protected wetlands. Area credit would be aranted for two wetlands delinked per Wetland Conservation Act rules that do not show on the Orono map and are designated as Basins B and C. Lots I -4 each have at least two aaes of dry buildable. An issue brought forward at the sketch plan review was the narrow corridor for access to Lots 1 and 2. The back lot configuration requires Lots 1 and 2 to have three acres; one lot meets that requirement, one does not. Gaffiron noted the curreirtly proposed road and cul-de-sac results in Lots 1 and 2 abutting a roadway, eliminating the need for the three acre nummum. The plat drawing correctly shows the 50* fiom and rear setbacks and 30’ side s<ribacks. Lot 1 would have a 50' side setback for added buffering to the neighboring residence. The proposed road would be 24' paved with an 80* circular paved cul-de-sac. This will impact the neighboring property but there are possible ways to mitigate. It does, however, result in a substandard side street setback for the neighboring property. Gaffion suggested possibly moving the road over to meet the 50' setback. Another option according to Gaffion would be to not build h as a roadway. Gaffion said the neighboring properties were not expecting a road to come through. Gaffion said an outlot would allow for expansion of a private road in the future if needed. Theie are a number of issues regarding the cul-de-sac. Lots I, 2, and 3 would not meet the 2M' width and require lot width variances. Gaffion indicated the grading plan shows the option to bring a driveway down the east lot line to the platted roadway for Lot 3. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) There are two septic sites detennined for Lots 1, 2, and 3 but only one for Lot 4. From the City perspective. Lot 4 would then not be buildable. The applicant has asked for consideration of platting the lot for future devdopment when sewer is ava'lable. Staff does not recommend this option. Gafifron noted that the revised layout fcr septic sites does not match the testing performed in 1990. Lot I ate is accurate but Lot 2 does not match. Lot 3's alternate site and Lot 4 site differ There is also an administrative review needed to approve the septic system setback from the ponds in Lots 2 and 3. There is normally a 75' setback. The inspector preliminarily noted he is not concerned, however, as the sites are higher than the wetlands. The Type 1 wetland in Lot 1 is small and would allow for septic sites up to the edge of the wetland but not into the wetland. Gaiffon reviewed the issues regardii^ specific tots. Width variances are required for Lots 1,2, and 3. Drainfield setback fi-om the pond is an issue for Lots 2 and 3. The problem with the drain field setback for the principal septic site in Lot 1 is most likely solved according to Gaffron. However, there is no alternate site for Lot 4. The 26' wetland sq^aration requirement will require a variance for building of the NURP pond. Gaflfron in^cated that he has received the wetland delineation report. There is concern regarding the septic site locations for Lots 2 and 4. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to gwe the applicant direction regarding whether Lot 4 is buildable. Ga.firon said the review in his opinion is an extension of the sketch plan review at this point, since Lot 4 clearly does not meet minimum septic requirements. Smith asked for clarification on where the Luce Line horse trail is located and what the DNR setback is from the trail. Gaflron indicated there is a lOO* right-of-way and showed the location of the center line. He said the trail is 50-60' fi-om the north lot line. It was noted that there is no special City setback requirement from the trail and none imposed by DNR. Hawn was informed that the DNR has not responded to the application. McMillan was told that the DNR has been notified of the request for vacation. WMtehead apologized for the incorrect information on the septic site locations. She indicated that the setback requirements will be met. Whitehead said she understood the Commission would like to see a cul-de-sac for emergency truck staging if necessary. She said there was not alot of discussion regarding the plan itself. Whitehead indicated she knew the wetland delineation was necessary. Whitehead felt she has met the concerns of the Commission regarding the cul-de-sac and will widen the curve on Lyman Avenue. There are two large oak trees impeding this from occurring but Whitehead said they could be removed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#2 - Win9IW12%0 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Whitehead imhcalcd that they attempted to present a plan with few variances required but the topography has created some problem. It is their desire to preserv e the nature of the neigld)orhood. Whhehead s^d the neighbors will notice the road going in but will not be able to view the houses as they will be located back on ice lots. Whitehead said the setback requirements will be met except for the drainfidd on Lot 2. The 200' width reQuirement is difficuh to meet with the creation of the cul-de*sac. The alternate septic site location for Lot 4 would be located underneath where the cul-de-sac is to be located. She asked the Commission to give consideration for approving Lot 4 for budding in the future when the sewer is connected. Whitehead asked the Commission to assist m expediting the application so she can sell her current home and move. Margret and Brano Stankovsky indicated they live in the substandard sized lot that b next to the proposed subdivision. Stankovdcy said he has spoken with the applicant. He indicated it would not be appealing to have a 50* wide roadway at a location 31' from his home. Stankovsky said this would add to the substandard condition of hb property and decrease his value. Stankovsky indicated that while the new lots would meet the required setbacks, his own prc^ierty would not be protected by a 50* setback. He noted there b no mention in the plan for screening of the road to reduce noise from traffic. He also was unaware of the pitch of the roadway as noted and b concerned with runoff. He feh the change would aid runoff but is concerned with snow being plowed closer to his property. Stankovsky said he is concerned for his septic system. Stankovsky requested the Planning Commission consider requiring that the road be placed stf least 50* from his property, that buffering next to the road occur, and that an effective drainage plan be requir^. Stankovsky would like to see minimum variances approved. He noted he has requested to purchase additional land from the Whitdiead's in order to meet the 2 acre zoning requirement. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman, lives east of the subject property. He is concerned with Outlet B changing the character of the neighboffiood. He feels the application should be allowed only minimal variances. Palmer docs not understood how Lot 4 could be conforming and believes the subdivision should consist of three lots only. Hope Pesck, 1235 Lyman, lives south of the subject property. Pesek feels the large turnaround and driveway is inappropriate for the area. Pesek suggested the use of the abandoned area for the cul-de-sac. She asked what the purpose is for an 80* road. Gaffron explained the cul-de-sac would allow for fire truck staging and easier snow plow nuiintenance. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - W1219IW12%0 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt it should only be expanded 10* with the access located as orisdnaltv olanned to reduce the size of the road. He feels the proposed road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a two lot subdivision. He feels the main hardshio is to the Stankovskv proDertv. He believes economics should not be considered. He would like to see minimal variances allowed and does not view lack of sewerina as a hardshio. Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property. She is concerned with the impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway easement for her property. Gafifon indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outlot extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots 1 and 2. The ramification of this scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to this, such a driveway would be devastatins to the land due to the basin and steeo slopes of the area. Gafifron indicated that no other access options have been presented. He indicated the driveway could be rd>uUt and a cul-de-sac placed to the northwest but would have major impacts on the neighborhood. The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said it was intended to mainlv aoplv to lakeshore lots and is seared for more dense neighborhoods. Gaffron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance, which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and cul-de-sac in order to eliminate the back lot rituation. Stankovsky questioned whether a 50* wide driveway would be required. He noted that a 50' road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety. Smith asked if this option would assist Lot 4 with the lack of an alternate septic site. Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go throu^ the middle of the site and would be difficult to do. Lindquist indicated that he views the appll. .Ion as probably a 3 -lot subdivision. He said he cannot approve the plan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the problems regarding the cul-de-sac, driveway, and wetlands. Smith and McMillan agreed with Lindquist. Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site fcr Lot 4 even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work as presented in his opinion. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - wnimrm Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Whitehead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the changing of the cul-de-sac to a shared driveway v.*ould enable her to gain the alternate septic she for Lot 4. Whitehead indicated that there is 5 ‘'9 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning whether Lot 2 would need a lot area variant ' .^chroeder received confirmation from flaffron that h would create a front lot/back lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area variances are tvnicallv not annroved for new subdivision Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for Lot 4, tioting that even with Outlot B, there is still a problem. Whitehead acknowledged that tte ahemate septic she would still be located underneath the driveway. Whitehead asked how h would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said h would become one lot and the shared drivewav should be at least 50' from the neighboring property. Whitdiead said a 50' setback is not required. Gafifron confirmed that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. If it was an outlot driveway, the house to the driveway would be 50'. Schroeder noted ther t is ample room to meet that setback. Whitehead said the Stankovskys home was shown at 74' from the lot line when the plan was reviewed for its construction but was subsequently built at 31*. She said the 1.13 acre Stankovsky lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder indicated that this is a senarate matter but acknowledeed it should not have occurred. He was informed that the Stankovsky house was buih 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a 3-lot subdivision, the Stankovskys should be able to acquire additional land from the Whitehead's. Whitehead said they have conridered that posribility but noted that the driveway would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area was too steep. Whitehead asked if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8 meeting. Schroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to occur. Gafrron suggested further review at the September 15 Planning Commission meeting for Council consideration at the September 22 Council meeting. Gafifron indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200* width requirement under the 3-lot subdivision as rtoled above. Whitehead thought this could occur. Schroeder suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead's to work with their neighbors. Smith agreed with Schroeder. MiNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 <#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Lindquist reiterated that the subdivision would include a plan for Lots 1,2, and 3 with septic ^es, residoices, and driveways shown to scale for review at the Septend>er Planning Commission meeting. Whhdiead noted she had intended to be out of town at that time. Schroeder informed her she could said a reoresentative. Whitdiead was informed that the olan should be able to be approved with the changes as noted. Hawn questioned whether the iq)plicant could be accommodated through another meeting. Schroeder noted that it would require a public hearn^. Lindquist moved, Schroeda seconded, to table Application #2279/2280 for a 3>lot sidxiivi^n for review at the September meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Whitehead asked if the driveway would be part of Lot 1 or Lot 2. Gailron said he would recommend the drivewav be olatted as a seoarate outlet for the westerly 20* with a 30* width for the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2. He noted Lot 1 is a front lot, while Lot 2 is not. Whitehead indicted that if Lot 2 is a back lot, it would necessitate a 75' setback for the house and push it into the wetland area. She would then need 45' to get the driveway in to meet the 26’ separation. Gafiron informed her that he felt the house location as noted should meet the setback. Whitehead asked if there were other issues to consider. Schroeder noted the consideration of the back/front lot issue. Gafifron indicated that the applicant is typically responsible to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Schroeder said it would be guided by precedence. Gaffron noted the City Engineer had indicated that the road would require upgrading with more houses built. Lyman to Smith Avenue is currently narrower than the standard aOows. Hawn indicated an easement could be eliminated if the driveway serving the existing house was brought onto the property. Whitehead said it was technically possible but would result in the loss of about 20 trees. McMillan questioned whether a vegetation map should be required. Gafihon said it would help in placement of the drivewav if the Planning Commission reouires its relocation. McMillan asked that this be included as well as vegetation for the Stankovskys if the driveway is placed by their property. Gafifron asked if the vegetation map should include both existing screening and trees. McMillan asked that it include what currently exists and what will be required. i 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) McMillan indicated that the cul<de*sac had been proposed in 1991 for a turnaround for four homes. She noted that the Question brouaht uo at that time was the need to assist the homes in the area. She said the circle area at the east end of Lyman was two-thkds dedicated and the missina oiece could be obtained. Schroeder said the aoolicant should not have to solve the problem of others. Whitehead indicated that Highway 12 reconstruction will take a nortion of the orooertv near the eaitt end McMillan .said that portion is not known at this time. Lindquist asked the applicant to work with Gafifron on this issue. Whitehead indicated that her homestead parcel is separate from the other tax parcel and asked if she could separate the four lots with house from the total land to enable her to seU her home now. She was advised to work with Gaffron on this issue as well ACTION ITEMS (#4) #2253 RICK RICE, 2700 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:28<8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the subject property is a comer lot requiring front yard setback requirements on both Kelly and Lydiard Avenues. The application is a (Muposal to construct a deck. The existing footpiint and building pad were noted. A kitchen addition was buih in 1988. While a permit was issued for the addition, it did not meet the 3S' setback as it is 30* from the Lydiard Avenue property line. An existing patio door will lead to the proposed deck. The request will result in a reduction to the side yard setback adjacent to the street where there is a topographical change. The 50* Lydiard right-of-way is not developed to that width. Van Zomeren said there should be no negative impact fium the deck on adjacent property’s views. Rice said the northwest comer of the residence is the natural area for the deck placement due to the kitchen location. The deck will also enable the applicant to view the lake from the vantage point. EXiring public comments, Janice Berg, who lives by the applicant, said she had no problem whh the deck reouest. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#4 - #2253 Rick Rice - Continued) Smith said she did not see any hardship for the deck. Van Zomeren indicatol that the buikhna oad and house location on the lot would be the hardshh). Smith feh the oartv who built the home should have realized the potential problem. Smith said approval cannot be sained for ail locations where an addition makes sense and sees no comodlins hardship. McMillan asked if the home was built prior to the setback requirements. Rice said the home was buih in 1951. Van Zomeren said there would have been less of a problem at that dme with the deck locatioa Stoddard said he would support the deck request noting the applicant was trying to take advantage of the lake views and each application is reviewed case by case. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2255 for construction of a deck requiring rear and side yard setback variances. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Smith. (#5) #2264 JANET C. KIERNAN, 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 8:36-8:56 P^. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present along with representative, Alan Christy. Gaffiron reported that the application was tabled at the July Planning Commb»on meeting for review of the condition of the foundation and use of existins portions of the house. Gaffion indicated that the building inspectors have determined firom the plans that 40% of the existing house will remain, resuhiiig in a final product that is 20% old house and 80% new house. He said the code docs not specify a minimum percentage of use of existing structure in order that it be considered as an addition/remodd rather than as total reconstruction. Gaifron informed the Conunission that the applicant was approved one vear aso for additions to the existins house. Chances in the olans for a total reolacement would require further review and approval due to the substandard lot not meeting area and width requirements. