Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-20-1997 Planning Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, OCTOBER 20,1997 - 6:30 P.M. 9.#2300 James and Joann Jundt 1400 Bracketts Point Road Renewal Variances - Public Hearing 10.#2301 Gerald McCourtney 1055 West Femdale Road Variances - Public Hearing 11.#2303 Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Renewal Variances - Public Hearing 12.#2304 Deborah Sholl 4100 Watertown Road Variance - Public Heciing 13.#2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances - Public Hearing 14.#2307 Ellen Peterson, having an interest in 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances - Public Hearing 15.#2308 Paul Larson 3865 Shoreline Drive Variances - Public Hearing SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 16.#2299 Mike Hilbelink, having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Sketch Plan Review for Two-Lot Subdivision PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 17.Report by Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings of September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997. 18.Other issues for discussion. 19.Planning Commission approval of minutes of the September 15,1997 meeting. 20.Planning Commission to select representatives to attend the Council meetings of October 27, and November 10,1997. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: 6:30 START TIME PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997,6:30 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Richaid Flint 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. niSCUSSlON ITEMS 1. Tree Preservation SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 2. 7:00 p.m. #2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive Planned Residential Development and Class 111 Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing 3.7:30 p.m. #2306 Dennis Platteter 809 Brown Road North Renewal of Class III Preliminarv Subdivision - Public Hearing ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 4. #2294 L.G.A. Investments, Jim Waters 1181 WUdhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Plan 5. 6. 7. 8. #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales 3850 Shoreline Drive Request for Clarification/Finding of Substantially Similar Use #2283 Gaiy and Bonnie Bimbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Renewal Variances - Public Hearing Continued #2289 Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Continued Public A ttendance Meeting D ate C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 'i </-TT; u / ,v. ( h:. •T ^ CVa ' v'.^ *S» Lci-v Sl tf- 4- if r 4V-^ C C’t r ^ /f, ----------------------------------------— 15._ 091395.4 I City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: October?, 1997 Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Work Session Attached to this memo is a summary of the tree preservation work session that was held on September 12th. The minutes from this meeting are attached for your review and approval. The Maple Grove ordinance is also included. Attachments: A B C Summary Maple Grove ordinance Minutes from Work Session r A MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 9/19/97 Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant Consensus Developed by the Tree Preservation Workshop on 9/12/97 As requested, 1 have reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission Tree Preservation Work Session on 9/12/97. While the amount of consensus built was limited, there are a few areas of general agreement. Portions of the Miimetonka ordinance were deemed useful. The following is a breakdown of each section of the ordinance and the amount of agreement over the relevance of each section. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. It was agreed upon that the purpose statement should be kept as it is. No specific definition of what constitutes a significant tree was agreed upon. Some parties felt the ordinance should be consistent with the lakeshore ordinance provisions, while others felt 8” softwoods and 12" hardwoods would be more appropriate. It was agreed upon that trees can be removed without replacement in areas improved for reasonable size driveways, parking lots and structures without frost footings, as well as 10' around those improvements. No agreement was dev eloped regarding replacing significant trees. 25 to 50 trees per acre was mentioned as a possibility. It was recommended, without argument that lakeshore standards be used for defining significant tree sizes. The section pertaining to provisions before starting work was agreed upon as well written as it is. There was debate as to whether the tree species list should be stated in the ordinance or kept as a flyer at City offices. Several other issues were also agreed upon generally. These were: • The issue of takings should be examined given the value of trees on a given property. • Maple Grove’s ordinance should be examined. • The concept of using an overlay district to identify distticts of varying degrees of tree preservation requirements should be considered. • The ordinance is not meant to curb development, but radier obtain better development in character with the city. • The goal of tree preservation could be added to the subdivision ordinance. . Woodlands vs individual trees should be protected in some cases, but this has yet to be defined further. While there was some general agre>;rment, as you well know, there are many specifics of the tree preservation ordinance that need to be addressed. Hopefully this has helped focus in on areas of agreement and disagreement as they relate to the creation of Orono's tree preservation ordinance. r PROM JCITY OF MOPLE GFO*’E C£ED 612 434 6425 1337.03-19 13S00 «S44 P.02 11 B375:109 (Rev. 1993) Section 375; 109. *‘T". Tree Preservation District. (Added, Ord. No. 90-17, Sec. 1; Arnended, Ord.No. 93-33, Sec. 1) Subd. 1. PumoMi - The intent of this ordinance is, through the preservation, protection, maintci^cc and management of tfie community ’s existing forest resource, and the planting of trees to: aid in the stabilization of soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation; reduce storm water runoff and the costs associated therewith and replenish ground water supplies; aid in the removal of carbon dioxide and generation of oxygen in the atmosphere; provide a buffer and screen against noise pollution; provide protection against severe weather; aid in the control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to construction or grading; provide a haven for birds which in turn assist in the control of insects; protect and increase property values; conserve and enhance the City's physical and aesthetic environment; and generally protect and enhance the quality of life and the general welfare of the City. Subd. 2. nistrict Annlication. The "T", Tree Preservation District shall be applied to and superimposed upon any residential, commercial, or industrial district contained in, existing or amended by the text and map of the Maple Grove Zoning Ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "T ”. Tree Preservation District Shall be in addition to flood plain, shoreland, and wetland regulations and requbrements, and those established for the district wherein property is located, which regulations and requirements will all jointly apply to the property ’. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. The areas affected by the terms of the "T", Tree Preservation District within the City of Maple Grove shall be identified in a survey map adopted by the City Council as a "T", Tree Preservation District map. The said map shall be incorporated by reference as though felly set forth herein. In addition, the City may, based upon guidelines recommended by the Arbor Committee and approved by' the City Council, designate any tree or trees for preservation because of any unique physical characteristic or growth process, or swne historical or cultural significance. Such trees shall ^ known as landmark trees, and a list of such trees shall also be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk and shall be a part of this ordinance as if felly set forth herein. I I r ; I i ‘ FROM ICITY OF MPPUE GRCJE CC.ED 612 434 6426 133T.03-13 13:00 ttS44 P.03 11 375:109, Subd. 3 (Rev. 1995) The "T" District designstions may be reviewed annually to ensure all designations are • correct. Arens may be added or deleted as changes and plantings occur. Employees and represenutives of the City may enter upon private property to inspect and trees in furtherance of the provisions of Subds. 1 and 2 after having given notice to the ownei/occupant Notice will be adequate if made in person or if in writing stating date and time of the anticipated entry upon the property and identifying the city and the ordinance pursuant to which said entr>' is being made. Said notice, if not notice, shall be mailed by ceitified mail addressed to the owner/occupant at the add«^ last shown on the Hennepin County tax records in City offices and mailed m *b^nited States mail at least four (4) days prior to the anticipated entry. Fadurc ot the to receive said notice docs not invalidate the notice or the entry. ( cn c , r . 9447. Sec. 1) or taiger in exec« of ihc rote of thirty-two (32) inches DBH pet acre m any immediateiy teplocing any such tree or trees pursuant to *e appropriate ratio set in SuM. 5 below unless provided otherwise in a previously approved Forest Management Plan approved I y City as set forth below. I FRCDM :CITY OF MPPLE GFO“E C£-ED S12 4S4 S425 1997.09-19 13:01 «644 P.04 H 375:109, Subd.4 (Rev. 1993) Subd. 4. Forest Mtinatfement Plan. (O Any person desiring approval of a forest Management Plan as an alteniative to the requirements of Subd. 3 alxjve shall submit a writien application to the City's Community and Economic Development Department together with a filing fee as set forth in Chapter V of this Code. This application shall include the following information: 0) (2) (3) (4) Name and address of applicant. Status of applicant with respect to the land. Written consent of the owner of the land, if applicant is not the owner. Nome of person preparing any mnp, drawing or diagram submitted witii the application. (5) (6) Location of the property, including a street address and legal description. Measure and map the parcel of land, specifically designating all forested 1. 4). (h? existing and proposed use of such areas, and actual dimensions of the areas. Location of all proposed or existing structures, roads, utilities, and driveways on the site. A written narrative describing the activities to be undertaken, the reasons for developing the plan, specific actions proposed by the Forest Management Plan, and how those actions and activities will benefit the forest as an urban amenity (rather than their value for lumber or some other economic purpose). Specific examples of such benefit include, but are not limited to, better forest management (thinning or removal of certain tree species), improved wildlife habitat, creation of forest products (tree farming), recreation use, outdoor education, trails, and energy conservation. (b) The Community and Economic Development Director may, in addition, require the applicant for approval of a Forest Management Plan to supply: A site plan specifying the methods to be used to preserve all remaining trees and Uteir root systems. Such other infunnation as the Community and Economic Development Director deems necessary for review of the proposed Plan. r FROM SCITY OF MPPL.E ORO* E C£ED 612 434 6425 1337.03-15 13:01 «644 P.OS 11 f I 375:109, Subd. 4 (Rev. 1993) Subd. 4. Forest Manafciment Plan.*ir (a) Any person desiring approval of a Forest Management Plan as an alternative to the requirements of Subd. 3 above shall submit a wrincn application to the City's Community and Economic Development Department together with a filing fee as set forth in Chapter V of this Code. This application shall include the followmg information: Name and addi-ess of applicant. (2) (3) (4) Status of applicant with respect to the land. Written consent of the owner of the land, if applicant is not the owner. Name of person preparing any map, drawing or diagram submined with the application. (5) (6) Location of the property, including a street address and legal description. Measure and map the parcel of land, specifically designating all forested areas, the e.xisting and proposed use of such areas, and actual dimensions of the ureas. Location of all proposed or existing structures, roadsi utilities, and drivewr y on the site. A written narrative describing the activities to be undertaken, the reasons for developing the plan, specific actions proposed by the Forest Management Plan, and how tbo.se actions and activities will benefit the forest m an urban amenity (rather than tlieir value for lumber or some oUier wonomic pui|ws«). Specific examples of such benefit include, but ure not limited to, better forest management (thinning or removal of certain tree species), improved wildlife habitat, creation of forest products (tree farming), recreation use, outdoor education, trails, and energy conservation. The Community and Economic Development Director may, in addition, require the applicant for approval of a Forest Management Plan to supp^: A site plan specify mg the methods to be used to preserve all remaining trees and their root systems. (2)Such other information as the Community and Economic Development Director deems necessary for review of the proposed Plan. I . J r FROM -CITY OF MQPLE GRO*v^ CVED 612 434 6425 1537.03-18 13:01 «644 P.06 11 li. u M. r ST 375:109. Subd. 5 (Rev. 1993) (c) Upon receipt of the application, reprc.scntatives of the City may visit and in^ct the site and adjoining lands. Prior to voting upon a Forest Management Plan, the City may soUcit the opinion of a forester. If the City Council determines that the plan wi I not destroy any designated or proposed landmark tree, will preserve positive attributes relative to stabilization of soil, water quality, and drainage, and will be for the ot the fbrest, it may approve the Forest Management Plan by a majority vote. If the Council determines otherwise, the application shall be denied. If the City Council denies a Forest Management Plan, it shall set forth in writing the rcason(s) for denial. (2)An approved Forest Management F:. n shall remain in eftcct until a request to develop all or part of the property ut the Plan is filed with the City, which event shall automatically terminate the Plan, or until the applicant (or the applicant ’s heirs, successors, or assigns) and the City agree to terminate the Plan. The City Council may, after notice and an opport^ity to be heard, revoke an approved Forest Management Plan if it determines, through inspection or otherwise, that such Plan is not being followed. Upon such revocation, the basic restrictions of SccUon ^75:109 shall apply to the affected properly as if no Forest Management Plan had ever been approved for that property, and those restrictions shall continue to apply unless a new Forest Management Plan for the property is approved at sometime in the future. . (d) Any request for amendment of an approved Forest Management Plan shall be processed and reviewed as if it were an initial application for such a Plan unless one or more application requirements in Subd. 4(a) and (b) above arc specifically waived by the City Council by a majority vote. Subd. 5. Unless provided otherwise in an approved Forest Management Plan, the following conditions apply to removal of trees referred to in Subd. 3 above. (a)Standards of Preservation During Subdivision. 0)Seventy percent (70%) of the total inches of tree DBH occupying a site shall be protected. If more than thirty percent (30%) of the total DBH of trees on the site arc removed due to the Installmiun of streets and utilities, and the^ grading ncccsshated by subdividing, the cxces.s shall be replaced at a ratio ot 1-1/2 inches of DBH of replacement for every inch of DBH of removal above thirty percent (30%). FPOM I CITY OF t«PUE GFCTv'E C£ED 612 454 6425 1S9T.03-15 13S02 B644 P.OT 11 3t5:109, Subd.5(b) (Rev. 1993) (2)These standards for tree protection shall apply in all zoning districts during subdivision. Further requirements during subdivision are set forth in Section 350 of the Maple Grove Ordinance Code and include, but are not limited to. Section 350:21, Subd. 4(m). (b) Standards of Preservation During Construction or Excavation ~ after Subdivision or when not Connected with Subdivision. (2) Single and Twiv-Familv Detached Dwellings. In subdivisions in the R-1, R- 2, R-2b and R-3 Zoning Districts, the builder shall be responsible lo work with the Community and Economic Development Department for the protection of die trees to be preserved on a particular lot The budding pad shall include an area from the front lot line to a line eight) -five (85) feet behind the front lot line. The building pad shall extend ocross the entire width of the lot. The builder shall be required to replace trees removed from within the building pad on a basis of 1/2 inch DBH of replacement for each inch DBH of removal. Trees protected within the building pad may count toward replacement at a ratio of two (2) inches DBH of replacement for every inch DBH of trees protected. If trees arc removed from the area outside the building pad, they shall be replaced on the following basis: Specimen Trunk Size Replacement Criteria 8" -11" DBH 1-1/2" of trees shall be replaced for every 1" DBH removed >11"DBH 2" of trees shall be replaced for every 1" DBH removed OiifldraminiiiTns- Townhouses and Apartments. Lots on which quadraminiuins, townhouses and apartments are constructed shall retain forty percent (40%) of the inches of tree DBH «xirting on the lot after suMivision. If trees in excess of sixt)' percent (60"'o) are removed from the lot due to construction, they will be replaced on a basis of 1-1/2 inches DBH of replacement for every inch of tree DBH removed in e.xccss of sixty percent (60%). Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). The tree cover in a residential PLTD shall be prcser\'ed in greater amount than in a single laniily subdivision because of the flexibility in standards available to avoid tree removal. Seventy percent (70%) of the inches of tree DBH existing in a residential PUD after subdivision (before construction) shall be retained after the development is completed. If trees are removed during construction in excess of thirty percent (30%), they shall be replaced at a ratio of two (2) inches of DBH replacement for each inch of tree DBH removed in excess of thirty percent (30%). FROM SCITY OF MfiPLE GPO^ CtED 612 -434 6425 133T.03-15 15 8 02 »644 P.03 11 375:109, Subd.5(c) (Rev.1993) ipAt^rial and MXD. Sitcs on which industrial buildings and constructed shallrctain forty percent (40%) of the inches _ existing on tl,e site after subdivision. If trees in excess (60%) Le removed from the site due to construction, they will on a basis of 1-1/2 inches DBH of replacement for ever> inch of tree DBH removed in excess of sixty percent (60%). r..mmercial. Sites on which commercial buildings snd constructed shall retain thirty percent (30%) of the inches of ttee DBH existing on the site after subdivision. If trees in excess of seventy percent (70%) are removed from the site due to constniclicm, they wdl on a basis of 1-1/2 inches OBH of replacement for evciy Inch of tree £ B removed in excess of seventy percent (70%). PUD buildings and facilities are constructed shall of the inches of tree DBH existing on the site after subdivision. If trees in excess of sixty percent (60%) are removed site due to they will be replaced on a basis of tvvo (2) inches DBH ot cvety inch of tree DBH removed in excess of sixty percent (bU/o). Standards of Preservation - all other circun.s,» as. under any circumstances other titan those identified in paragraphs (a) and (h) above, preservation and replacement ratios set forth in paragraph (b) above shall appl>. Prior to any tree being removed pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (>) above, ^he pro^ ovvner shall cause to be posted on the peruneter of the she ’ excavation or construction activity signs readily visible to and undcr^ndablc by the public identifying the trees and activity on the site as being subject to the provisions of Le preservation zoning regulations of the City of Maple Grove. Sj»ch provided by the City, shall be placed at internals of at least one (1) sign P«r Lntage, and shall remain in place until the activity has passed iinal approval b> the City dcpaitmenl(s) monitoring it. r from'4CITY OF MOPUE GPiD-C C£ED 612 434 6425 1937.09-19 13:02 «644 P.09 11 375:109, Subd. 6 (Rev. 1995) (c) Rcphicement Standards. Where po$sible. replacement shall occur in the area from which the trees are removed. If thi') b not desirable for the health or survival of the replacement frees, said trees shall be replanted clsev^here within the "T” Zone from which the trees were removed. If this is also undesirable for die health or survival of the replacement trees, then the replanting may occur outside of the designated "T” Zone but shall occur within the development. If this is not desirable for the health or survival of the replacement trees, then the landowner shall consult and work with the City to determine a better alternative planting location for the replacement trees. Any replanting shall be done with trees of the primary species of the aflected forest. At planting, the trunks of deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half inches (2-1/2) in diameter as measured six (6) inches above the ground. Coniferous trees shall be at least five (5) feet in height. A performance surety shall be provided to guarantee the proper installation and vigorous growth of all replacement trees and shall be in confoimance with Section 375:12, Subd. 21(k) of this Ordinance. Replacement trees shall be identified as such until they are eight (8) inches in DDH, shall be considered at least eight (8) inches in DBH regardless of size and shall be treated accordingly for purposes of this Section 375:109. If any replanting is to occur outside the limits of the ’*T” Zone, the parcel on which the replanting occurs shall be rezoned so as to be governed by the provisions of the "T'' Zone, or a covenant acceptable to the City shall be recorded by the property owner so as to make the provbions of this Section 375:109 applicable to the parcel on which the repl^ting occurs. (Added, Ord. No. 95-28, Sec. 1) Subd. 6. Unless otherwise provided in an approved Forest Management Plan, the following shall apply to all trees in Ihis Zoning District. 1 r FROM tCIT-i :-F tthSPLE GPO'-'E CtED €12 434 €425 133T.03-15 13:02 «E44 F.10 11 375:109. Sabd. 7 (Rev. 1993) (a) During construclion ^ rfrei^h^inTh of ^ec to be protected. The o»«rl»p. in which Mse tlic said requuemenU snail w a without enJangeting trees.ndangenng irccs. and not harmful to any tree to be protected. (2) Said perimetet shall also be posted so as to desir«« «>' *«» f" ““ protection.proiccuon. (W Th. iw™.*. ...i. *.» S' protective barriers required m this Subd. 6.proiccuvc uaiiivie^ — a protective barrier. a "cCifsW wfth ha^^ “ " than one thousand (l.OOO) pounds. subd. 7. These ptovisions of section 375:109 shall notapply to: (a) The removal of trees from f""^“”tu?e°xc'^S^ interpreted to tov”;denul to imminent development of the land, (b) The removal of trees on public its lawful The removal of uees deemed by die Conununity and Economic Development Duectoe to be diseased, dying, or dead.to DC aiscascu, TT,c removal of any nee w hich has become or dneetens to become a danger to human life or property.life or property. . rel Die temoval of any tree by a public utility vvhen such tree has dte reasonable potenna ^ m eXigering the faeilities operated by the utlhV r m f FROM JCITY OF MRPLE GRa.-E C£ED 612 434 6425 1337.05-19 13:03 i644 P.ll 11 375:109. Subd. 8 (Rev. 1993) Subd. 8. The Arbor Committee, appointed by the City Council pursuant to Section 228 of Maple Grove Ordinance, shall assist the Community and Economic Development Department m the development and maintenance of technical specifications and guidelines for u^ ^ administration of Section 375:109. This includes, but is not limited to. advice as to tte kinds and species of trees unsuitable or undesirable for planting, such as noxious trees, and advising as to tne areas and conditions under which suitable and desirable trees should be planted. Subd 9 Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of Section 375:109 or any Forest Management Plan approved thereunder shall be guilty of an offense punishable as a misderaearor each day or portion thereof that the violation contumes. In addition, any and dl permits at d approvals extended by the City in connection with the property on which the violation occure may be suspended or revoked after notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the City may also deny a Certificate of Occupancy or pursue injunctive relief and/or damages. Pursuit of any one of these remedies does not waive the City's right to pursue any or all of these remedies. Subd. 10. In case of emergencies involving, but not limited to, tornadoes, windstorms, floods, or other natural disasters, the requirements of this ordinance may be waived by the Mayor or, in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor. I 1 r I JjRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION tree preservation work session held SEPTEMBER 12,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present. Chair Dale Lindquist, Jan Berg. Sandy Smith, Liz Hawn and Bill Stoddard. Van Enckson was present representing the Orono Park Commission. The following represented City staff: City Planner/Zoning Administrator Liz Van Zomeren. Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffion, Intern Brad Bressler, Director of Public Services Greg Gappa and Recorder Lin Vee. The meeting was called to order by Chair Lindquist at 8:02 a.m. Council has asked that the Planning Commission address issues identif.ed by both the Park Commission and Council relating to the development of a tree preservation ordinance. After developing a model ordinance, public hearings would be held, with Council action following. Van Zomeren referred to the Purpose Stttement prepared by the Orono Park Commission on July 7, 1997 noting that Park Commission and Council were in agreement with this statement. In addition, discussion should take place as to whether private property owners would be treated the same as developers regarding tree preservation and reforestation. Hawn asked if the Planning Commission was designing an ordinance that is really needed. Van Zomeren responded that the Spring Hill Golf Course has raised concerns over tree preservaUon. Berg suggested the City be pro-active rather than reactive. G Lindquist stated one goal would be to prevent clear cutting in new development. Hawn asked if .1,., cutting has been a problem. Lindquist noted that the shoreland areas already have restncUons on tree removal. Hawn questioned the City's ability to enforce a policy preventing cleat cutting. Berg noted that Plymouth experienced a problem with clear cutting before they adopted a tree preservation ordinance. Developers found it easier to clear cut and then transplant. She felt the land r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 across from Billy's Lighthouse would be a similar situation when developed. Hawn asked about an individual property owner who might choose to log the land as trees have value. Could the City be considered "taking" the land by restricting tree removal? Other cities should be researched to determine their policies. Van Zomeren noted the Council and Park Commission do not want to hinder the individual property owner. The Dickey property is an example of large lots with no trees. In such a case, could the City require a developer to plant trees? Berg added that some people don't want trees, and therefore trees would not necessarily increase the value of a property. Lindquist felt the Minnetonka ordinance was close to what Orono would want to accomplish and suggested working from their ordinance format. Discussion continued relating to the "City of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance". 1. Purpose of Tree Preservation Ordinance. Van Zomeren reviewed the Purpose Statement. Lindquist asked if landscape and vegetation should be added. Members felt the statement should be left in the existing form. 2.Definition. The definition of a Significant Tree was discussed as trees to be protected. Lindquist felt the tree size should be consistent with other lakeshore ordinances which is 6" in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. Hawn questioned the difference between coniferous and deciduous trees, noting that a 15' coniferous tree would be difficult to transplant. The Park Commission r I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COM>HSSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 suggested Significant Trees as coniferous trees measuring 8' or more in height, hardwood deciduous trees measuring 8" in diameter or greater and softwood deciduous trees 12" or greater in diameter. 3. Where Significant Trees Can Be Destroyed Without Replacement Hawn thought it would be abusive to applicants to require a tree plan showing all existing trees. She added that the goal of lakeshore properties is somewhat different than big woods areas. Van Zomeren suggested an inventory of all trees of the same size or larger as those that are protected on lakeshore properties. She asked what would allow significant trees to be removed. She referred to Shadow’ood Farms where an outlot with trees was created for future access to the Wolf property. Hawn responded that road design can take many trees but might be an area where significant trees could be allowed to be removed. This would be monitored during City reviews so that too many trees were not taken. Berg noted that many final plats are not approved in the same form as preliminary plats because of tree issues. Members agreed that significant trees could be removed "within the areas improved for reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements". Stoddard asked if the Fire Marshall made any recommendations regarding trees within 40' of any buildings. Smith suggested a time limit be added to Section 3 (B). For example, a developer could not cut down trees within 2 years of subdividing. Van Zomeren questioned how staff would know when trees were cut down. Lindquist agreed to adding a 2 year time limit to this r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 statement. Gappa noted that if the goal was to protect trees, it would not make any difference if a subdivision occurred. Lindquist agreed that the private property owner could do what he wants. Stoddard asked if members were addressing developers or private property owners. Lindquist felt the ordinance was to be designed more for development rather than monitor ing individual private properties. Other members ^reed. Gappa added that it would be difficult to go back 2 years to monitor when trees had been cut down. Smith felt they were spending time on an unenforceable ordinance. Lindquist suggested leaving the 2 year limit in section 4(C) and reviewing at a later time. 4. Replacing Significant Trees This section sets limits, i.e. no more than 25 trees can be raised per acre. Stoddard noted that 25 trees could be on a very small portion of the property. Van Zomeren felt this section fell short as it did not define what kind of trees, their size or where they were located. Berg commented that 1/3 acre lots are standard in Minnetonka whereas Orono has many 2-5 acre parcels which are quite different. Van Zomeren agreed that Minnetonka saw 25 trees as the appropriate number for many of their lots, and the lots would seem densely planted with trees. Lindquist compared 5 acres having 250 trees as being densely planted in Orono. Van Zomeren questioned the time it would take to count trees on a larger parcel. Stoddard asked who would do the counting - the homeowner? Berg noted that the Planning Commission asked for a tree inventory of the Wolf property and Council didn ’t think it was necessary. Van Zomeren commented that she was uncomfortable defining a number for required trees. Hawn suggested replacing tree-for-tree e.xcept where impossible. Van Zomeren added that there could be a debate over the value of deciduous vs. coniferous trees. Lindquist suggested leaving 25-50 trees per acre in the ordinance at this time. J ! 5. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 Replacement of trees native to the area is appropriate. It is standard for a developer to post a bond for completion of a subdivision project. Gaffron agreed that a Letter of Credit is common. If dead trees were not replaced, the Letter of Credit would not be released. Berg questioned how the City would know if significant trees were removed within 2 years of a subdivision application. Van Zomeren responded that it would be difficult to monitor. Lindquist added that this issue could be dealt v^ith at the time of a new application. Tree Sizes Van Zomeren suggested referring to lakeshore standards once again to be consistent 6. Before Starting Work Members agreed this section was well written. 