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#5 - #2264 Janet C. Kieman - Continued) Gafiron ^evie^^'ed the approvals made in 1996 for average lakeshore setback, existing side setback, and trading of 0-75' hardcover to allow tmace area to remain. The plan submitted to obtain a building permit is different from that application with the addition of a bump-out window in the 75* lakeshore setback and a 3-season porch in the side setback. Initially, applicant indicated that the plan would result in a complete rmoval of the exj iting residence, but this has since been revised to omit both the bump-out and 3-season porch, and save 40% of the house. Additional bulk of the additions would be in the average lakeshore setback, which is a substantial difference from the past plans. The original footprint of plan A additions did not encroach further into the 75’ setback or »de setback. Plan B also did not encroach further into the 75’ lakeshore setback or 30' «de setback but had a different character and style and would encroach the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron said the question was then whether there would be any impact on the nei^boring property. The neighbor has indicated that the plan would not affect his home due to topographicaJ differences. Gaffron said, in looking at the plan as a remodel, the nature and extent encroachments differ somewhat from the past approval, Imt it would meet the hardcover from the 1996 approval. Kieman was asked whether she preferred plan A or B. Kieman said she would prefer plan B. Stoddard noted that changes would occur with the garage and curb cut. He noted the garage would be smaller than that approved in 1996. Gafiiron said the garage would not be an offset and the City Engineer feels the access location is an improvement. Alan Christy showed pictures to give a good illustration of how the land sits. He indicated the plan would enable trees to be saved and not impact neighboring views. Smith was informed by Kieman that no trees would be removed in the 0-75’ setback. There were no public comments. McMillan was informed by Kieman that she would prefer to work with the existing foundation. Kieman said a tear down with removal of porches still resulted in being in front of the average lakeshore setback. Kieman indicated that the foundation was stable noting it to be r poured concrete. Stoddard said he concurred with Staffs recommendation #2. Schroeder felt there was still the issue of whether the construction was new. Gaffron said the issue is one which Staff wrestles with all the time as there are no specifics regarding it in the code. Gaffron would tike to see the Council and Planning Commission conrider adding percentage features in the code to determine at what point remodeling/additions become new constmetion. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#S • #2264 Janet C. Kiernan - Continued) Schroeder moved to approve Application #2264 per Resolution No. 3761 approved in 1996 subject to a plan tailored to plan B as noted. Gaffion indicated he would prefer to have the ate redrawn prior to the application review by Council. He informed Kienian he would like an information showm on one plan with the chanaes made. Gaffion reviewed Resolution No. 3761 regu’ding the addition, roof revision, 3.9% hardcover in the 0-75* sed>ack. and a slioht increase in hardcover in the 75-250* for a 27.6% total. Schroeder asked if plan B falls into the parameters of Resolution No. 3761 without the specific numbers on the plan. Gaffion said those calculations would be nec^sary. I^hroeder asked if the application can be passed on to the Council without those calculations. Gaffron said the plan with calculations would be required prior to the Council review. Gaffion questioned whether the Planning Commission would like to review the calculations prior to Council review or if this can be reviewed by Staff. Hawn questioned the terrace in the 0-75' setback. Gaffion indicated that the approval was subject to other removals. Stoddard noted the past approval and present approval showed con^liance with a 27.6% hardcover limit in the 75-250' setback. He said he would be satisfied with the Staff reviewing the plan prior to going before the Council. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve AppUcation #2264 for plan B option which falls within the broader parameters of Resolution No. 3761. The approval is subject to plan B review by Staff meeting standards and conditions prior to Council review. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2270 MARCIA AND KENNETH HICKEY, 4640 TONKA VIEW LANE - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBUC HEARING 8:56- 9:32 P.M. The AfBdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported the application was reviewed at the July meeting. She reviewed the lot and nrooosed earane. The revised olan would include a heisht variance as the principal structure is approximately 13' and the proposed garage height is 24'. Variances would be required for the garage located in fi'ont of the principal structure and for ude yard encroachment. A conditional use permit would be required due to the accessory structure being located on a through lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Comifmed) Van Zomeren said Staff would recommend elimination of the ade yard variance. She indicated the garage cannot be located elsewhere on the property and the heisht problem is due to the low height of the principal structure. Hickey had no comments to add at this thne. Berg asked Hickey why the garage had to be so high, hfickey said he needed two levels to enable him to have the necessary storage space he desires and for a shop area. Smith asked if there would be a loft or a true second story with stairs. Hickey said he would like to fit stairs in somewhere or have pull down stairs. The original 40'x30' plan had stairs included inside. Lindquist asked the applicant if he would be able to shift the garage location to meet the side setback. Hickey siud he could. Undquist asked the size of the accessory structure. Van Zomeren said it would be 988 s.f. McMillan asked the applicant if he would be satisfied with Staffs recommend^on. It was noted that the recommendation included a 13’ heisht. Hickey responded that if he were to place the structure on the west side of the house, it would be lower but would have a steeo drivewav. Hickev said the houses in the area arc two stones, and his olan would be consistent with those in the neighborhood. Lindquist noted with the ade yard setback met, the height would be the remaining issue Hawn asked the height of a typical garage. Van Zomeren said it would depend on the pitch. She noted the height is measured to the mid-point and not the peak of the roof She estimated a typical garage is about 13' high as measured by the City’s interpretation of height. Stoddard said several similar applications have been approved for height variances. Based on that, Stoddard said he would support the request for a height variance. Van Zomeren showed where the 24' high measurement would be estimating the peak at about 28'. She did not have the slope measurement. Stoddard said a lower peak would enable the roof line to be lower. Gaffiron said these calculations would need to be reviewed. — • T '1.. NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18.1997 (#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) Lindquist informed the applicant that the explication nught possibly be denied and Questioned whether he could be satisfied with less. Hickev said the soace as oronosed would be packed as it is planned. He questioned whether Wildhurst could be considered as the front of the house. Lindouist Questioned whether this would have anv effect. Van Zomeren said it would not because it would stiQ be a through lot. Van Zomeren referred to the Holzer application which had a 9* high principal structure and received a hdsht variance for the accessory structure. She indicated there was also less bulk to that structure and more screening. Hickey asked if H would make a difference if the structure was attached to his house. Berg questioned why he would suggest this. Hickey said the hardcover requirement would be met and have the same look as the back of the house with two stories from being located on the hillside. Van Zomeren said the heiaht allowance for an attached garage is 2-1/2 stories or SO*. Van Zomeren said there would be no room to construct an attached garase with a 988 s f footnrint Lindquist again asked the applicant if he could be satisfied with less structure. Hickey said he ne^s the garage soace and has alreadv shrunk down the size of the structure. Hawn questioned whether the applicant could have a two-story structure without the 28’ height. Hickev said he was not an architect but thought he could reduce the cement blocks to reduce the height. He estimated a 10* lower level and 8' upper level. Stoddard suggested it could be reduced to a 22-1/2* height. Lindquist noted the Commission could not design the structure for the applicant. He felt the 22-1/2* height would probably not be acceptable. Hickey asked the height of the peak with one story. Stoddard said it would be about 13*. Hick^ noted that past variances have been granted for such structures. Schroeder clarified the code and noted the Commission was attempting to assist Hickey in obtaining what he desired. Berg reiterated that the second story was the issue. She feh one story was high enough for the property. Hickey said he needed a lofi area. Van Zomeren reviewed the first and second plans of the applicant and the change in the bulk and mass of the structures. The original plan's roof line mitigated some of the height. Lindquist said a height variance was still required with that plan, however. Smith noted the attempt is to gain the second story. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#6 - #2270 Marcia and Kenneth Hickey - Continued) McMillan said she would support the Staff recommendation. Hickey said that recommendation includes the removal of the shed which he does not want to remove. He noted neighboring sheds and the shed being in edstence since 1956. Hickey said without the second storv. he would need the shed. Van Zomeren clarihed where the 13* heioht is measured. Van Zomeren said there is also the problem of where the shed is located. Ifickey said the shed sits on a cement slab and is surrounded by foHase eliminatins it from view. Stoddard questioned where the shed is in its conformity to the code. Hawn said she would like to con«der a slightly higher garage height. Stoddard said he would be satisfied with a 22-1/2' height Smith questioned how it would be calculated. McMillan said the problem is what type of second story and where to draw the line. Hawn said the olan is not ufiensive to the neiehbors and second stories have been permitted. She feh if the second story was allowed, the shed would have to be removed. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2270 for a detached garage f(X a height variance with overall peak maximum height of 22.5', IS' side setback, and footprint of988 s.f and elimination of existing shed. Stoddard noted the first story could be 8'. 7' second storv. with 1' ioist snacing in-between, and 6.5' roof ioist for a total of 22.5' peak. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 2, Berg, McMillan. Motion passed. (#7) #2271 CHAD NILSSON, 3210 NAVARRE LANE - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING The application review was postponed at the request of the applicant. (#8) #2272 WYATT MOE, 1230 SPRUCE PLACE - VACATION, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 9:32-9:46 PJ^I. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Nancy Moe was present, along with representative, JoEllen Hurr. Gaflhon reported that the application has been revised and amended to reflect the additional vacation of the dedicated public right-of-wav and park and variances for lot area, width, and hardcover. The City is not using the right-of-way and park areas, and the Planning Commission oreviouslv agreed that the vacation would make sense. The vacation is subject to Staff review of what portion to retain for Spruce Place. The application includes the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#8 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) The survey has not yet been revised but plans include City maintaining a 40 ’ right-of-way from the center line of Spruce Place. The vacation is from a line northward in exchange for rededication of another portion. The two lots would become ^K>ut the same size. The plan calls for the north lot to decrease from about 39,000 s.f to 30,000, or .7 acres. The southern lot would increase from 10,300 s.f to 21,000 s.f, or .5 acres. These lot sizes are typical of other lots m the area. The rearrangement incorporates a portion of the park land. Hennepin County has determined that since Loma Linda has not been vacated, the park area in question can go only to the Moe’s for vacation attachment. The transfer of property would most likely involve a quit-claim deed for the portion of property intended to be given to the City. The resulting lots would still be substandard in size but would meet setbacks for the proposed new house on the southern property. A hardcover variance to allow 35.7% would be required for the new house in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. The northern lot existing hardcover would conform after the lot line rearrangement at 19.4%. A variance would most likely be required for a future garage on the north lot. An easement would be required for the two existing sewer lines. Location of these lines needs to be confirmed. Utility companies have been informed of the application request but have not yet responded. There are a number of facilities in and around the property for stormwater management. There is a culvert with an inlet west of the driveway, leading to the lake. There are drainageways through ditches and culvert under Spruce Place and from the northwest. 15' easements will be required for these drainageways. The wetland is very small and is not shown on any official maps. No recommendation is made for this inconsequential wetland. The existing driveway from Spruce Place serves the cabin on the south lot as well as the northern house. The northern lot could access Loma Linda by a driveway. This option could be considered under the application. Issues for consideration include whether a separate driveway for the northern lot should be required, and whether there is sufficient justification for the hardcover variance for the southern lot. GafiVon indicated that the variance requests are consistent with the neighboihood. He asked if there were concerns regarding the vacation. Hurr had no additional comments. She noted that the existing culvert between the north and south lots was a joint effort between the applicant and City and paid for by the applicant. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#8 - #2272 Wyatt Moc - Continued) Dave and Linda Wolbicr were present during public conaments. Dave Wotlner noted their Drooertv is south of the subiect oroDotv. Thev suooort the aonlication whli the transfer of the comer lot to the City for Spruce Place as they have thdr driveway over that portion fnr Arrive fn th«r hnmp McMillan supported the application. She was in &vor of the proposed 40 ’ right-<^*way retention for Snrurj* Plare She voirMf conrem with the Hrivewnv mitlinerl for the northern lot questioning whether this needs to be detennined at this time. Hurr resporxied that the applicant currently owns both properties and could srant an easement or use Loma Linda for access. McMillan questioned whether the driveway to Loma Linda would create hardcover oroblems Gaflfron said h would entail hardcover in the 75-250’ setback The driveway while contributkble to the property would increase the hardcover but most likdy not problematic. He irxlicated the applicant has the right to a driveway and could have an easement. He felt if the property was sold, it may be in the best interest to have a sq>arate driveway. He would support the options for the future. McNfiUan moved, Berg seconded, to aiq>rove Application #2272/2277 per Staff recommendations 1. 2. and 3. Vote: Aves 5. Nays 0. Smith and Schroeder were not present during discussion and vote. (#9) #2274 BRYCE AND MARY PAT PETERSON, 2829 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE - PUBUC HEARING 9:48-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present Van Zomeren reported that the." S5 acre lot is in the LR-IC 1/2 Zoning District. The application is a request to add a 10'9"x4' bay window in the side yard. It would resuh in replacing non-structural hardcover over existing rock with structural hardcover. The 0-75 ’ setback includes 147 s.f of hardcover and no chanses are proposed. ReplacinK of rock with structure in the 75-250’ setback would result in 60.05% hardcover. Van Zomeren said she has spoken >vith Building Official,Lyle Oman, and Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, regarding drainage, which flows into the side yard. The applicant has worked with their neighbor in redirecting the drainage, which has contributed to the hardcover amount. Van Zomeren said she asked Vann and Oman if all of the hardcover was necessary for drainage and was informed that some of it could be removed but no specific direction was given. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#9 - #2274 Bryce and Mary Pat Peterson - Continued) An anonymous fax was sent to Van Zomeren regarding the application where it was suffflest»J that Dermhs were not received for all orevious woric done at that address. Lindquist read the fax into the minutes, and a copy is included in the packet. Schroeder asked if the letter could be verified. Van Zomeren said she did not receive any nhom» r»IU rwarHino annlirarirvn i« unaware nf who wrnt^ it Shp AxA irwii/'at^ that the proper permits were obtained for remodeling in 1986. Bryce Peterson said he ha> spoken with his next-door neighbor who supported the project. Peterson said their lot is small and has a modest home He eniovs the neiahborhood and would like to have a bayed area for sitting as there is no formal dining room. Pierson indicated that the rock area drains away fix>m the lake. He proposed the suggestion for removal of hardcover near the garage area. There were no public comments. Lindquist noted the presence of a large amount of plastic under landscaping. He questioned the drainage flow direction and whether plastic could be removed. Van Zomeren indicated that while some plastic could be removed, she did not know the location w4tere the hardcover was necessary. Lindquist questioned whether the necessary hardcover was on the east side of the Drooertv. Brvee Peterson said he is a land^ne architect and could answer that Question. He noted where it was posable to remove hardcover by the garage. Peterson said the plan is to cover the rock area which cannot be renroved due to drainage concerns on the west ade of the residence. Schroeder asked about the shed by the lake. Peterson said he uses it as a boathouse. It is made of block with wood and the block retains the soil. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2274 with removal of hardcover as indicated tw the saraae in an amount of even exchanse for additional structure, 43 s.f Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2276 BRENT AND JULIE WALTON, 2405 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:00-10:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were represented by Mr. Paul Larson, real estate agent for the owner, and property owner, Mrs. Walton. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#10 - #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued) Van Zomeren said the application begun as lot area and lot width variance request and also became a variance reauest for structural coveraee and hardcover. There is an issue with the current sanitary sewer and driveway access. The water line will be required to be relocated Van Zomeren indicated that the worksheet is correct. The property is located in the LR>1C, 1/2 Zoning District. Van Zomeren indicated that Dunwo^v Avenue is olatted at 100* width but is not built to that width. The subiect property is .29 acres and SO* wide, where 100’ is required. The proposed structural coverage is 16.62% where 15% is allowed. There is no hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Van Zomeren said she has met with the purchasers of the property. There are railroad ties at the shoreline which will require cleanins up. She informed the purchasers that they will need to inform City Staff what will be done in the 0-75’ setback, if anything. The 75-250’ hardcover is nroimsed at 3.352 s f. or 37.96%. where 25% is allowed. The 250-500* setback hardcover meets the reqiurements. Van Zomeren reviewed the proposal. She indicated a 20* easement would be required for the sanitarv sewer line. A leual description is necessary. There is a driveway proposed from a 2-car garage to Dunwoody Avenue. The neighboring property has a loop driveway, and Van Zomeren is concerned that the proposed drivewav is problematic. The water line comes from Shoreline Drive and should be changed from where it is currently located. The plan was received by owner.s representative, Paul Larson Van Zomeren said Staff is asking the Commission to conrider the elimination of the proposed driveway and redirect it from Shoreline Drive. She indicated that if the neighboring property to the south came in with any application, she would propose that ihev eliminate their loop drivewav, to reduce hardcover. Van Zomeren reviewed the necessary variances for lot area, lot width, structural coverage, drivewav access, easement, and relocation of water line. Van Zomeren said the first plan is 42.86 s.f over on structural coverage. The second plan calls for 16.62% structural coverage. Lindquist reviewed the amount of structirral coverage including 1350 s.f for the home, 600 s.f for the garage, for a total of 1956 s.f 15% would be 1913 s.f for a 42.86 s.f overage. Lindquist asked Larson if the plan could be scaled down to meet the 15% structural coverage. Larson said it could be done. Larson noted that a prior resolution (#3689) conceptually approved the property for two double units with variances granted; one of which included 48% hardcover. Lindquist informed Larson that the Plannine Commission has to review this new application. MIKUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#10 - #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued) Larson s»d he would like to see access from Dunwoody Avenue. He indicated that a driver has to look to the cast to null off onto Shoreline and with sidewalk located there, it creates a problem He feels Ehmwoody is safer with less traffic and people are showing down at that ooint anticioatina thdr turn He indicated the curb cut was desisned bv the City and Hennepin County and approved for the lot. Van Zomeren said this was incorrect It was ouestioned whrther the ncichbor was usine the curb ait for this property. Stoddard suggested it be surveyed. Larson said the survey docs not show it. He indicated the curb cut for 2405 Dunwoody is there but is overgrown. Van Zomeren said the problem with the loop is the iriability to come out facing Dunwoody and be in a position to make a safe right turn. She recommended a change to that loop. She suggested the property be walked and Hennepin County review the situation. She felt the new olan would create a safer access. Larson said he would asree to the nlan if approval is received. He indicated the driveway is not designed to meet the roadwi^r and would require changing for the other pre^erty. Lindquist noted that the other property is no^ ^ Hng reviewed. Diwussion was had regarding the driveway. Larson noted Staff recommends an approved cirnsj'iund. Van Zomeren said an extension would out a car out onto Shoreline Drive. noted the question needs clarification and asked if the addition to the drawinji; is Larson said he would fax the water and sewer line locations and work with ♦’» Ci',. to get the house plan on the drawing as well. During public comments, Louis Oberhauser, former owner of 2425 Dunwoody and current owner of 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, said he is the former owner of the property with the loop driveway. He indicated when the sewer was installed on CoRd 15, it was located 35' from Dunwoody Avenue. He indicated the driveway flares out to serve 2405 Dunwoody. He said it would not work as drawn as it would have to be brought out to the comer of the lot. Stoddard asked Oberhauser whether he thought access onto Dunwoody was safe. Oberhauser said he never had a oroblem. Berg questioned whether the curb cut along the lot line from Oberhauser was inaccurate. Stodd^d Questioned which orooertv the curb cut was on. Van Zomeren said the current owner of the neighboring property, Mr. Withers, objects to access by 2405 Dunwoody onto the loop but he understands the curb cut to be on City property. Schroeder said both driveways are on City right-of-way. Berg acknowledged the need for a turnaround as well. Van Zomeren said the right-of-wav must be shown on a survey and where the driveway would be located. r. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETWG HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#10 - #2276 Brent and Julie Walton - Continued) Berg suggested the applicant come back with a reduction in die ^e of the house and a survev with the curb cut shown with a turnaround. Stoddard Questioned whether the Warming Conunisson needs to review the appUcadon again. Berg said she would like to sec it. Lindouist said he was not comfortd^ with aoorovine the aoolication without looking at the driveway. Oberhauser ssud the driveway would come out where the curb cut b. He indicated the driveway was desisned bv the Citv to flare out and serve both orooerties. Lindouist responded that without a survey, curb cuts arc not always placed where they should be and want.s to verifv it Mrs. Julie Walton noted that a turnaround would add to hardcover. Van Zomeren exnlained the difference between structural coverace and hardcover Berg asked Gappa if he recommended access to Shoreline. Gappa said with a drivcwiqr turnaround access to Dunwoodv Avenue should be satis&ctorv. Schroeder said he could not imagine not combimng the two driveways. Lindquist said they need to be shown ride by ride. Oberhauser explained that they were side by side. Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2276 for lot area, lot vridth, hardcover variances with relocation of water and sewer line and structural coverage not to exceed 15%. The driveway must include a 20*x20' turnaround subject to review and aoDroval of curb cut bv Ganna adiacent to the nronertv at 2425 Dunwoodv and joining subject driveway on the city right-of-way. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback is to be capped at 3,750 s.f A revised survey must be submitted prior to Council review incorporating these parameters showing any tree removal. Vote: Ayes 4, Stoddard, Hawn, Schroeder, McMillan; Nays 3, Lindquist, Smith, Berg. Motion passed. Lindquist voted in the negative as he would like to see the application with changes as noted. The annlication will be reviewed bv Council at their Sentember 8 meetins. (#11) #2278 PATRICK MIDDLETON, 720 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:46-11:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present along with Paul Woodruff of Wood-N-Nail. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18.1997 (#11- #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the plan was to originally remove the deck and redesign h for more sunlieht into the lower level. The survev was shown. The variaiKcs reouired include side yard, 75-25(y hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The new deck would further encroach into the 75' setback and averaoe lakeshore setback than the existing deck. The 75-250' hardcover currently exists at 48.61% and proposed at 40 17% where 75% is allowed Middleton said the stairs and landing are iiKluded in the encroachment. Van Zomeren indicated that the hardcover calculations must be verified. Schroeder asked if the surveyor was asked to calculate the hardcover. Middleton said it was based on calculations nrovided bv Van Zomeren. Van Zomeren said she thoueht the survev had been redrawn and deck measured. Lindquist noted that hardcover is being eliminated. He indicated there is a drainage issue concern. Lindquist felt there is a problem with the deck location beiiig only 6' fix>m the side yard arul into the 75’ setback. He indicated he would like to see the correct hardcover calculations as well. Van Zomeren clarified the nroblem with the survevor. Lindouist said the drainage runs down the lot, affecting the neighbor as well, running under the deck and must h«» J»ddr«»ssed Woodruff indicated that new retaining walls will be buUt to address the problem. Lindouist asked where the water will bo. Woodruff said the water will run over the walls noting the water flow could not change. Lindquist said he would like the City Engjiieer to review the plan and determine a long range solution. He also indicated that he has not seen any plan on how the boulder walls will be buih. Van Zomeren said this would be required for the buildina permit. Lindquist asked \^t hardcover will be removed. Middleton said the cement patio will be removed. A total of 700 s.f + hardcover will be removed. Woodruff received confirmation of agreement with replacement of grass for hardcover by Lindquist. Lindquist asked to see the whole plan. Woodruff noted that these issues were not previously mentioned. Middleton indicated that the drawing does not show where the stairway is located. The deck as drawn comes inside the stairwav. Woodruff said the survev included all stairwavs and sidewalks. Van Zomeren asked if the survey was certified. Woodruff stud he believed it was certified. Lindquist asked to see the survey reporting he has not seen it. Hawn clarified that the steps are closer than the propos^ deck. Middleton said they were and were close to the lot line noting the hardcover being removed. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#11- #2278 Patrick Middleton - Continued) Lindquist indicated that additional infonnation was necessary and gave direction for receiot of: 1) uo-to-date survev with harxlcover. where existins hardcover is located, and where hardcover b proposed; 2) confimiation of hardcover calctilations including the 0- 75* setback: and .11 drainane review hv Citv Enffineer South noted that the hardcover calculations are relevant as no additional hardcover was sdoulated when the earaee aooroval was received in 1988. Middletoo informed Smith that the hardcover was being reduced. Smith said it must be clarified with the information. Woodruff questioned whether the hardcover calculations on the worksheet were not accentable. Lindnuist said he was run sure if tbev were accurate. Bern clarified the benefit of an accurate survey noting no hardcover is allowed in the 0-75* setbadr and the deck i.<i located in that area. Smith said she would like to know what the neighboring property owner has to say about the anolication Middleton said he would obtain that information Schroeder noted a variance was necessary for the deck but indicated that if the Plaiuiing Commi.ssion sees another orobl«n. it would have to be addres.sed Woodruff asked City ’s view regarding remodeling of the existing deck. Schroeder said a oermil would be renuired. Van Zomeren noted it would denend on how it was oerformed. Woodruff said he asked because of the concern for spending a large amount to obtain a survey. Van Zomeren responded that the problem occurred with the need for a certified survey and lack of all necessary mformation. She said any future change would require the information. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2278 for additional infonnation as noted. Vote. Aves 7, Navs 0. (#12) #2281 HENNEPIN COUNTY, WEST OF TOWNLINE ROAD TO EAST OP ORCHARD PARK ROAD • VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:08-12:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Steve Theis and Jod Settles. NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 • #2281 Henn^in County - Continued) Gafifron reported that the City and Hennepin County Public Works have been reviewing plans on CoRd 6 including the alignment shift and intersection changes. These changes will impact certain City protected and other wetlands. He noted that the City Council has already aooroved the lavout of the road. The issue before the Commission is the review of the wetland impacts, whether the proposed mitigation is acceptable, and a conditional use oermit for land alteration over 100* c.v. Gaflron indicated that the lavont and crow sections are available for review. Gafiroo reported there have been 7 basins identified as beii^ impacted, 4 of which are on the Orono 1974 inventory, and reouire variances for grading and Oiling. There are minor wetlands including culverts and creek crossing. Those of greatest concern include a wetland west of the Hanning driveway, with the southerly 1/3 of the wetland impacted by fining. Lindquist questioned whether Planning Commission has any choice but to approve. Gafifton stud there reallv were not anv choices as to the lavout, since those deci»ons have already been made. Lindquist asked how mitigation for the wetland impacts takes place. Joel Settles said the wetland replacement decision is made bv the State. Settles said the 2:1 replacement wiU occur within the County and probably in with the MCWD, and the City has no say in the location but might influence it. He said the best influence would be to show where expan^on might take place but the State may not accept those locations. Smith asked the time fi’ame of that decision. Settles said there is no time fi'ame but after construction is complete, the County wUl file a report that will be received by the State filed by January 15 of the next year. At that time, mitigation locations will be determined. During public comments, Robert Hanning, 4220 CoRd 6, asked what the purpose was of the meeting regarding wetlands. He indicated that the City and County have already approved the road redesign but the public hearing is for public comments and information. Gaffiun indicated that the City reouires the Countv to go through the process as it afiects Orono wetlands and requires a CUP for land alteration over 100 c.y. He indicated the Council has approved the plan and the application allows for formal conclusions of the discussion. Haiuiing noted if the Council has already approved the road and then hold a public meeting, he feels it is redundant. Schroeder said the hearing is to gain an understanding for the reasons for filling the wetlands regarding public safety and environmental and the necessity for a CUP. McMillan said the review is not to debate the road but to discuss the wetlands. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Hanning said he does not fed the wetlands need to be filled. He does not fed the road should be moved reouirina the fillins of the wetlands. He said he has not been tcdd what he will be paid for his property that will be taken. Lindquist was informed that the wetlands are on nrivate nrooertv and not on the rioht-of-wav Srhrneder asked if he was suggesting he should be paid. Hanning said he was suggesting the wetlands should not be filled in Schroeder asked it if was a matter of public safety. Theis said it was. Hanning asked about cutting trees down. He questioned how wetlands affect the wdls. Schroeder said the wetlands act as a filter to Lake Minnetonka McMillan further elaborated that it was a sur&ce filter. Sandy Larson, 4286 6th Avenue North, said her concern hinges on the County's applying for Dermits but the Countv has not vet told them what will be doiw. Theis said the estate division has not conducted the appraisals yet for damages to be caused by realigning the roadwav He indicated the contracts will bo out around .Tanuarv. 1998 so the orocess should be^n soon. Theis said this issue does not involve the real estate but agreed that right-of-cmry must be obtained. Theis said construction is planned to begin April, 1997, and negotiations must take place before that time for right-of-entry. He estimated that the real estate appraisals will take place no later than December of this vear. Berg asked why the CUP is obtained before the details are worked out with the property owners. Theis responded that the process is as laid out bv the Citv. Stoddard asked if the permit is obtained before review by the Corp of En^eers. Theis said it is easier to deal with the Chv on issues first. Hawn asked if the County Engineers have met with the landowners. Theis said they have met with them and have had meetinss where some of the orooertv owners have attended. Bob Brown, who lives on Huntington Drive, asked why the wetland discussions did not taken place prior to Council action. Lindauist said he had the same Question. Brown said if the wetlands are on private property, the people should be notified. Jeff Broil, 4545 Watertown, asked if the request can be denied. He was informed that the Commission makes a recommendation to the Council, who makes the official determination. Schroeder said the Planning Commission is only in a position to \cny the application if it is shown the loss of wetlands out weiahs the issue of public safe* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Katharine Colgrove, 4260 6th Avenue North, reported that she has the house that goes down to the oond. She indicated that her seotic svstem is located in the fix)nt vard. She questioned whether taking the wetlands pushes the pond into the septic system. Colgrove said she docs not want the road to affect her sentic svstem Steve Thds acknowledged the encroachment on the wetland. He indicated the County looked at the drainase and made adiustments so less water drains into the oond to result in the same pre and post construction condition of storm water going into the pond. Chuck Larson, 4285 Sixth Avenue North, asked where the water will go if the shoulders are paved, curbs added, and ponds eliminated. Theis said the pond is not eliminated. He indicated water will go where it does now. The water flow has been slowed and ditches flattened. He said the Countv has used Best Manasement Practices, which are specific procedures they must follow. Theis said he would go over the specifics as it relates to Larson's property with him. Smith asked if this was the first time the wetland issue was being reviewed, Larson stud he was unaware that wetlands were being taken. Lindquist asked if the County has contacted property owners •■egarding this issue. Hanning said there has been meetings, noting the last Council meeting on the issue, but feels the meetings has been inadequate. Berg questioned whether all the information was available then. Lindquist asked the public whether they would like to see a meeting held with the County rdatins to wetlands. He said this was the onlv vehicle in which to oain further information. Theis responded that a shift one way or another of the road would change the impact on the wetland. He said the property owners understood that filling will occur. He indicated that the County has already gone over with the property owners where the road is laid out. The nrocess was not before the Planning Commission in the oast. Mr. Cornelius, 775 Huntington Farm Road, indicated that the County has answered Questions. He feh there was a time when decisions were made rather ouicklv and the property owners (fid not have a voice. He feh the road changes ended up having bigger impacts on them when the road was moved the 25'. He said he does not know why the road was moved and thought the Council rushed through the decision process. He feels the Countv has been fair in dealing with the property owners. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Lindquist infomed the public if they were unhappy with the decisions made by the Council thev should take the issue uo with the Council as the PUumins Commission does not have the authority. Gaffron acknowledged that the residents always have the ODtx>itunitv to sneak with the Council. Cornelius said he feels the discussion regarding the wetlands should have taken place nrevioaslv Schroeder noted the issues of consequence have been discussed previously and the Questions answered in the oast. Theis said he felt the Questions have been answered. Cornelius said this was the first time discussing the wetlands, however. Theis said h b not the first time the wetland imoacts have been discussed but is the first time as a Quantified acreage. Schroeder said he felt Katherine Colgrove should be contacted regarding the issue of effects on her septic system and health related issues. He asked Colgrove if she has had the opportunity in the past to discuss these issues. Colgrove said that this was the first meeting where wetlands were discussed. McMillan said the drainage plans have not been seen by the Planning Comnussion, and the NURP nond and curb and gutter have not been di.scu.s.sed Theis said the construction liimts have already been set by the Council, just not where the wetland impacts are as fiu* as septic. He indicated the County would have to replace a septic ^stem if the construction limits affected the septic. These issues would be worked out with the property owner. Theis said Colgrove's property has been addressed as ftr as the amount of water flowing into her pond is cofKemed and should result in no change to her septic system. Schroeder indicated that he still feels the County needs to address the issue of Colgrove's system. Lindquist brought attention to the Staff memo regarding bsues noted for con«deratkMi and recommendations made. He asked what comfitions are appropriate for reconunendation #5. Stoddard asked that there would be a 2:1 mitigation ratio that would take place within the Citv of Orono. Lindauist asked if the concerns of the people here need to be addressed further and how thb should occur. Berg concurred that the impact .. on the property owners b important. Smith said there should be a fonim by which this could occur, ^th Berg and Lindquist fdt the concerns of the property owners have noL been adequatdy addressed. L_. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Contimied) Lindqiust questioned the value of the land taken. Theis said the County and City process has Kone throu&h and there is a cost share betv^een the two entities. He said information has been given and handouts available. People have spoken out on the orocess Bern noted the auestion of the seotic svstem. Theis said it would be addressed. A member of the audience questioned the importance of the wetlands and whether a plan would have less imoact on the wetlands. I Gafiron noted the process has been on-going for over two years. He said the Council has re\^ewed the alicnments and concluaons have been drawn. He indicated the Council apparently does not feel the wetland impacts are significant enough for further alignment changes to be made, resuhing in the perc^tion that this current issue is after-the-fact as it relates to the process. He noted the alignment has to be decided before the specific wetland impacts can be defined. Gaftron said the wetland acreage impacted needs to be accepted or changed as part of the application process. Lindqu'ist said he is not comfortable in making that decision at this time. He asked if the Commission recommends an additional hearing. Gaffiron suggested a list of questions be drawn as an option. Schroeder acknowledged that the alignment has been thought through and is set as the hfst ontion for the rn;»dw«v Hawn questioned if the main concern shown at the meeting was a resuh of the 8' road alignment change. Comdius responded that he has learned that if meetings are not attended, deciaons are made quickly and voices need to be heard when the occasion anses He indicated that the CouncO has heard the concerns as well. He questioned whether there is an effect on the wdl water. Lindquist asked about the shift decision. Theis said the sluft was decided by the Council and then made bv the Countv. The shift allowed the County to quantify the wetland impact, which was unable to be done prior to the alignment determination. Brown indicated that when the alignment shift was done, the meetings happened quickly and he missed some of them. He feels he was left out of the process. Schroeder said the question is whether the Council followed due process, which he fieds they did. He noted that the public can contact Council members at any time. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST l». 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennq)in County • Continued) Leonard Berg questioned whether he was notified. Schroeder informed him that people within a certain radius of the orooosed activity is notified. Bertz said he found out ab^ land bdng taken in December and deciaons were already made by that time. Lindquist informal him anH nthws to rnntart thp CrMinril if thpv havp ntip«tinn« Lindquist asked what is to be accomplished at this meeting. Gafifron said issues pertaining tn wPtlanHc arp rplpvant' hp nn#pH thp mihlir. niip^inna rpoarHino imnart nn apntir avatpma wells and well water, stormwater concerns and where drainage is (Erected. Gafihon sud he feels these issues have been addressed in the infomuition eiven bv the asencies. Theis was asked to address these certain questions. Theb said an application is before the MCWD as far as stormwater is concerned. This wom M rptatp tn u/atpr nualitv anrt ctnrmwatpr Palmlatinn* anrt anatvaia arp inrtiutMl anH information available. As far as septic systems are concerned, Theis said they must be operational. If impacted, the County will make the corrections per City c(xle. Ratardins the pond, the only place impacted is in the wetland. He said he would check on this. Gafiron noted the intention of havina the Citv Enoineer review the stormwater plan is to review the details. He indicated water level should not change and flowage will be riierked for the nnnd urest Hawn asked if the property owners should be identifying septic ^sterns on the properties nr waif to hear from the Cnnntv Theis resnonded that if the nrnnertv nwners wraild Kke an additional level of comfort, the mouiui ^sterns can be surveyed. This is normally performed as part of the real estate negotiations but can be done now as the systems must meet City code. Theis said there will only be filling of .8 acre of wetlands and only shallow wells would be affected. Gaffi ’on said there are likely no shallcnv wells. Cornelius noted that he is unav/are of where the drmnage flows. Gafifron said the wells are typically 100-1 SO' deep. Wetlands provide for some rechai^^g but the 1/2 acre in the scheme will not impact or change the surface or ground water. Gaffron said he sees no impact on the wells or the ground water. Lindquist asked if there were any other questions to be answered. Brown asked if the County was directed by the City regardir^ realig lent of the road. Theis said thev were. Theis said the wetlands are affected bv the w. ing of the road and affected on both sides. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 (#12 - #2281 Hennepin County - Continued) Brown clarified then that the City must approve affecting wetlands that the City has aooroved to 611. Gaf&on said the Council listens to various concerns. He said the Council understood there would be impacts on speci6c wetlands regardless of where the road was located, and aoDarentlv concluded those imoacts are relaUvelv of a lower orioritv than the road alignment c>^ncOTis. Jod Settles said while he was not in attendance at all meetings, the Council weighed the impacts on manv issues to try to balance them out. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2281 per Staff recommendations 1-4. Recommendation #5 include the three items noted pertainins to stormwater, septic systems, and ponding. The people who have any other concerns about the CoRd 6 realisnment and other ouestions were asked to sisn uo. and Plannina Commission will recommend another meeting be held with the County regarding any other questions they might have. Mitigation will be 2:1 per State requirements with the strong reconunendation that mitigation occur within Orono. Settles said the detemunation wOl be made bv the State but preference can be stated. He will attach the recommendation to the report certiSed to the State. Theis asked the type of meeting and if held by the County nr Council I.indouist siiceested a nossihle combination of both Council and Countv as a public information meeting. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. Schroeder asked Settles if the mitigation siting is political in nature. Settles did not feel it was as such. He noted a number of people have seen the ability in sellins wetlands. A member of the public noted tiling down on fum land. Brown said he appreciated the Planning Commission listening to the concerns. Schroeder suggested people call Council members if they have issues of concern. (#13) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE This item will be reviewed at the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for Seotember 12. 1997 at f 30 a.m. McMillan asked that information be provided on the background of the Sugar Woods Develooment. Stoddard related that the Council asked that the Planning Commission review the draft drawn bv the Park Commis.slon resardine this issue for their recommendation. Lindquist asked that Park Commissioner David Beal be present at the work session. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#14) HOME OCCUPATIONS This item will be review at the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled foi Seotember 12. 1997 at 8:00 am PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#15) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JULY 28.1997 AND AUGUST 11.1997 No additional comments were made. (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No other issues were discussed. (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 21 1997 MEETING The minutes were amended to reflect the name change under item #18, page 27, naracranh 4. tor commenLs made bv Conlev Brooks, not Gerald McCourtnev. Schroeder moved. Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Comnussion Meetins of Ju!v 21. 1997 as amended. Vote: Avcs 7. Navs 0. (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 25,1997 AND SEPTEMBER 8,1997 August 25 - Smith September 8 > Berg ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 12:18 a.m. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person uaMjaucmvm U« ID County MnNnM. IggiVw ■*< (M «M tt ■rtin Sparor Axanua m »acaM Owln SMd ancn HcryM is «M ms. And. 1>m part m *<• umcmd sacamt lana ad|an<ng Lot S OHOSK) OnCMANO. Ilannapt Courtly. Mnnascua. ahoTt Ms awjlantt ot tracMsd Sparcsr AMiva and Mstfi Msaaamtii of «ta ooitmv nmoasn cl tn amarty knt d sasuai xi P.C /V 4 scftii % »nT t roof OOHTOUR WniMi {•« -A*% .IK _ LOCATIONMAP 3l h“- 0WK0 0RC1IARMH.GHLAH0S Jun^diLtKinal o*» the imhini ptwprm **rt Jdincued m )u*> I*. Pewr«w Km wt itmrfHdl ( onatihiBf In. <PHi »m JHineaii^ tt «c «w4hk (. Midi dtr VI »n (he < >«p« ot ^l3•laaNrr^ IMto«MiM KlWMt ^ln•^ 'Hw Hemdarv hrfMwm du upton.! and *»y. detrrlBlnr^} dv»*t^ a niuam am^v« of »hr vaprtatMin 'tmU and [)r1ine«ic.t wetland honndanek maritnd »tdi «i|Mrittwllv r-umbnrad imrvrynv pw ' WfUand rMineatinn nHtm md h> saf«uiMW ahme dn put flags Pm fUg» <*«<< (HitMannnrts MrA«v«d hy il4«r»)a ud Inc KR HrttdKtund and—dt wen elaaaifted atetmting h> ttu mcihodo*ogi«s s«t IenK i « K'aKMdi mi Kaagpunier Comvdw rr al and «laiten4» al dw 1 nilad «Mlta (mdnr >9 htaw and trrirtm 19Ti> nanaiivc t -Hkardtn' *«dand rvpev m p»m Am »idi <.eward..i abhurviaftott* and 1 rcular types m« givn m pttmAmm Ft^ ;un«lat»t*naJ wmWa MCff idciitiAad dn «w and a« kabeM dn pt.'pwwJ pielunHMn plat as Baama A dvuugP 1 B mm A. U nd f ive shawn nn dia i n> uf Orim«> MTttaial and aia ngutand undai dn (.in s wnland ca iwc f whK* rv^niMs iimifan draw fuld* «r he «t ttack ’5 ftat from the Sjyndanri of ( iw-fegalateJ wetlands Rasjns B and C «r noi sliowrt <» dw watLand mvartor- and arpear ikm m he reguiaicd andrt th«s ordinance All five watlandi tn mAftc’. te ragutawn h« die Corpi of Fi^naen vtvkt Saefson 404 of (be t teati W«er Act and K du MiwmWm Crock Waianhed Uiatnci as Lticai (wsonmanial I'mt (LOl'i ittdrr dir WcOvd ( lunersatH>r Ai.t i ffr< .A) .Any or ^frauung >d wertarids W'uiUI raqou* a pmnH ander rath mf (hast tVfHLawry pragraiM BaaiM A D «e saniiaiei Maaunall* ften.lr.1 mieTgriirat* Kdt* tP! M-TAA iF ( tfmlar ^ Irpe «haH«>» mardsdn.* swawpl BaaMi B md C ik tamperar.:' ftx'.*4ed piduamnc <Mnergefttfr<revod waftanda iFlMWOf A. Cinuiar '*» Iv^ , sraaofttl.% OtsHled fMStniimiand harhMakd U«mN> Bava F w vt e«sa«atel prnnMends fUw^ad tiiH.,m«*|i«laiad ta>n<«n oc'iand iPl'BHs. Cm.ote Ivp* ^ ofcr water pimdt «Mi Basin } w-s htsuei^ilP casaeaMd its nnls mi wpngfapfcic piw- ^ .iigpev that 4 wetiand njiurallv esaaied •« *<• ^.itaOMi Hefere e^tcavafrosi acconad Tin peufK^m »iKln»«on has hams denanod u> setaily ssmd rtilwf *a.maf any of wastaiA i*« du p» «aet site lU»wavet. in uipografAy Md di<«nfrtitie« of wadwsiJ wrthmdh- «ie pwclude nrur .•.nnpfram:e •■.tbdiaC ay « draafirk* mhak ret|o«fem»r'> ISa pnipimad dramfwhla Uh I .Hs : and i would lir 24 anJ 42 feet fr«’m the mm**t huui1d«^ of Basm f wapaciveiy It s aw puanWe a« Iwaw ihr shawfWld ja Li.h : aitv larthat from Basm 1 withota k ancmaohing i<« the pivpoaeil house pad or >Mi> owt prwaMe iliipnMfM fur thr driveway that anil ascan this tot If Ae diaHiAtId natr moved mui dir fvapMed drtve«a« aliganmt. the owh ahamnuke dnveway ali«iMMn' wauW lOAiMie rhr p(a.emew uf fiH miHun Baaoi I! The pnipoaed .haoditld tecam, fee iM ' lagr, 4B dw idd* obM peftan af dia toe *« It 4 rt Bon Ba nitHag tfeuar and KP ^tdtre on a ntup «fefe ai occafoad tn (he eaitcuig heuat. yard at drrvrway ]1n KBBefe I iH t sn.l fit laai r^ 7A feat ftmvt Hann l howauae. B mui i w not <ftt> deaignaiod weitand and wendd not bt n ^i hi dia dnuUM lettnck ■^r A arr^lBte I h pnipnaari tuianediasrty mmiB i of Baam E in andar ta peovida rrKBeni *nd Uurape i>f fum>fl fnan die ponfs^iad BAnirhead ( ourt nd^-WE pow -Kiid ^ esvasaed Awe an rvsting spixl pita (hai waa dtpomicd w*wn Bcna t wm ew-avaied TV purpnsr <^>f (hr pond i% le peniact Baam I ffem water goal dBP*v»» Bant fnemwaiat ntnntnf uBdw c-ifsfe-Mc *«Ml«i»rsni Trtpsirrs naoVt a Aaiimw Ws peraiti fr.aii lha U A Arm« i. m ^ rigmeen 'Mt a A B edand Brtdasrmaal Ptan approval bom the Mwnahaha t'fov KaterdnU mstfnt the appluani is w itur ptoetss cti obiMning wruim cart* ln*m ew>. agetny ioufmntng that thi' n the caae Vananres from the ( ny ’f fusK dmnfreld sethaik are hruig raqumed fiar I «*cs 2 md ) m urdrr m praserva du c 4hf«bil 1* Ilf dirv lots while s^uldalg the watiand AH dial wcold br nacaaaan to itm- KttB rAr ardwei mparafnara u ^ !!i|l Xa. < X 02 OUO << >•3 5“ |u *£ IJ? o syS f UBIMD \\ t i^r 3t i* 3 r' c - / S •» 7 ^ 1—~^ ---- 'l'. f . ! 1 1 1 1 i ^ J- n r -NEAR 1ST UNC _y LOT ««• MU TMOLATWM TOT/M. AREA - 367.115 S.F. (8.8# AC.) PROPOSED RWMT OF WAY AREA - 42,235 S.F. (0.»7 AC.) TOTAt LOT AREA - 344.880 S.F. (7.92 AC.) AVERAGE LOT AREAS - 49.268 S.F. (1.13 AC.) TOTAL LOTS - 7 > a □too ISO / iC7 IMltTlia MOMHITV OMCMPnON Lot 2. Block 1, Heothercroft Lot #0, Tonkovioo Gordon including port of adjacent Garden Lone to t>e vocated. 8EN08MNK: 9MTER ELATION OF LAKE MIWWETOmA ON AUO. 80. 1987 EUMUION - 828J0 «int'4r« 211* Ipti) --f- r X X ‘.OT 4« ±__ oj /QARDEN LANE SITE ___L t / OROMO, MM / /PKLIlilNARY PLAT i I II iOOK M2 PAGE 10 (i3/90) I I« 1 ? i 'M , ml||n iiIiIf ii I Ii it |iSb8i£a |l^i «s i BOOK 632 PAGE 18 (83/SO) Scot* in Fe«t ut a. nwk 1. lOTMOKAorr. lal I tOMUMn CMVCNS ICtMCnN COUNTY. HMN’i Tkat part a» itaKan Lana, nalf«w Mi I kwi«. •• ■■ II la a I a 1 mmm. TCM«M» COONT t. mmr. ankn liaa nwThan, a) ana aaatnarV af *ia taaaan* aaatrNaa Lina *. (••Id *• •stdfWMMB.: PTW •# itoc* t. mC a TmC«C«OFT. occacd-s *• Caunte. Mnnaaete. manca nwmarta, aioaa Hia aaa»an» S3"iT"N;a l-» a, a a^anea i tT •/ laa« t. »«a »aint £, aaai:r*aa. "-anca aaatarh la Iha aaalhaaal camar el Lal *0. aart mmAHtm GMIOCNS HtNntPIN county . aaNN* ana mate tanranal<n« CammancM at Ma aawt al aaanwana al tna aaaaa aaacnaaa Lina ». IHaiKa nartnaiki. alana aaN aaalany Una al UN f. a diatanca al l»M laat to an anM paait in aaiN an«la aaM on k>4 aaataHY lina ana in* poail al k^nai« - “ ■ - Ikanc* aaauiti to Km aarttiaaal camar al nna lal M ana irm mowpiwnt *»ufid Jt7.n5 Sdri •r taMd tt.«34 SdTI or 0 4S05 367.4*4 SdH «r 6 4364 AcrM Acf« AcfM tNMKt «r« bOMd «n t«n« of Lot 1. •toll 1. MoirthdftrdW htoi>f m bMon* «l SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS BOOK: 636 PACC tB (S3-50) REVISIONS DATE BY ffCViStOW CERTIFICATION I h«ra6y c#rtif, thw tunidy vot icHord J Data AUC 1». IM? Ucanaa ho I9S40 SCHOELL 4 MADSON. INC ENGmctiK • smfvcY0« • f\A##n*s KM. TlSTWir • CIMKOMMENTM. SLfMCCS tOMO toiZATA BOUXVMD. sum 1 mnnctonka . mm W30S (6T2) »44'760l rAf 646-6065 CLIENT LGA INVESTMENT LCXATION MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62753-002 r % : I 8 I 8 ! Jt I £ 1 a L0T urn MM TMHMTMII TOTAL A«A PROPOSED RWHT or WAY AREA outlot a OUTLOT 8 - 1,1«8.737 S.r. (2«.3» AC.) - 63,440 S.r. (1.46 AC) - 65,205 S.r. (1.50 AC) - 210,189 S.r. (4.83 AC ) TOTAL CROSS LOT AREA (1 AC. LOTS) - 626,625 S.r. (14.39 AC ) ARERMX CROSS LOT AREA (1 AC. LOTS) - 52,219 ST (1.20 AC) TOTAL LOTS (1 AC. LOTS) - 12 TOTAL LOT AREA (2 AC. LOTS) - 184,276 S.r. (4.23 AC) ARERACE LOT AREA (2 AC LOTS) - 92,139 S.r, (2.12 AC.) TOTAL LOTS (2 AC. LOTS) - 2 —1 S'—J L 1 § 1 L J.t_- -4 J V REVISIONS 'jsssr^rsix> jsgrsrs.? DOI: ■-4-T n. « ------UM6- SCMOCa ft MAOSON. INC. A ^W»«R/0CvCL0RtR L«A ■tmnUT QROUP. MC. 10700 OiO eOUMTY l». « MIITl ISO PLTHOUTH, MH 00441 0«/000-00n 7A)b 01t/M0*tSia (VLIEi AUGUST 1997 NM9 mnm roummd . aunt i MUgWHA. HR WSM (911) ttO-TIRI m 946-96I9 PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE WILDHUR8T TRAR. RITI PREUMMARY PLAT S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62753-001 SHEET 1 OF 5 SHEETS r ={#I S£s Pirn mrML «Mk «■««««• f* to r kite m mSi e»-i to I MMi M ■■( laMr (to «■•mmmrnS m mrntm m *m *1 rCNKAVIEW REVISIONS yssr-srsfts r«r» aasra^tMPtIWQW RWP INiff I W * tM.vBPI»/MQrMP—MU UHBOI 1MC U«t ^ n< miv MMMCiOlft. AfL_ I SCNOCLL ft MAOSON. INC. t«M WVIMI ■BIHfWIM. Wit 1 MMCWW MM nm (•19 S«-7«1 mb ONHER/OCVCLOPCR \Mk ■IWnUT QMW. MC. 10700 010 COUNTY no.« turn ISO PLYHOUTN, IM 00441 pmm ott/ooo-oon PAXi oti/ots-oois -ii_i_i^__toto^^^MHMiBtoto>toto.K_-KJ]AIEto.toAUSUSI-lttZ. PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE ^ WILDHUR8T TRAN. SITE OftONO, MN PRCLIMINAIIV PLAT S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62753-001 SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS RtVISIONS EMOMCDI IMKR TNC \jm 9f n« SMtt V IWCTITIl ■-4-T m. w..# SCHOCa k MAOSON. INC.^ vmmam • aumcwn • >mwpu KM. nSIM • OMNONMOnW. XHMCa 10H0 wnwm wuiowi. aunt i IKIKIBiaW. MM HIM (•12) S4«-7Wt nUb S4«-«MS OWNER/DCVELOPER LOA MVISTMDIT QROUP, MC. 10700 OLD COUNTY NO. If SUITE ISO SLVHOUTN. MN SS441 SNONb Slt/SOS^n FAX. S1t/8S8-S812 _____________________________DATF: AUGUST 19H7 PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE ^ WILDHUR8T TRAN. 8ITR ONONO. MN PRELIMINARY QRADMO. DRAMA8I A EROSION CONTROL PLAN______^ S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62753-001 SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS F I