7. City Forester Tree Species List Hawn suggested a list be kept at the City offices rather than listing the good/bad trees in an ordinance. Stoddard did not think it was a bad idea to include a listing in the ordinance as a forester would agree with such a list. Van Zomeren continued with discussion of "An Ordinance Amending Minnetonka City Code Chapter 300 Regarding Tree Protection and Density Ranges" as it would relate to Orono’s situation. In Section I, the definition of a Significant Tree would parallel the lakeshore ordinance. I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 In Section 2, a tree inventory would not be required at the sketch plan review but would be discussed. The performance standards regulating tree removal in Section 3 are all good. Urban development can be omitted. Reference £o septic systems should be added. Gaffron suggested adding "other facilities" which would include accessory buildings, p>ools and tennis courts. Van Zomeren suggested there may be a need for public education on tree preservation unless the ordinance is just adopted into the Subdivision Code. Stoddard noted that most developers are also builders. Although the developer would not be allowed to cut down trees, there would be nothing to stop the individual homeowner from cutting trees down to build an accessory structure once he buys a lot. He added that other ordinances regulate accessory structures in their size and placement which will affect trees on the property. Gaffron asked if members had discussed whether they should be preserving individual trees or woodlands. He suggested that preserving "significant trees" would allow many smaller trees to be cut down and could change the habitat and character of an area. Lindquist asked for further definition of a woodland. Gaffron felt it would include habitat, understory and the character of an area. The size would be difficult to define. Lindquist felt a woodland would comprise at least 1/2 acre in area. Members discussed the Whitehead property which is mainly woodlands. They questioned how the woodlands could be replaced. Hawn did not think the City should get involved in supervising what individual owners do with trees on their property. f • \ie i minutes of the planning commsshw tree preservation work session held SEPTEMBER 12,199 Smi* stated that it seemed the ordinance would penalize developed but allow individuals to do what want. Stoddard felt this may be the best the City could do. There would be protection from a developer clear cutting, and controls in other ordinances also restrict development. Lmdquist and Berg referred to the Sugar Woods development and Melamed properties where the woo an atmosphere was preserved. Stoddard stated that if the 25 trees per acre standard was used, the Sugar Woods development would not happen. Van Zomeren suggested the possibility of requmng covenants that would require individual owners to protect significant trees. The question arose as to whether the City would want to monitor such covenants. Berg suggested looking at ordinances ftom cities that have larger parcels of land such as Maple Grove. She felt Minnetonka had a different type of development and their ordinance may not be appropriate. Von Zomeren thought it would be good to look at other woodland ordinances as weU. Hawn asked how the group felt about protection of woodlands vs. tree protection. Lindquist responded that in some areas he would want to see individual trees protected while m other areas e would look for woodland protection. Berg read the Purpose Statement from a Maple Grove ordinance (Gaffron s copy) which was closer to what Orono is trying to accomplish. Maple Grove has a T Tree Preservation District. Van Zomeren suggested overlay districts similar to the shoreland districts which might incMe woodlands, lakeshore areas, smaller lot areas such as the Navarre area, etc. Lmdquist felt uld be reviewed further. Gaffron responded that the City has topographic maps (1 100 sc and air photos which would be helpful in pursuing this idea. Gappa suggested that a buffer area could be required. Van Zomeren questioned whether a buffer zone would be for aesthetics or habiut Gappa felt it would be for boOi. A variance procedure could be used for unusual situations. sho MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 Lindquist suggested looking closer at Maple Grove's ordinance. He asked if a policy statement rather than an ordinance would solve some of the tree issues. Hawn felt an ordinance would be better for developer since better guidelines and quantification could be provided. Hawn referred to the Whitehead subdivision application. It would be impossible to develop three lots and still maintain the woodland character and habitat of the property, if that was the goal. Berg thought a developer v/ould want to be able to build and have some lawn. She asked what percentage of trees to preserve would be appropriate. On 2 acre lots, Hawn felt they couldn't leally preserve a woodland. Therefore they should stop looking at such an ordinance unless they look at zones. Van Zomeren added that a septic system, building pad and driveway must also be considered. Lindquist added that it would be difficult to place a house and two septic site on two acre lots. Gaffron noted that PUDs are not really used in the 2 acre zone. Lindquist felt preservation of woodlands was a great idea but impractical in some cases. Hawn asked if the policy statement could include reference to preserving woodlands wherever possible. Gaffron thought the tree preservation discussions were a direct result of the Spring Hill Golf Course, since there was not an ordinance in place to protect the Big Woods. Because of the acreage involved in Spring Hill, the golf course could possibly still have been developed. There are no ordinances to prevent development of that area into two acre lots. If the City wants to preserve large wooded areas, incentives need to be offered to developers. Clustering is a possibility but this w'ould require sewer. Council has not been in favor of clustering. Lindquist thought that if they go beyond the policy statement, an ordinance would either be directed at woodland preservation or the 25-50 trees per acre standard, and he was unsure if either was appropriate. Hawn questioned how a developer might perceive a policy statement. Van Zomeren responded that 8 « I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 an experienced developer may work differently and have different expectations than the inexperienced developer. Hawn added that even the seasoned developer would object to something that would "hit them in the pocketbook". Gaf&on stated the existing subdivision code refers to preservation of natural features and shade trees planted by a subdivider. The goal would be to add a statement that gives better direction as to what the City is trying to preserve. Lindquist agreed with this suggestion. Berg asked if Gaffron could develop a section to add to the existing ordinance. Berg felt is was difficult to define the number of trees that would be appropriate on two acres. Stoddard asked if the Sugar Woods concept of development is what the City was looking for. Berg responded there were not a lot of areas similar to Sugar Woods in Orono. Gappa referred to the Soskin development. The stormwater pond was put in an area where there were not a lot of significant trees in order to preserve the more mature trees. Van Zomeren asked if a tree preservation ordinance was a tool for Planning Commission and Council to slow down development or prevent development, or if it is a guideline to get better development and try to retain the character of Orono. She did not want to see an ordinance developed as a weapon to prevent development Berg felt the ordinance was to continue the integrity of the topography of the land being developed with the least impact using a common-sense approach to development. Ithat Smith asked if the tree preservation issues were coming from Council or if Council was responding to citizen concern. Gaffron responded that he thought Council wanted to have this tool in place prior to the golf course application, not to prevent the golf course but to prevent the destruction of the 9 an the lething ! 'I MBWTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 woods. Tree preservation was discussed shortly before the golf course application was received. The golf course needed 190 acres of the 200 available acres to be developed. If the 40 acre Big Woods had been protected, the golf course probably would have had to find another area. Lindquist noted that tool would have been a woodland ordinance, not tree preservation. Lindquist suggested Gaffron put together a policy that makes sense. . Berg Van Zomeren asked Gaffion if the tools were currently available to get the best residential development possible fix>m the Saga Hill properties. GafiBx>n felt the City had many tools available but they haven't been used in the past. Many of the ordinances are general and do not provide good guidelines. Lindquist agreed. Gaffron expressed concern over the Saga Hill subdivision as the proposed 1 acre lots, not clustered, would not be able to preserve the woods. e there ADJOURNMENT onding :e prior 1 of the The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. itegrity iproach Dale Lindquist, Chair Person ►V-. ■ Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator August 14,1997 SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance Attachments; 1. Draft Outline ofTree Preservation Ordinance 2. City of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Rfirlcomund-Process of Ordinance Development The Park Commission has developed a general outline of a tree preservation ordinance and identified a number of issues to be addressed. The Council has referred the tree preservation ordinance to the Planning Commission to address issues identified by both the Park Commissi^ and the Council, and to provide a recommendation to the Council regarding the key elements to be included in a tree preservation ordinance A joint work session will then be held with the City Council to firm up the elements of an ordinance to enable staff to draft the orc^ance. A public hearing will then be held at the Planning Commission regarding the tree preservation ordinance and the ordinance will then be brought to the Council for final approval. Tree Preservation Issues/Outline , _ „ . 1. Definition of significant trees (see the city of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance) 2.When should the tree preservation ordinance apply? a. ) At the time of a subdivision b. ) At the time a parcel is initially developed c. ) As part of a commercial site plan review (particularly for commercial development along Highway 12) ... • j j j ♦ d. ) At the time an existing structure is expanded or an additional structure is added to a developed parcel. The city of Minnetonka ordinance indicates that tree removal on property with an existing home or principal structure will be exempt from the tree preservation requirements unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. Protection of existing trees on undeveloped property prior to development (discouraging tree removal in advance of a development proposal). u i j a.) Set a time period prior to development within which any trees removed mi^t be replaced. 1 ) If this is included, what should the time period be? The city of Minnetonka uses a two year time period. A longer time period may be beneficial. However, as the f ■ r i V Tree Preservation Ordinance Continued 4. 5. time period increases so does the difficulty of documenting and monitoring existing trees years in advance of a development. Reforestation - should the city go beyond protecting existing trees to requiring additional trees in non-forested areas? a. ) Commercial development. The city may want to include landscaping requirements as part of its commercial site plan review, particularly along Highway 12. b. ) Subdivisions. 1. The city's current subdivision ordinance enables the city to require some tree planting. The city may want to add specific landscaping requirements to its subdivision regulations. An important element running through the above issues is a balancing of the city's interest in preserving trees with the property owner's rights to use the property. r ; lifr' TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 16,1997 #2308 Lake Minnetonka Woods Brook Park Realty 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive Class III Subdivision, Preliminary Plat Planned Residential Development —Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Designation:Urban Residential (1/2 acre) Zoning Dbtrict:LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 a acre) Lot Area:9.9 total acres 2.2 acres wet 7.7 acres dry Proposed Density:3.03 units per acre Application:Brook Park Realty proposes the constiiiction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre site. A preliminary plat and planned residential development review are required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.26, LR-lC-1, One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistricts, Subd. 3 "...a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling units density." Section 10.32, PRD, Planned Residential Development Section 11.10, Subdivision Application Procedure, Approval Process, and Requirements # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—I r L ANALYSIS LR-lC-1 Zoning Requirements Lot Area Lot Width Front Rear Side Side/Street 1/2 acre* 50% density increase is 3 per acre 100 ’30 ’30 ’10 ’15' The proposed planned residential development is claiming the 50% increase in dwelling units, from 20 units to 30 units, based on the following conditions: a. b. c. public sanitary sewer is available; all dwelling units are attached but not more than four units to any one structure; maximum height does not exceed 30'; the lot is located beyond 100 feet of Lake Minnetonka and less than 35% of the land is proposed to be developed in impervious surface. e.A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit and are attached to the unit. Building size, location, vehicle ingress/egress must be approved by City Council. The proposed development includes 30 townhomes. Residents will purchase the dwelling unit and the land underneath the unit, the lots are eiher 20’ by 67' or 30' by 67', depending on whether they are end or interior units. Outlot A and B will be created to hold the open space in common ownership. A homeowner ’s association will be created. # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—2 r \ r PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The purpose of the planned residen’ il development (PRD) is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of city residents. The proposed development provides a type and style of housing that is generally not available in Orono. By clustering the townhomes in three rows, the proposal preserves wetlands. Trees on site outside of the construction area will be retained. PRD Standards Open Space The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. The developer shall provide developer's agreements that address ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces. This shall include covenants regarding prohibiting open space use for vehicle storage or accessory structures. The developer has provided a landscaping plan for the open space area which has been sent to the City's Landscape Architect consultant. The developer should also address how residents will be able to use their yards, specifically, gardens, patios, outdoor storage, etc. Dedication of Open Space The dedication and ownership of such open spaces shall be through a homeowner's assocation. The developer shall provide copies of all agreements regarding the homeowner ’s association. Site Plan The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of the proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer plans, open space for park and recreational purposes shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The developer has submitted a preliminary survey, utility and street plan, and tree removal/preservation survey. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are attached as an exhibit. The developer should be asked to respond to these issues. # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—3 Trees and Wetlands Healthy trees outside of the construction area and the delineated wetlands shall be preserv ed. The developer shall provide legal agreements regarding protection of the wetlands, including conservation, drainage and flowage easements. Neighborhood Compatibility The proposed development is architecturally compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The proposed massing and materials are appropriate for the site. The height of the development shall be less than 30' measured in accordance with the height definition in the Zoning Code. Landscaping A sufficient number of trees and landscaping shall be used to enhance the compatibility of the project area. Plant mateTals selected should include seasonal plantings such as evergreen shrubs and trees for winter livability. Visual or noise intrusion from vehicles and pedestrians should be minimized by the us<: of landscaping and screening. Public spaces, conunon areas, and private spaces should be clearly identified by the use of sidewalks and landscaping. The City's consultant is reviewing the landscaping plan. Access Vehicular access to the site shall be provided via an extension of Livingston Avenue. 18 units will have driveways off of the extension. The other 12 units will be served by a 22' driveway. Pedestrian access will be provided between units. The "front" of the units is opposite the garage side and will be accessible by sidewalks. Residents will typically access the units through the garage. The Planning Commission should consider whether there should be a trail or path from the end of the 22' private driveway to Shoreline Drive to provide a pedestrian path to the bus route and commercial uses. A trail or path could also be constructed to provide a secondary emergency access. A path would require trees to be removed and may have limited value as there is no sidewalk along Shoreline Drive in front of this parcel. The Planning Commission shall consider allowing the 18 units to be served by the temporary cul-de- sac on Livingston Avenue. The City standard is to not allow more than 10 units. The horizontal curve west of the cul-de-sac is 25 ft. less than the City standard. The proposed driveway for the 12 units on Block 3 do not meet City design standards. The Planning Commission should consider # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—4 whether it is t^propriate to require a cul-de-sac and a wider service road. Parking will not be allowed at the proposed width. The developer shall provide agreements and a letter of credit regarding installation of sidewalks, roads, and driveway. Easements Utility and drainage easements currently exist along Shoreline Drive. Hennepin County has requested 7 of right-of-way. Drainage, utility, and conservation and flowage easements are required as proposed on the preliminary plat. Staff recommends that the City should grant the additional 7' right-of-way to Hennepin Coimty along Shoreline Drive so that Hennepin County has the same easement as the telephone company. Trash Removal/Storage Refuse and recycling containers will be contained in the individual units. Lighting Lighting shall be hooded and directed downward away from residential windows. Outdoor Equipment Outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened and located away from windows. Snow Storage The developer shall provide a snow removal plan in addition or as part of the homeowner's association. PLAT REQUIREMENTS Every plat shall conform to existing zoning regulations and subdivision regulations at the time of the final plat. The development as proposed will not require any zoning variances and meets the density requirements for the LR-lC-1 district using the 50% density increase. The Planning Commission may recommend that all public improvements be installed and dedicated prior to signing the final plat. If the Planning Commission does not recommend that the improvements be made before the final plat, a letter of credit shall be posted in the amount determined by the City # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page —5 r EnKincer at 150% of the proposed improvements. Following preliminary plat approval, Ae developer may apply for a land alteration permit from the City to commence construction at the grades and elevations required by the approved plans. Park Dedication Fees acce STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. A sewer connection fee of $40,955. 2. A water connection fee of $4,020. 3. 4. 5. 6. Park dedication fee of 8% or $19,064. Legal agreements, including covenants regarding Outlets A and B, 7. 8. Legal agreements regarding the homeowner's association. Drainage, flowage and conservation, and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. Dedication of 7' of right-of-way to Hennepin County along Shoreline Drive. Review of the landscape plan and planting schedule by the City's Landscape Architect consu^tafvt. 9. 10. Coiitepi plan showing the future extension of Livingston Avenue to the west. A drainage area nu^, storm sewer and ponding calculations shall be provided with the final plat. 11.The pond outlet shall have a control structure to treat runoff prior to reaching the wetland. The invert of the 18" inlet pipe to the pond should be set at the NWL (938.0). Pond design # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page —6 I I shouM include a ten-foot wide bench with a maximum slope of 10:1 at the NWL to allow for the establishment of aquatic vegetation and to serve as a safety buffer. 12.Consideration shall be given to looping the water main by extending the line through the development and connecting to the existing 10-inch water main near Shoreline Drive. Service locations shall be shown on the final plami with sanitary sewer located 3 feet downstream from water services. 13. Resolution of the issues regarding access issues as noted in the C ity Engineer's memo dated October 14,1997. Attachments A B C D E F G H 1 J K Application Plat Map Development Summary Wetland Delineation Engineer's letter Engineer's letter Hennepin County letter Park dedication fee determination Sewer and Water Connection Fee Analysis Sketch Plan minutes Park Commission minutes NOTE: Blueprints are also enclosed with packet # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—7 Application # § Date Received ^--34, - ■9 7 Amount Paid 5 5V7 sd CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY COCATION Site addins *** Shoreline Drive, Orono, MN __________ Property Identification Number (PIP) 17-117-23-34-0005 thru5)009 Please check one - Property ____abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. (See narrative) APPLICANT Nam e Brook Park Realty, Irtrft (Bill Glea son) Address 8525 Edinbrook Crossing City Brooklyn Park, MN Phone (home) NA Zip 55445 Phone (work)6 12/424-8525 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Tonka Ventiirfie. LLC Address 200 Coon Rapids Blvd., #400 City Minneapolis, MN _______ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District _______Phone (home) NA Zip55433 Phone (work) NA ^555T NA 7.7 2.2 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) Vacant LR-lCl PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) X____ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 0______Existing Units 30_____New Units 30 Total Units . roposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per 1 Acres 11»123 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land X Residential Other (specify)________ 525 SEP-25-1997 12539 6RI a S12.493 4536 P.06^07 iv MINIMUM MATERIAL RSQUIRCD TOR COMPLtXt TRLLliONARY AFP1:JC:ATI6 i!L>' 1. Ptym«iu of fees (refer to *applieaiioofcn“U5icd below. 2. CeiiQleie4 epplisation fonsi 3. Prcliaiin«ry pfei iRfenneiian es CKiriricaie cf Sutvcv . 4. Cenkficd Property Owners 14Mof«t»B*riwi(hi0 3$(r()>eumu»rebf»aithUUa from Reenepin County Dapw^neni of Fioanet A.603 Oovi. Center 341*3271). 5. As Ml eddendem 10 ihis «pplica^ail. please onaeb a sepsrstc list of any other perioo* you wuh notified of this appliceiien. Zentni Offieiars Sipiatuic______ — ■ , , , • MINIMUM PUTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FLN’aL ATPUCATION 1. Payment of fees (tefer to Preliminary Subdivision Approve] resolutioB «td park fees If appletbk). 2. SjjpodCertifieataof Surveyor mylar copies of formal plit. 3. Title opinion. 4. Casemeots, covenants, cte, 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit, Zooing OITfeiars Signaure „ ------- -------------- ]. ATFXJCAtlON FEES (Zenins Adminiseravor to check (X] those which apply) A. ApplicatloQ Rase Teas: Skcicb Plan Review (Class 1. B A Ul) S2504J0 _____Sobdivision cf a Lot Line JUartanfemmt 1350.00 Subdivision AppUeaiien (Class 1A U) S350.00 ” Ptelimlnafy Sob^ision Application 5375.00 525 00/Iot (Class III L til Bon-resldemial) Final Flat Application (Cl»s iU) KW 00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only S7si)0 Subdivision w/easements a»«d cov«,n*pa fnla. S200.00 X FfrlcFacs (m be dcicnnined per Section 11 -62) Lctfil and Engineering Review Fees (a» incuned) Renewal of Claas 1 end 11 Svbdivislon Applicaiion S200.^ eht from erigintl application) Renewal of Class III. Preliminory Subdivision Applinrton 5200.00 (No change from orismeIap?liM‘wn) Rmmval of Final CUis III Suhdivisiofi Application SI 50.00 (No change fiom original applicauon) B. Spe ?'al Improvemeni Fees Proposed Private Roads MOO 00 * J.50/llnea1 ft.; lu>- ft. * .50 * S_ _ K Proposed Public Reads 5900 00 ♦ $.50/lin»il ft; l>f ft ^ -30 • ^ Reousat fer City to Accept Existing Private ftoad SOOOXO X Preposad Sanitary Sfwe r adain Ealensio** 5350.00 •• 525/siub X proposed tt/aiermainEwnstonS250-00'V 52 S/stub X PfoposMi Storm Sewer ^sum (excluding ei:Ivcru)S200.00 On-Site System. She EvaluaHon Ruview (applicable to niral subdivision ipplkarlons) $50.00^ kxx new IMS C. nesible Applicatloo Fees/Misc. Fees _____Variance S320.00 (550.00 per cadi addhioBal variance) Eajajnent Vacation Associated with Subdivision S100.00 y ^ PRD ApplicaUon with Subdivision $30,00/Dwelling.Unit Xscak V174Q0 112Z.50 ■IQflOJlO JilQQJlO 700,00 900.00 5347.50 I»r 2^ -97Owner's Signature' Applicant must have {ll submliwh into ihe Cuy Office 25 days befpn the n«nmg Cooum>slgo oceiiog. place and to advise the Building A Zoning Office of *'» change pri«- to the meeting. Z d 62902S!9S8-OM/8e:21 Z6.50'60 (HHl)dnoHo 3H moo ao woai .Vi:.*"• • ^ g•_i__*.« / fY:y *. f V f Submitted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5555323-0066 Brook Park Realty, LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Prepared by: WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC, September 25,1997 Lake Minnetonka Woods „ - PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Ref. No. 97729 Elk River, Minnesota PROJECT SUMMARY PWO.fECT NAME Lake Minnetonka Woods LOCATION , . . u u 1C West off the terminus of Livingston Avenue, and north of County Highway 15 OWNER Tonka Venture, L.L.C. 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55433-5894 developer /applicant Brook Park Realty, LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Contact: Bill Gleason (612)424-8525 SITE PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING. ENVIRONMENT^ Westwood Professional Service, Inc. 14180 West Highway 5, Suite 220 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Contact: EdHasek (612)937-5150 ! f nEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Guide Plan: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: LR-lCl Undeveloped LA-2 (Residential) LR-lCl Townhomes PROJECT NARRATIVE LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. PROPOSEO DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Total Site Area: 9.9 acres Total Units Proposed: Gross Density: Total Wetlands (2): Net Upland Development Area: Net Density: 30 Townhome Units 3.0 units/acre 2.2 acres 7.7 acres 3.9 units/acre PRO.IECT PHASING It is the intent of the developer to begin construction of the project in early 1998, and be completed by the end of the 1999 construction season. REQUESTED ACTION The action requested is for approval to develop 30 attached townhome units as a PRD within the existing LR-lC-1 zoning district guidelines and the subdivision regulations of the City of Orono. PROJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS The 9.9 acre site can be generally characterized as upland mixed oak/maple/basswood woodlands to the north, and wetlands to the south. The two separate wetlands total 2.2 acres in area. The southern wetland is a DNR protected cattail marsh. The northern wetland was identified on site as a forested wetland which was probably connected to the larger wetland area in the past. The remaining developable area of the property (approximately the northern 2/3) totals 7.7 acres and lies beyond the shoreland impact area of three bays of Lake Minnetonka. ABUTTING LAND USES Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north and beyond the Burlington Northern rail line; duplex residential development to the east; church property across Highway 15 to the south; and an excavation/landscape operation to the west. Slightly further to the west are commercial developments and a Hennipen County maintenance facility. ACCESS Access to the property will come via the extension of Livingston Avenue from the east Thought the entire southern boundary of the site abuts Highway 1 5, existing wetlands .^nd sight distance preclude access from this collector roadway. SOILS/SLOPES Upland soils generally consist of loam and coarse loam of the Hayden soils series (0 - 24% slopes). These soils are generally acceptable for the types of development being PROJECT NAR R A T I V E________________________________ LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. proposed. A large area of the northeast comer of the property has been disturbed by past cut and fill operations. The larger wetland area to the south is classified as marsh in the county soils survey. An old driveway which once crossed this marsh has been largely reclaimed as wetland. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This proposal is for the development of 30 attached townhome units on 9.9 acres of property which can be generally characterized as wood and rolling with significant wetland areas. The living units have been chosen, and the project has been designed and laid out to respond to the character and amenities found on the site. All living units are tuck-under in design, with garages on the lower level, and the main guest entry around and to the front of the building. This unique design will allow significant areas of the wooded portions of the site to be preserved, and provides the opportunity to tuck the structures into existing slopes to further reduce grading impacts to the site. Given the extensive wetlands along Highway 15 to the south, the rail line to the north, and undeveloped property to the west, access to the site is left to a stub provide off Livingston Ave. through the multiple residential project to the east. Livingston Ave. has been designed to extend across the project and to the western property line. While the R.O.W. necessary to constmct the entire road will be dedicated at this time, it is not yet clear if this will ultimately be the best way to provide access to property to the west. In an effort to preserve as many trees and as much of the natural character of the site as possible, a cul-de-sac will be constmcted mid-way through the project providing an emergency and service vehicle turn around. A 22 foot private drive will access units to the south and along the wetland. This drive will have an inverted crown designed to collect and carry surface water run-off back through the storm sewer system and into the storm pond located on the western edge of the property. It is the intent of the developer of this project to preserve and protect the natural character of the site to the greatest degree possible through the use of custom designed units, quality construction and constmction management practices. LIVING UNITS As proposed, the townhomes are a Victorian Seaboard style unit with two bedrooms, two baths, two decks, and a double garage. The units are designed as tuck-unders, with the main entry to the rear. The gradual slopping terrain of the site allows the majority of the units to fit naturally into the site. The unique design of the units, with height windows to the front and rear, will provide for extraordinary views. The non wooded areas of the site will be sodded and landscaped to include an in ground irrigation system. The structures are designed to be maintenance with vinyl siding, and windows, and aluminum soffits and facia. The units will be priced to include central air, kitchen appliances, and garage door openers. PROJECT NARRATIVE _______________ LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC. BUILPEB Eagle Crest has been designing and developing town home communities for the past four years From our custom two stories to our single level Town homes. Eagle Crest’s exciting Town home communities are specially designed for that carefree lifestyle. Security and privacy added to the overall peace of mind. Our professional staff not only designs each individual community to be compatible with project location, but also to enhance the entire community. two PROJECT NARRATIVE r Drawings 1 of7- 2of7- 3of7- 4of7- 5of7- 6of7- 7of7- Cover Page Boundary Survey Existing Cond./Tree Removal Preliminary Plat Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Grading Plan Preliminary Utility Plan r Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 24,1997 t4180Wt$tHighw*yS Eden Ffiifif. MN 5S344 Mr. Jim Hafocr Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Phom: (12 nrSISO Fit; 612-937-S822 Toll Ftm 1-888-937-SISO Em^il; twpsQwciCwoodpvcoffl Ref: 97648 Request for Written Wetland Boundary Confirmation for Wetland Delineation of Lake Minnetonka Woods Property, Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, SE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 17, T117N, R23W, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hafher; I am writing to request written confirmation from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that the wetland boundaries delineated for the above referenced site are acceptable for local administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. The following text and attached data forms provide the required documentation for the delineation. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY Wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field by Wesuvood Professional Services on August 11,1997 using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station. 1987). This manual is currently followed to delineate wetlands regulated under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The level two routine delineation method was used in which sampling transects were established in a representative transition zone of each identified wetland. Transects consisted of one sampling point in obvious upland and one in obrious wetland. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology information were recorded at each point on data forms. Species dominance for vegetation measurements was based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for the tree and shnib layers and a five-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Prior to delineating the wetland boundaries in the field. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, the Soil Surrey of Hennepin County. Minnesota (USDA. 1974), and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Mapping (1981) were reviewed. The soil survey shows the southern and western portions of the property mapped as Marsh with the remainder being Hayden loam and Cut and Fill Und. The NWI map shows two PEMF (Palustrine emergent, semipermanently flooded) wetlands m the southern portion of the site within the area designated as Marsh on the soil survey. The DNR Protected Wetlands Map for Hennepin County shows Protected Wetland 27-914W on the southern half of the property roughly corresponding to the NWI-mapped wxtlands. Wetland areas were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rirciilar 39: Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cnwardin et. al. 1979). Throughout the remainder of this report, wetland areas are identified first by their Circular 39 Classifications. Cowardin Classifications are included in r , y. Mr, Jim Hafner September 24,1997 Page 2 parentheses and written out only the first time they are cited. Common names for vegetation identified in this report and on the attached data sheets correspond with the nomenclature used m the National list of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North Central (Region 3) (USFWS, Reed, 1983). RESULTS Wetland Descriptions The site contains 2 isolated wetlands that are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. In addition, the larger wetland at the south end of the parcel is a designated DNR Protected Wetland and is subject to DNR regulation below the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The remainder of the site is deciduous woodland consisting of sugar maple, American basswood, scattered oaks, eastern cottonwood and a large number of conunon buckthorn shrubs. Basin A is a Type 7 wooded swamp PF05C (Palustrine forested, dead, seasonally flooded) wetland in the northwest comer of the property. The basin appears to have been isolated from past disturbrace. I observed mounds of soil surrounding the basin, a pioneer plant community on recently disturbed soils located on the west side of the basin, and soil mapping that shows the entire northwest comer of the property as marsh. Dominant plant species observed in the wetland include purple loosestrife, spotted touch-m^not. reed canary grass, water plantain, and bittersweet nightshade as well as dead elm and ash trees. The northern, western, and southern boundaries of the basin are bordered by deciduous woodland consisting of species such as common buckthorn, thicket creeper, box elder, wild grapevine, garlic mustard, bedstraw w^ violet, white ash. poison ivy. enchanter ’s nightshade, and hog peanut. The western boundary is bordered by disturbed, open field of primanly pioneer, weedy plant species including sow thistle, curly dock, Canada thistle, horsetail. Canada goldenrod, aster, common mullein, yellow sweetclover, yellow wood sorrel, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, common dandelion, quackgrass, common plantain, common ragweed, leafy spurge, giant goldenrod, red clover, and bull thistle. Soils and hydrology information above and below the wetland boundary were recorded for one representative transect in the northeast comer of the basin and can be found on the attached data fomi for Basin A. The delineated edge primarily follows an abrupt change in topography and a transition in plant communities as described above.I ^ Basin B is a Type 3 shallow marsh PEMIF (Palustrine emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded) wetland occupying most of the southern half of the property. Vegetation observed in the wetland includes purple loosestrife, narrow-leaved cattail, sedge, willow, spotted touch-me-not, clearweed. reed canary grass. American elder, red-osier dogwood sensitive fern, green ash. green bulrush, giant goldenrod, boneset. broad-leaved cattail, water parsnip, and giant ragweed. A dirt trail partially bisects the center of the wetland and an additional dirt trail runs along a portion of the north edge. The slope up to County Highway 15 forms the southern boundary. The rernainder of t e wetland is bordered by deciduous woodland consisting of species including common buckthorn thicket creeper, hog peanut, ash. wild grapevine, poison ivy, sugar maple. Amencan elm, box elder, garlic Westwood Professional Services. Inc.W Mr. Jim Hafner September 24,1997 Page 3 mustard, wood violet, staghorn sumac, American basswood, bedstraw, honeysuckle, currant, red oak, lopseed, enchanter’s nightshade, bluegr-^ss, and creeping b-Uflower. Soils and hydrology information above and below the wetland boundary were recorded for one representative transect along the northern border of the basin and can be found on the attached data form for Basin B. The wetland boundary primarily follows a change in topography and a change from reed canary grass, willow, and purple loosestrife in the wetland to deciduous woodland on the adjacent upland. CONCLUSIONS The wetland boundary staked in the field for Basin B generally corresponds to NWI mapping, however. Basin A does not show up on the NWI map. Both basins occur within the same mapped hydric soil area (marsh). The OHWL for Basin B (DNR Protected Water 914W) has not been set by the DNR, but the DNR lists the basin as a 2.5 acre Type 3 wetland with a 100 year flood elevation of 935.5 and a 10 year flood elevation of 934.8. The wetland boundaries were marked using pink “wetland delineation” pin flags. All flags were located by professional surveyors and are recorded on the attached Existing Conditions Map. Approximate transect sampling points are recorded on the map as well. Note that preliminary site plans do not involve wetland encroachment. Please call me at 937-5150 if you have any questions regarding this delineation. Otherwise please send the requested written confirmation that the wetland boundaries delineated for this site are acceptable (for local administration of the Minr.esota Wetland Conservation Act) to my attention at Westwood Professional Services. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Ken Powell Enrironmental Scientist Enclosure. cc: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Bill Gleason, Brook Park Realty, LLP., 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Fran Hagan, Westwood Professional Services, Buffalo Office c ^ osx\jmHrumtn s eiud ti»i m ajwMioooio«owf> Westwood Professional Services, Inc.W Pr0j6Ct/Sit6I LV7 jr r * / > »*— ■ - ■ - — — - ■ Applicant/Owner.______}^troai< ——71---------j lnvestlgator{s): WestwMd Profess^nai services, Inc. - ---- Number of Flags:----- ^Westwood Professional Services, Inc. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION METHOD ^mhy hls^ state: MN %ofDomi^ttFACor Wtter: j^3 I SAMPLE POINT- \A/eJ' ^ 11 i Cj^i d to^i^ HYDROLOGY lF|el£OtoenratioM ■"V-• Sample ID:I Sample ID: Depth to Free Water. Wetland Hydrology Indlcatora^jnsert^amj^^ Primary Indicators Secondary Indica tors (2 Reg.) Depth to Free Water. O in- 1 Depth to Saturated Soil: in. Depth to Saturated Soil: p • - Does the AreajiaveWetlani^|^drolog^ Yes y_____ ---------- in. I \/ Inundat^ / Saturated S 12* Water Marks Drift Lines Assumed (Explain): ^xM^ac^ j Sediment Deposits Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves y Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other-Explain: y Drainage Patterns SAMPLE POINT- t/jd II :Fleld Obseivadona ------ -- - i waMahri Hvdroinav Indicators (Insert SampleiP)^ ■ , - n— ___Ci»rnpf//flrv Indicators (2 Rea.) Sample ID:1 Depth to Free Water — »n. Depth to Saturated Soil: —• in. Sample ID: Depth to Free Water. Depth to Saturated Soil: in. in. Primary Indicators ^---^^75------------- No__vZ-------- Assumed (Explain): Inundated Saturated i 12 ” Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators (2 Peg.) Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other - Explain: Ref. 3SU CJUt or5 (2 K>t Channels ed Leaves lurvey Data iITest >Iatn: tfors (2 Reg.) Loot Channels ned Leaves Survey Data ralTest iplain: UsoJc Westwood Professional Services, Inc. SAMPLE POINT- \/J^4- SOILS JTaxture.Concrotlons, S»mpl0 U): _L Location: o, * ielou/ — - — — — — w m W w ^ -C1=H A kjvk •?//1 d v/e s/i /<? Vrt h' /a.lOV/i 6// Hydric Soil Indicators Histisol y/ Concretions or mottling Reducing Conditions . Histic Epipcdon Gleycd or Low-Chroma Colors Aquic Moisture Regime ^ulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils . On National Hydric Soils List On Local Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil?y Yes No Remarks; SAMPLE POINT - U ’Matrbc Color (Munstll;^C ' Mottto Colors r' (Muhaell Moliat)^ : 'ipLvl'SMottlo TAbundanM/Cdhtr^st^ L^Toxturo;Cohcrati6hs,7 •V^'‘Strtir<tero,o^^^ 1 Sa/npfo ID: j_Location: /i-£A to A//—— /-3iW K lO iR h/x -------___•S^t^o/y tcot^ 1 Hydric Soli Indicators 1 Histisol Concretions or mottlina Reducing Conditions - Histic Eoioedon _Glcved or Low-Chroma Colors A quic Moisture Regime - SulftdicOdor _ Oraanic Streakina in Sandy Soils High Ora* in Surface in Sandv Soils ^ On National Hydric Soils List _ On Local Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 Hydric Soli?Yes ^/ No — 1 Remarks: | WETLAND DETERMINATION SAMPLE POINT- Wx,-f- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?v' Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?_ Yes*No Wetland Hydrology Present?>/ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Hydric Soils Present?/ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No /s the area a wetland?\/ Yes No Remarks: i * Has the area been altered sufficiently to render the presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? SAMPLE POINT- ✓ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes ^ No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes y No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Hydric Soils Present?Yes y No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Is the area a wetland?Yes y No Remarks: * Has the area been altered sufficiently to render the presence of Hydrophyte Vegetation, Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? COMMUNITY SUMMARY ^sampiepoin?: •iu/^ Overall Community Type Overall Community Type £^e<te/uouf uJo^eHoyyei Lilfi'Jf Overall Vegetation dyn } a<U /Overall Vegetation &UcU¥i>orri Imfli 1 la\r Mapped Soil Type(s)Mapped Soil Type(s) Revised 0Sm97 es, Inc. irations. indy Soils 0 ndy Soils ) pllcable? plicable? ' Lik J^ !A Westwood Professional Services. Inc. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION METHOD ^ Project/Site:L-afc^ M Date: Applicant/Owner County: InvesOgator(s):Westwood Professional Services, Inc. - <^1 /State:^LN BasIn/Area ID:Number of Flags: VEGETATION ruim- vuei ^Common ScUntIfIcNunB ^5 -.irStratum ..%’Covorc Ind. Status iTit __tL___oul /air/< dtp //.^ASfikyL 1 1 % of Dominants FAC or wetter: )Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- (ksminon Namr3i«ir- .\ • i- 'Sc/onWfcNamo -V..Stratum JK Cover Ind. Status;! /-Kia-a^g-K xidsiLtii i»J iWm trvyg^fi 1i€\ fcy/T.a % of Dominants FAC or wetter: / 7 ~r~-*/1* Ar.fi 7 PAr.-^ ■x/n I f=Vf c> — Remarks: SAMPLE POINT HYDROLOGY iFleldObsenrations Sample ID’ j Depth to Free Water m. Depth to Saturated Soil: ^ in. Sample ID: Depth to Free Water Depth to Saturated Soil:in. WellrndJJ^drolog^jndi^^ Primary Indicators in. / Inundated ^rpoos the Area haw Wotland Hydrology? No Assumed (Explain): SAMPLE POINT- \JP ^ Saturated S 12” Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators (2 Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves ^ Local Soil Survey Data ___ FAC-Neutral Test Other-Explain: I Hold Oba«rviHon>»n:.i~.-g.‘i=.- Samplv ID: Depth to Free Water; — in. Depth to Saturated Soil: ---- in. Sample ID: Depth to Free Water; Depth to Saturated Soil: in. in. Assumed (Explain): Primary Indicators Inundated Saturated:! 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators (2 Reg.) Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other - Explain: 108/7/97 Ref. ,/ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No J Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?No v/ Yes ■ No Does an Atypical Situation Exist? Yes* No \/ Yes No Remarks:t \/ / ■'S Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderhk and Assoc/ates. tnc. ts an Affirmative Actiori/^Bqual Ojpporrt^/fy Employer Principals Otto G Bonesiroo P£ • Joseph C nnderlik, P£ • Marvin L Sorvdla. PE. • RiCh.'fo 6 Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • Robert W Rcsene. PE and Susan M Eoerfin. C PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A IA • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael Rautmann, PE. • Ted K Field PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE. R S • Robert F Koismiih Offices St. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wi if i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects August 5, 1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Brook Park Realty File No. 139-2263 Dear Mike, Our previous letter of July 16 did not mention the fact that a portion of the wetland area on site is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, designated at basin 27-914W. DNR wetlands are regulated at the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The OHWL is an elevation determined in the field by the location of certain wetland features. It is likely that additional wetland areas exist around the fringe of the OHWL, at higher elevations. These wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conser/ation Act (WCA) and Corps of Engineers. The DNR does not allow the impact of wetland areas under their jurisdiction for development purposes. If the development proceeds, the DNR should be asked to determine the OHWL of the wetland The proposed roadway will need to be realigned if any portion encroaches below the OHWL. In addition, a formal wetland delineation should be conducted on the property to determine the extent of the WCA wetlands. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC, & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Mr. Greg Gappa, City of Orono 1 r--#o» t nr*/^/%w nanif pvairv IIP 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 tunny Employer in, RE. . le. PE. • 50n. PE • »E. • O'IT-15-1997 13:05 FROM HENM CTi' PLIBLIC UORKS TO 94730510 P.02 Hennepin County__________________JL An g<TuaI Oppoet uaic» tm plcytr sntial ilock in a rough ewer M Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren October 15,1997 Cin* of Orono 27^0 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Plat - Lake Minnetonka Woods Section 17, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2431 Review and Recommendations Dear Ms. Van Zomeren: 505.02 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abuttin? county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the fc»llowing comments: • J^! should dedicate an ^ditiorial seven teet of right of way along CSAH 15 for a total of 40 trorn centerline. Bdsed upon Hennepin s bikeway pl^in nnd/or <inv future roadway improvements, this action w*Ul accommodate utilities, snow storai^e* signage or other appropriate public uses. (Sec attached t>pical section) " r j- • The proposal indicates no access to CSAH 15 and none can be permitted. • Thanks for the timely submittal on this proposal. We at Hennepin County appreciate being included early in these activiucs to be sure all issues are appropriately addressed. • All proposed construction within county right of w^y requires an approve 1 Hennepin County permit prior to begmnm® construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for tlie appropnaie permit lorms. • The dev’eloper must restore all areas, within the county light of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, w'e request that the City' Clerk inform us of the Citv Council’s action on the right or way ana access provisions. Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DK2/jrh cc: PeteTulkki Dave Swenson Dtptxtxnent of Pubfic Worics 320 Waihmgion Avenue .5outh Hopkins. Miitiesou 55343-3496 (612)930-2500 F.\X:(612)93Q-’513 TDD:(612)9J9.2696 SitCJCi9dP9p9 To;File #2263 VED il997 From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator August 5,1997 Sewer & Water Connection Fees Analysis #2263 Brook Park Realty - 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD Proposal Legal Description: Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Townsite of Langdon Park Parcel Identification: Lot/Block West 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 East 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 North 2/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 South 1/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 ms 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0006 17-117-23 34 0007 17-117-23 34 0008 Plat/Parcel 42420 - 4300 42420 - 4350 42420 - 4410 42420 - 4420 I. Basis for Review: Although sewer (1963) and water (1970) were previously assessed to ibis property to 5 me extent, the assessed-for facilities do not provide readily accessible service to the rear of the property where development will occur. However, easily accessible sewer and water lines were constructed in 1982 as part of the Schlee Builders twinhome project. The Brook Park property was assessed an area sewer truiA charge for this 1982 project (as did all properties in the defined trunk service area), but no unit, bypass, plant or lateral charges. Per Council Resolution #1412 adopted September 13,1982, 1982 facilities were intended to serve the development on the Brook Park properties and it is reasonable that Brook Park pay the current (1997) sewer and water connection charges lor the 1982 facilities, less credit for the 'current value’ of assessments paid for the portions of the 1963 and 1970 projects that will not be used. n. Summary of Connection Charges Due (Based on a 30-unit development) Sewer: Water: Total: $40,995. 4.020. $45,015. Note: The property was assessed for road impro^'ements in 1982, for the portions of Livingston Avenue which will serve the property, per Resolution #’ -12. The property was not assessed for storm sewer constructed in that 1982 project, and will only be required to pay a storm sewer connection charge if it makes use of that system. Following k an analysis of the sewer and water connection charges. Page 1 of 4 r r r I i lU.Sewer Connection Charge Analysb 1963 Sewer Assessment: 1. Trunk Sewer TS 63-lB (Levy #3302) Assessed at $110.00 per acre Plat/Parcel Al£a 42420-4300: 2.36 ac 42420-4350: - 42420-4410 1.51 ac 42420-4420 3.59 ac 7.46 ac Total Assessed $ 259.60 166.10 394.90 $ 820.60 (Note: This assessment was for the main sewer trunk in County Roads 19 and 51 which serves the entire southwest portion of the City) 2. Lateral sewer LS-63-1B (Levy # 3307) Assessed at $8.00 per front foot Plat/Parcel 42420-4300 42420-4350 42420-4410 42420-4420 Footage 132.0' Total assessed $ 1,056.00 50.0'400.00 182.0' $ 1,456.00 Total Assessment for 1963 Sewer = $820.60 + $1,456.00 $2,276.60 Current Value for 1963 Sewer Lateral per 1997 Fee Schedule: $37.20/front foot 1963 Sewer Current Value: 182.0' x $37.20 = $ 6,770.40 “ Total Creditable Value 1982 Sewer Assessments: Original Project Assessments Amounts: Trunk Area Charge (82-IB, Levy # 9086): $2,000.00 per acre Trunk Unit Charge (82-1 A, Levy # 9085): $ 760.00 per unit Trunk Bypass Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $ 150.00 per unit Sewer Lateral Charge (82-lA, Levy #9085): $1,851.82 per unit Actual Assessed Amounts: PINS# 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0006 17-117-23 34 0007 17-117-23 34 0008 Trunk Area Trunk Unit Bypass Lateral 1.34 ac = $2,680.-0--0-NA 1.43 ac= 2,860.-0--0-NA -0--0--0-NA 3.13 ac= 6260. 5.90 ac = $11,800. -0--0-NA Page 2 of 4 Development of the subject property is not responsible for the 1982 Sewer Lateral Charge, since the cost of the laterals constructed in 1982 was spread over the properties they directly served. The Trunk Unit charge of $760. per unit has inflated to $1,095. per unit in the 1997 fee schedule and is due for this new development, as is the $150. per unit Bypass charge. Also, because the proposed development density uses credit for the wetland area (allowable because it is sewered property), an incremental Trunk Area charge of ± 9.8 ac- 5.9 ac= 3.6 acres should be charged at an inflated 1997 rate of (1095/760)x $2,000 ® $2,882. per acre, or a total of $10,375. Sev er Connection Charges Summary (Sample calculation based on 30 units) Trunk Unit & Bypass: $1,095. + $150. = $1,245. per unit x 30 units = Trunk Area: $2,882./acre x 3.6 acres = Less credit for LS>63*1B lateral sewer Total sewer Connection Charges Due $37,350. 10.375. $47,725. ( 6.77Q.’i $40,955. IV. Water Connection Charge Analysis 1970 Water Assessment: Project 1970 LW-1 (Levy # 5383) Original Project Asessment /jnounts: 1970 Property Assessment: Item Parce Assessed footage; Assessed units: Footage amount: Units amount: $580.00 per residential unit $870.00 per conunercial unit $ 5.80 per residential front foot $ 8.70 per commercial front foot 4300 4350 4410 4420 132.00’ 5 comm ’l 132.00' 5 comm'l 264.00’ 3 comm'l 7 comm'l $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 225.00 $ 2,296.80 $2,610.00 $ 225.00 $ 6,090.00 $ 5,498.40 $ 5,723.40 $5,131.80 $ 6,090.00Total assessed by parcel Total 1970 Water Assessment: $ 22,443.60 Note that the value of commercial units was 1.5 times the value of residential units, so the 20 total commercial units assessed is equal to 30 residential units. Therefore, if tlie water system in Shoreline Drive is used, there will be no water connection charge since the property has been fully assessed for 30 residential units. Page 3 of 4 r 1970 LW-1 Water Current Value (per 1997 fee schedule): 30 residential units x $2,039.00 per residential unit = $61,170.00 528 fix>nt feet x $ 20.35 per front foot “ 10.744.80 $71,914.80 1982-1A Navarro Water Project Original Charge (1982): $1,566.51 per unit (Subjectproperty was not assessed for 1982 water project) Current Charge (per 1997 fee schedule): 1982-1A Navarro Water connection charge: $ 2,173.00 per unit Sample Water Connection Charge Calculation (If Navarro Water is Used): 30 units x$ 2,173.00 per unit = $65,190.00 Credit for J970 units paid = 61.170.00 Due for water units $ 4,020.00 Since the lateral system in Co. Rd. 15 provides value to the property for fire protection, etc., no credit for the 1970 lateral charge is granted. Water Connection Charge Due (Based on a 30 unit development) ~ $4)020. Page 4 of 4 J r 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ROLL T^e Orono Pjaimng Commission met on the above date with the following members present- SiU» wm^'st^d Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, md LiliMcMillan. William Stoddard was absent, -the following represented the City Staff: Assistant WsZfr Mj'hael GaRron. Public Services Director Greg Oappa, City present. Vice Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Sh'it^f® discussion of SKETCH PLAN (#23) #2263 BROOK PARK REALTY 3560-3700 SHORELINE DRIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW S:s“Sr“ °fEagle Gaffton retried that the 9.8078 acre property is located west of the twin homes in Navaire t Si: ““'‘i:”** ” ^^^n the n r of"’' « « g^vel and landscaping- IS non-confoimmg m its use. The subject propeily is located in the LR^I Th *ir^”n' L^eshore ResidenUal Zoning District. The LR-IC allows for two units per aoe I^uldl f“ 'o ' P“ -ntc prolred rvlTm^' northwest R^ffdm- '’“i'“li,"®' "* ""'“ds located to the front of the property and theorthwest. Runoff drains to the south into Carman ’s Bay from Casco Point to the east The concept plan results in a development density of 4.6 units pet acre. Per the zoning requirements the 9.8 acre property would allow for 29 units where 45 arTproposed. f'9we>n™ts, SuMMsiOT^dm d-' 'PP'J'development plan. Section 1 0.30 11m : ai LR mTTk ® PBD because the site isadjKent to an LR d stnet. M-6 is the only zoning district which would allow densities such as ""'r '"i” f” »'<l»ds fordensirpurposes for sewered residential property. Section 10.60 Subdivision 2 disallows densiw in Sable miSr? °"h "f"' »f dty r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes for JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) sewermd water rani^ iOT ^ requite confitmaUon and may require some restoration There ul^Scr^r fmatS) in the LR-IC District. A letter is included from the City s:ris"a^— “t“t “ui"o set The applicants were asked to comment. Bill Gleason indicated that they had been unaware of the limitations on the proper^ j* t tr, thp t R District It is their plan to develop affordable housing through higher ty. A "of the development plan is laid out on neighboring property no. 7'' “^tetll'T^l ttiis proposal. He noted there is a driveway currently crossing over wetlands. The wetl be preserved. Entry into the property would be from Livingston Avenue. Gleason said his goal is to provide a lower unit cost through higher density. He pro[»ses a imt would cost about*$135,000 or less if the 48 unit density was allowed. G'«“on Mid *ey woul redo die plan if die 48 uni. plan was not allowed. Each uni. wdl baduooms. a double garage, central air conditioning, and applian«s ^There will be a front entty with garage entry on the other side. There will be four units pet building. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicant had reviewed the letter from the City Engineer. Gleason saidjie had no issue with the contents of the letter. He said he thought the driveway may be a probl . Tohn Gleason asked what would be involved with restoration. Gaffron said it would likely include reexcavation and revegetation. Gaffron said the driveway has been a st^dmg i on property being developed and needs to be resolved. He felt it was resolvable. Hawn asked what the cos. figures are for affordable housing, ^ ^ affordable range is a $120,000 valuation, which results m the estimated $135,000 cost per affordable criteria. More density would be required to reduce Ute cost. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETmG MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 • #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Berg indicated that the land value attributes to the cost. She felt the proposal was too high density. Smith said the plans are an improvement over what is on the property now but saw a problem with resolving the density issue. Hawn questioned whether the same size units would limit the type of residents who would purchase the property. She asked whether the developer has considered building some units bigger to allow for more of a mix of residents. Bill Gleason said the main issue was with keeping costs down. They are gearing their development to young couples or singles. They originally considered providing housing for empty nesters but there is not enough room for one level housing. The acreage would only allow for 16 one-level units, and Gleason felt empty nesters would desire a housing cost less than $130,000. Berg asked if the interior units in the building would be smaller. The applicants said they were all the same size at just under 1500 s.f. finished. Berg asked what market analysis the developer has done to determine who their buyers would be. Bill Gleason said he thought $150,000 per unit would be too high for townhome buyers. He acknowledged that land costs were high but felt the street and infrastructure costs were the main concern. Berg inquired what the development cost per unit would be. John Gleason said it would be about $30,000 with the lot. He noted that access to the property would be through an existing neighborhood which sets the tempo for the housing. Gleason said the homes would have maintenance free siding. He also indicated that an association would be formed. The entry cost would be $120,000 with options available that would increase the cost. The homes would include a set package. Gleason said building two level townhomes is more affordable. Bill Gleason said the unit development cost would be about $15,000 to $16,000 not including the land. Berg noted that the cost would increase for the premium lots. McMillan questioned the road access to CoRd 15. Gaffron said it is shown in concept only if the adjacent property is similarly developed in the future. (Schroeder arrived at this time.) r ORONO PLANNING COlVBVnSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23- #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) McMillan asked about guest parking. Bill Gleason said each unit would have room for two cars in the garage and two cars in front of the units. There will be room elsewhere for parking and a public road going through the development. Green spaces will be provided. Hawn asked if it was impossible to rezone the area. Hawn indicated that the property is the last area available for affordable housing. The proposal is way over the density that can be allowed but Hawn said she favors the effort. Bill Gleason reiterated that they misunderstood the zoning. Gaffron said any higher density would require rezoning. He informed the Commissioners that in order to allow more than three units per acre, a new zone would have to be created. Hawn asked if there were any other area where low cost housing could be built. Gaffron said he did not think so, this is the only area zoned for multiple family in Navarre. Hawn said she would like to pursue rezoning of this property. Berg said she would consider reviewing it but not for the number of units as proposed. McMillan agreed with Berg. Berg said she understood the concern but felt the number proposed was too dense. Smith agreed with Berg. McMillan noted that any density between 29 and 45 units would still require rezoning. Gaffron said this would require changing the LR-lC-1 zone standards or creating a new zone which takes time. Smith also indicated that the unit price would not necessarily come down much in cost. Smith said she overall supports the proposal but does not favor rezoning to the extent needed for the density requested. She said the other issues are probably solvable. Berg said she liked the look of the proposal. John Gleason said they would try to maintain the price. He asked what the time frame was for rezoning. Gaffron said the Council would likely want to review all of Navarre on a comprehensive level and estimated a minimum of six months. John Gleason asked if the Commission thought the proposal with less density was favorable. Berg concurred noting the desire for affordable housing while still meeting the benchmark density. Gleason asked how they could come up with a density level. Smith informed him that any density level over 28 or 29 units would require rezoning. Gaffron reiterated that density over 28 units would require at least six months for review of the zoning. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23- #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Bill Gleason asked how the determination of 28 units was made. Gaffron said it was determined by the dry buildable and would result in 28-30 units. Berg said the applicant also has to consider the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal will increase the traffic which has to be considered. She noted that the addition of the adjacent parcel would result in the County reviewing the traffic as well. McMillan indicated that with no codo allowing density over 28 units, the density level cannot be determined at this point. id Bill Gleason said they could review and re-tool the plan if rezoning was a possibility. Gaffron said if the Commission w ould like to consider rezoning, the Council should review the sketch plan first to see if they support the idea of rezoning. John Gleason clarified the water and sewer connection charge of $3800 per unit. Gaffron said density level would not change the unit cost. (Dale Lindquist arrived at this time.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:12-7:24 P.M. The Applicant. Robin Helgager, along witli Neil Heupel. were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a continuation of a public hearing for remodeling of the residence. The applicant received approval for a 5’ east lot line setback in 1996 and removal of the existing detached garage and addition of an attached garage, a family room, and a change in the driveway. A revised proposal was reviewed early in 1997. Gaffron indicated that the property requires a 50' setback from CoRd 6, 150’ setback from Lake Classen, a 30' side setback, all of which leaves little room for expansion of the footprint. The lakeshore setback requirement has increased since the original residence was built. minutes of the regular orono park commission meeting held on OCTOBER 6,1997 Beal said he is concerned with the fact that no tree poUcy yet exists. White said he would prefer taking cash. He feels it is unlikely that the land would be ahered and easement would be an aid. WhKe thought it will be dfficuH to develop Lot 3 and feels the cash would be of more value than the land. McDermott informed the Commissioners that the Saga Hin Preservation Ciroup also did % not think Garden Lane would be developed. Erickson said he preferred to take the cash. Welles moved, Beal seconded, to recommend cash payment of 8% of the assessed land value of the Garden Lane Subdivision for Park Dedication Fee. Wilson asked for comments regarding Lot 3. White said it was not part of this issue. McDermott suggested the City consider acquiring Lot 3. Gappa noted there was a • Ml.- frame concern. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, McDermott, ack, nent B. BROOK PARK REALTY Commission reviewed the sketch plan of Brook Park Realty Subdivision in the Navarre area. Gappa indicated the plan under review included a possible future expansion of the subdivision but there are no assurances that the expansion would occur. The subdivision consists of a higher density townhome development. The first concept reviewed by the TsIT tlifliflW.iWil 0riTTiiTn* mMW: i (STMfn tliT-M 1 RTiTifir tllln«l i A v/«i t u« u [•! V# wmm 1 irti rtTi«imc<i«i iiH\i}[4C«Eli] [•XI ••tTiTiTf •liTiW« [•1IIII^««<IX)[tliuill ^ 1 i rt^ C^:< ■ i 1II 03 • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 Welles said he thought a homeowners association would provide some play ground area for the children living there. Wilson noted there was no location for an adequate playground. Beal questioned whether a trail would be located along this property. McDermott said it would be a connector to the Dakota Rail property if that was developed for a trail. ' I McDermott said he would recommend taking land as he is concerned with the native v^etation and maintaining open space. He indicated this was one of only a few spaces left in the Navarre area with open land. He said the land above the wetlands has significant oak trees and rolling terrain. Welles thought the developer would leave this area as an amenity to the property owners. Beal noted that the developer, however, would cut down alot of trees to develop the property. White suggested the City could make better use of the property than this proposal presents through a tax generated project and use the funds for providing a park in the Navarre area. He explained how such a process worked. Wilson asked if this would be feasible. McDermott thought it should be of interest to the City. Beal was informed that a road will be platted to extend to the western property for future expansion but there is no guarantee that the development will occur. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 2, Beal, McDermott. 8 iO 20 97 17:51 ®612 357 5601 DSV. INC 0 001 005DAHI.GREN SI L\1^)1,0\V AND IJBAN 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 110 MINNEAPOLIS, MN >>401 612 3393300 PHONE 612-337-5601 PAX FROM: R£: 20 October 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Wallace L. Case, ASIA Landscape Architect/Planner Class III Preliminary Subdivision and Planned Residential Development Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive Application #2308 As we discussed on Wednesday, October 1b, I have conducted a preliminary review of the applicants proposal and have visited the site. The following Is a brief summary of my preliminary observations and concerns. My comments arc directed primarily toward site planning, environmental and aesthetic issues. These comments are preliminary and do not address compliance with the zoning ordinance or the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. BarkgrQund: The proposal is for the development of thirty town homes on approximately 9.9 acres located on the north side of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) In the Navarre district. The site abuts an existing duplex neighborhood along the east, the Burlington Northern Railroad along the North, and a large underdeveloped residential parcel with a excavation company or sorne type ot commercial/light industrial operation to the west. A single family area Is located to 'be nort is separated from the site by the railroad and Northern Avenue (north of the tracics) ''®bicolar access to the site is currently available from the east from Livingston Avenue, through the ““P'®* development to the east. Access to County Road 15 is via Blaine Avenue along the east of this duplex area. A large wetland system effectively blocks direct vehicular access to County Road 1b to the south. 0:UOaS\1609.4V1097MTKA.H0M r ill .'20 97 17:51 ®012 5.‘)7 5601 DSU. INC.©002 •'05 Woodtand Imnacfs; 1. Most the site is either wooded or impacted by two wetlands. The two wetlands total approximately 2.2 acres or approximately 22% of the site. The wooded areas total 6.6 acres or approximately 67% of the overall (gross) site, or 87% of the net site excluding wetlands. The wooded areas generally include both hardwood and softwood species. The central uplands and south facing wetland fringe are covered by a predominantly oak/maple/basswood woods with individual trees ranging from saplings to mature specimens. 2. One of the primary issues regarding this proposal is the impact on the high quality woods present on the site, and the resultant loss of many large oak, maple and basswood trees. The largest trees are found throughout the central upland area and along the steep slopes that form the northern fringe of the largest wetland. These hardwood trees range in size from approximately 3 inches to more than ) inches in diameter. There are 30 to 40 (or more) very large oaks and maples located in and around the central highland area. There are also several areas with significant densities of young oak/maple/basswood that are beginning to developing into nice hardwood stands. 3. Most of the larger trees have had adequate room to develop and are very well formed, and it appears that sometime in the past the site may have been grazed or mowed. These trees are exactly the type of large trees that home buyers/owners find most desirable. Preserving as many of the individual specimens, and young wooded oreas as possible will add a great deal of interest and value to both the development arid the surrounding area. The developer and their consultant have already shown an understanding of this potential by preserving a portion of the central wooded area, and by their choice of project name -- Minnetonka Woods. 4. Unfortunately, the proposed disturbed area appears to coincide with the location of many of the best trees and woods, and it appears that many if not most of the large specimens and young oak/mapie woods would be removed during the development process. This conflict leads to the following recommendation which I suggest would benefit both the developer and the Community. A. I recommend that a tree survey be submitted that identifies the location, size and species of all hardwood trees 12 caliper inches or larger in diameter. This survey will allow the City to accurately assess the development impacts on the woods and visual character of the areas. It will also allow the project's planning consultant to evaluate and adjust the layout — to preserve as many high value trees and wooded areas as possible. Some of the types of adjustments that could help retain significant trees and woods trees may include: • Reducing the street width to 28 feet. This width would still allow for parking on one side and would allow more layout and grading flexibility for avoiding desirable trees/woods. It may also be possible to shift the road alignment to the north to preserve more of the desirable central woods. -2-I r XII. 20-d" 17:51 tS612 337 56U1 DSV. INC 12)003 II'».3 . Reducing .he .ron, y.,d .etb.ck end sheening the paving, and increasing the central woods to be preserved. include a number of larger trees of various species, sniftmg a a u the pond could also facilitate the development of a trail connection to Sh Drive. . Cerefully considering the need, Uming and “"«««!"'®h.*n™Mse*d to«ti^i*is in construction of the temporary/permanent cul*de^a . «ff«et raolace ".“ar/u'ge 's?a“ aoTgrti. Z road .o save :.Xra"ln“ *1'°'*"' ,•» depend on the future development of the western parcel. . Adjusting the overall project grading, and la..out 7"' the units. The town home units have tuck-under g g driveways oreserve significant trLs. This effort will also require an accurate tree survey. The grading may further be minimized through the reasonable use of low retaining walls to save some high amenity value trees/woods. I Plan ,. Typically the minimum budget for an ;%“an7pri«“a^r.'^r pro“o«d units, th. natural characteristics o( the sit. and .he market conditions and needs of the developer. As proposed, this project does ™> '"7 ‘‘7s r 10 20 97 17:52 0612 •3')7 56<ii DSU. INC ©uO-l 005 30 to 50 mature oaks/maples and acres of young high quality mixed woods with numerous young oaks, maples* and basswood. 2. On projects with tree removal such as this. I suggest that an even higher landscape investment may be needed to begin to mitigate the impacts. Such projects gentrally require a more substantial investment In landscaping to adequately address the functional, screening and aesthetic impacts of the extensive tree removal. 3. I recommend that a landscape plan be prepared by a registered landscape architect. This plan should emphasize supplementing and restoring the natural characteristics of the existing woodlands* and providing an effective vegetative buffer along residential and public frontages. It should also include the selective placement of trees along the fronts of the town homes to interrupt the long expanses of building facade, paving and parking. The walk layout between units could easily be modified to accommodate a single large tree or group of trees to serve this purpose. Trail Connection; 1. It may be desirable to provide a pedestrian/bike trail to the south to connect to County Road 15. The most readily developed trail corridor would be in the area west of the large wetland system. If the such a trail would fit into the Community's trail objectives City* the developer should explore developing an 8-feet wide bituminous trail In that area. The storm ponding should be designed to serve as an amenity feature and to incorporate a winding trail connection and landscaping. .Itink. Trash. Old Foundation 1. While inspecting the site, it was apparent that illegal dumping has occurred on the property for some time. The site also has at least one demolished structure, slab and foundation. Most of the dumped materials appear to be household furnishings, trash* and junk dumped around the site of the footings and into the wetlands. Prior to development, the developer should hire a qualified consultant to conduct a preliminary environmental audit to determine the apparent nature and extent of this dumping and to evaluate the need for edditional environmental review, and to determine that all known wells have been properly abandoned. pprlaration of Restrictive Covenants 1. If this project is approved, the developer should prepare a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants that provides adequate aesthetic and operational constraints for the development. These covenants should restrict removal of additional trees or woods. The covenants should also prohibit outdoor and recreational vehicle storage, and limit the number and size of vehicles parked in drives in an ongoing basis. Tree preservation/Mitigation 1. The City currently doe not have a tree preservation or replacement ordinance. The City should review their comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and address the r ■ i i i 10>-20/9T 17:52 tJ612 C37 5601 DSU. INC SI005 005 merit and need for controls to facilitata the regulation of development and mitigation on heavily wooded sites such as this. if you have questions regarding these preliminary observations and concerns, or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at 339*3300. OAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. Wallace L. Case, ASLA Landscape Architect/Planner 1 i’ -5- 1 TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE; Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 16,1997 SUBJECT;#2306 Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road Renewal of Class III Subdivision Preliminary Plat-Public Hearing Zoning Dbtricf ; RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area;6.37 acres dry land .43 acres wet 6.8 acres total Application;The applicant is requesting renewal of a Class III Subdivision to allow the existing zoning lot to be divided into two parcels. The preliminary plat was approved in Resolution #3659, File #2092, on December 11,1995. Pertinent Ordinances; Section 10.08, Subdivision 5, RRl-B, One Family Rural Residential District Section 10.56, Shoreland Overlay District,Subd. 16, (C) and (L) Section 10.03, Subd. 27. and Section 11.31., Subd. 5. Name: Address: date of PC page —1 ANALYSIS RRl-B Lot Standards for Front Lots Lot Area Lot Width Front Rear Side Side/Street 2 acres 200’50'50’30'50’ RRl'B Lot Standards for Back Lots Lot Area Lot Width Front Rear for non- lakeshore lots Side Side/Street 3 acres 300’75'75'45’75’ z The subject lots meet the back lot zoning requirements. Because the backlot is a lakeshore lot to Dickey Lake, a natural environment lake, the setback from the OHWL is 150'. staa ’f recommendation Staff recommends approving a new resolution that reflects that the buildings have been removed. A B C D E F G H I J K L Application & Plat Map Previous Planning Commission Staff Report Notice of PC Action Council Report Neighbor's Letter Mike's letter Platteter’s letter Minutes from CC Minutes from PC Septic Report Resolution Preliminary Plat Name: Address: date of PC page—2 r Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Name: Address: date of PC page—3 Y' }.^ Application # <P 3o(-, Date Received ^7 a Amount Paid rv" to ^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address A/or-l-h ftrpuofv T^cJ Property Identification Number (MP) - MR - 7/^ ~ Please check one - Property abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e c^nni^ _____________ % I' id S Address 5?CPl tO City A rT)nr> rr\k) _______Phone (home) 97^- hll(j Zip^SiSoPhone (work) 32L3zS33iX 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 Present use (check) Present Zoning District / /i..37 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units / Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _____' Existing Units / New Units 3i Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) /___Units per^J^ Acres C7 O^^Sq, Ft. Dry Buildable Land ^ Residential Other (specify) r tt (17) COUNTRY a I JR sp; k / ■• •,.-T^ 1 5 v^wsy 5j'i ••tsr* §T^ $4 ---------- " 2/>' ^ . 'VI, ••V-' ■!•••• cri i\ \ < ’9,' ■i,X /Syrr^'’Mi5»22»m-^ V’_______<r«.•Tlf* *• —- l-W Vii.41 J^»*4I f tl « •!H! r: —^—*- \ TV3» * 2, s ar.;f c » -s O?) S 7 A : Si7*«i«{ 4*W.«i £>3. To: From: Date: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 16,1995 Subject: #2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Bro^^^l Road North - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application: Applicant proposes a back lot/front lot subdivision of his homestead parcel at approximately 6 acres in area. Due to the more restrictive setback standards for back lot/front lot configurations, the residence structure and oversized accessory structure do not meet required setbacks from proposed lot lines. Zoning District: RR-IB Total lot area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-of-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2. Section 10.08, Subdivision 5 - Lot standards for RR-IB Zoning District. Section 10.56 - Shoreland Overlay District. a. 4. Subdivision 16 (C) - Required setbacks for structures and septic systems from the OHWI. of the Natural Environment Lake. Required = 150* Proposed septic system and existing structures on Lot 1 meet required lakeshore setback. b. Subdivision 16 (L) - Hardcover restrictions. Both Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to the hardcover regulations for the Shoreland Overlay District. Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 and Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 - Back lot/front lot standard. A. Lot 1 (back lot) = 3.64 acres (meets 150% of the area requirements of the Zoning District) Required = 3 acres (RR-1B = 2 acres) Proposed = 3.64 acres B. Lot 1 (back lot) lot width requirements for lakeshore lot Required = 200’ 1) AtOHWL300+’ 2) At 150' lakeshore setback 400+' 3) At street setback 350+' Zoning File #2092 November 16,1995 Page 2 5.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C-2) - Oversized accessory structure - variances for 2100 s.f. oversized accessory structure on proposed Lot 2. a. Existing = 2100 s.f. Oversized structure allowed footprint = 1200 s.f. a. Required setback = 50’ (rear lot line of Lot 2) Existing = 29' Variance = 21' or 42% b. c. Setback variance for existing principal structure on proposed Lot 1 Required for side setback on back lot - 45* Existing = 40' Variance = 5' or 11.11% Front/street setback variance for residence structure on proposed Lot 1 Required = 75' Existing = 30' Variance = 45' or 60% Lbt of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Discussion Application Plat Map Property Owners' List DNR Letter 8/21/95 Wetlands Map Preliminary Plat Staff Sketch/Required Setbacks for Back Lot/Front Lot Based on Planning Commission's directives to applicant at their August, 1995 meeting, applicant has submitted a formal subdivision application proposing a back lot/front lot division of his homestead parcel at 5.64 acres. Refer to Exhibit G, side and rear lot lines of the front lot. Lot 2, must be changed to 50'. Side and street setback of the back lot must also be changed, the sides to 45' and the street setback to 75'. Ehiring the sketch plan review, applicant advised that the residence structure and oversized accessory structure were to be moved from the property. The existing structures do not meet required setbacks from the proposed division line. Applicant should advise as to the status of the structures. If they are to be removed, there is no issue. If they are to remain, will you grant setback variances? Based on the location of the bam in relation to the house, it would be impossible to gerrymander lot line in order to meet the required setback. Applicant should also comment as to the status of the pool. How long should pool be allowed to remain without a principal stmcture? r Zoning File #2092 November 16,1995 Page 3 As Lot 2 does not meet the required lot width at Brown Road at 200' to the rear of the street setback line, Lot 2 will be required to access via the driveway outlot along the south lot line. Note outlot has been expanded to 50' at the east end to include existing drive. Septic testing has been completed. All four mound sites will be placed on slopes at 6% or less. Note proposed septic sites on the lakeshore lot meet the required 150' setback fiom the OHWL of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Staff Recommendation To approve the back lot/front lot subdivision application of Dennis Platteter finding all pertinent standards of the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning and Septic Codes have been satisfied. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Status of existing structures (residence structure, pool and oversized accessory structure) within proposed Lots 1 and 2. Establish deadline for removal. If structures are not to be removed, will setback variances be granted? Designation of Dickey Lake at 985.5. Applicant's surveyor to confirm location of Type 3 wetland at southwest comer of property adjacent to lakeshore. The wetland area should be designated as drainage easements on the final plat. Dedication of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along all internal lot lines. 4. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for Brown Road. 5. Others recommended by Planning Commission. c CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2092 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 28, 1995 TO:Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Subdivision (Back Lot/Front Lot) DATE OF MEETING: 11/20/95 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST The Planning Commission recommended j^proval of your two lot subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Portions of lot located below 985.5 at northwest comer of property to be designated on plat as Dickey Lake. Applicant ’s surveyor to determine if a Type 2 or 3 wetland exists at southwest comer of property adjacent to lakeshore. The City's wetland maps located a protected area in that portion of the property. This wetland should be designated as a drainage easement on the plat. Dedication on the final plat of drainage and utility easements along exterior lot lines and 5' along all internal lot lines. 3. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for Brown Road. 4. Applicant to provide a written statement concerning removal of existing structures that encroach required setbacks from newly defined division line. The Planning Commission recommended that accessory structure on Lot 2 must be removed within one year of the date of Council ’s approval of the final plat. Applicant has advised that he is not sure whether the existing residence structure would be removed. If the residence structure is removed, the City will require the removal of the pool. Applicant must take the necessary steps to protect any unwanted trespassers from any hazards created wdth the presence of the pool on a property where no one resides at residence. Applicant may wish to cover pool with boards or other suitable cover to prevent any mishaps. The status of the existing residence and pool must be resolved before the application can be presented to the Council in order to determine the need for granting any setback variances. Council may take the position that if the pool and residence structure are to remain that lot line can be realigned so that both structures meet the required 75 ’ setback from the newly defined east lot line. A written statement concerning the status of all structures on the property should be submitted no later than Tuesday, December 5th before Noon. r Notice of Planning Commission Action November 28, 1995 Page 2 The City has received calls from neighbors concerning a yard light and manure stock pile on the property. The light appears to shine out onto adjacent residential properties. The Code would require yard lights to be shielded downward and lighting is not to extend beyond boundaries of property. If lighting is to remain, a shield must be provided. I We arc advised the manure pile is to the west and north side of the property and extends to shoreline of Dickey Lake. The manure must be removed at your earliest convenience. Please advise my office as to the approximate date for removal of manure. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any further questions pertaining to the review of your application. ■ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 5,1995 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2092 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Preliminary Subdivision Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB Total area = 5.64 acres (exclusive of right-of-way of North Brown Road and Dickey Lake) Brief Review of Application Please refer to the enclosed staff memo dated November 16,1995 and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20th for more background and detail on this review. The applicant submitted a sketch plan of three lots at the August 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had to recommend against the division because of the need to grant lot standard variances for the creation of new lots. Applicant has filed a formal subdivision application of two lots (back lot/front lot). Lot 1, the western lot, meets 150% of all required standards. Review Exhibit G, Lot I's building envelope is defined by the street or east lot line setback at 75' and the side setbacks 45'. Lot 2's building envelope must also be redesignated showing a 50' setback along Outlot A, the driveway outlot, and the west or rear lot line. Applicant has advised that all accessory stmctures will be removed. To be consistent with previous approvals, the City will allow one year from the date of Council's approval of the final plat for the removal of accessory structures. Both lots will achieve access via the driveway outlot. If any upgrades of the driveway are contemplated in the future, all improvements must be located 10' from the south lot line of Outlot A. Applicant has recently advised staff that all accessory structures will be removed. The large bam at 2,100 s.f, is currently being dismantled lor removal to another pioperty. The pool will also go. As of this date, applicant is not certain whether the house is to be removed. Staff would advise that at the time of final plat approval if applicant advises the house is to remain, then lot line should be adjusted so that structure meets 75' setback from east line of Lot 1 . There would also be a need to ! Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 December 5, 1995 Zoning File ^2092__________________________________________________ address a side setback variance for the slight encroachment of the existing residence into required 45* side setback at the south lot line. lot. Planning Commbslon Recommendation and zoning code have been satisfied. Maccessorystructuresare to he removed, there^ s^!^:!.^mltnsTtoemr^ ad^Ted so that a 75’ setback can be achieved from the east lo, line and City will grant 3 ’ encroachment of south side yard. TIk enclosed approval resolution has b«n "drsolve the sta Jof ^e principal suucmre on Lot 1. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either amend or approve the enclosed approval resolution. NOV -7 :■; ^ y^ <::^LJt^ <z^i£i<i2i^ .^t^^'K44AO \,/(ftCii^ /ZUr^lL, A?ZJ ^ yy,. / fj jL a^ /C71/ yla^liAA* aAuZf'y7?^’tA^ jA^ ^y^>-^c<x^ ^cv SAu^ ,,/Z^ ^>><£3^tA'. \:zA7fO ^.A'TicA^^ ^.Ad^y r I have Dear Mr. Platteter: ve reviewed all City files related to your property on Brown ^rth. rvas on December 11,1995 and expired on December 11,1996. ^ 30 ^ you a request to extend the preliminary plat approval poor to your 'fj no formal application for an extension has ever been submitted for Councrl review, and it now is 9 months after the expiration date. ^rrs"dSl"t«“nelird ^plember 26.1997 at noon. 1 believe most of the required subimttal information is m our files. y will need to:Complete the renewal application form. 3. SuS dir$2W renews Sated in die subdivision application form for a Class I/II Subdivision (No changes from original approval). 1. 2. If the above infotmaUon is submitted by the deadline, your application wi 1 be ^^^ion on October 20. with Council action for Preliminary approval possible on ^ ^^"subdivision approval could then occur on November 10. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. cc:Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator J JhU 06*9T7 13:53 FR HP'3 LEC-hL 61Z 373 539Z TO 94730510 P.OZ OZ (t December 30,1996 Ms Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, NJN 55356 RE: Replatting of 809 North Brown Road Dear Jeanne, Due to the increment weather this fall, we were not able to remove the pole bam as required by the City Council prior to tiling of the fm^ plo: P'®''- The removal needs to be done a contractor experienced m pole bam building. There is a limited number of qualified contractors and they are all busy trying to finish jobs from last fall. Also each Realtor and builder we contacted indicated that the preliminary lot line detracted significantly from the marketability of the front lot. They recommended that the line be realigned so that the front lot view could not be affected by owner of the rear lot. I have explamed that tlic current septic sites affected that lot arrangement. Their suggestion was to relook at the possible sites. For those reasons, we need to extend our plattmg for the property. We would appreciate an extension through July 1997 to give time (and better weather) to remove the pole barn and select alternative workable septic sues. I wanted to discuss this with you in person, but between my job related travel schedule and our whole family contracting. We appreciate your assistance. Sincerely * TOTblL PAGE. 002 k* MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11,1995 (^13 - ^2086 Robert 3nd Janice Callan - Continued) Jabbour asked Mabusth to refresh his memory regarding the Carson property, which Mabusth did. Mabusth noted that there was a question whether the Corp of Engineers &vored mitigation for type 1, which bred the idea of mirigation for the type 2 wetland. Mabusth noted that the variance was required because of the encroachment within 2& of a designated wetland area. There were no public comments. Goetten moved, Callahan seconded, to deny Application #2086 per the Planning Commission's recommendation with a resolution to be brought back before the Council on January 8, 1996. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#14) #2089 RICHARD MULLER, 4520 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3658 The applicant was represented by his father. Gafiron reported that the application is a request for lot area and lot width variances for a lot located in the 5-acre zoning. The property consists of 6.5 acres with 3.6 dry buildable where 5 acres is required. The width of the property measured at 100' parallel to the road is 287 where 300' is required. Gaflfron informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the findings that the parcel would have been buildable without variances at the time the applicant purchased it in 1972. They noted that the applicant had also demonstrated that suitable primary and alternate sites for an on-site sewage treatment system exists on the property. The Planning Commission found this to be a unique property within the 5-acre district where few vacant lots exist. The planning Commission questioned whether there would be any use of the property if it was found to be unbuildable. They also thought this proposal was appropriate and in charaaer with other residences located in the area. The applicant's representative had no further comment. There were no public comments. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3658. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#15) #2092 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3659 The applicant was present. I 1 MB^UTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on DECEMBER 11,1995 (#15 - #2092 Dennis Platteter - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application was a proposal for a 2-lot subdivisioa of 5.64 acres. The parcel originally consisted of 6.5 acres but area was lost due to the de^cation of Brown Road and Dickey Lake. The proposal is for a back/front lot configuratioiL The back lot meets all of the standards. Mibusth said 150% of normal allowances is required in the RR-IB. The property is also restricted by the 150* setback from an enviroiunental lake. Mabusth reported that the applicant is proposing to remove all of the accessory structures including the pool. The existing residence does not meet the 75' setback from the proposed lot line. Staff is not clear on the status of the residence. If the residence,^ which is located 3-4* from the side lot line, stays. Staff recommends asking for the lot line to be altered to meet the side setback requirements. This was noted as a condition of the Planning Commission’s approval. If the applicant seeks a final plat. Staff recommends a developer's agreement and letter of credit be obtained prior to the plat. Mr. Platterer said he has not decided on what he will do with the existing house. The potential buyers may remodel the house. If the purchase is not made, Platterer said he would remove the house. He noted his satisfaction with the resolution. There were no public comments. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3659 per the Planning Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Callahan reported that Park Commission Chair Flint attended the DNR meeting regarding the Luce Line trail paving proposal. Flint was unable to present the City's resolution due to a format not conducive to its presentation. Discussion groups consisted of governmental representation as well as those involved in the different activity ^ups that use the u-ail. Callahan said the majority were opposed to the paving of the trail from Wayzata to Hutchinson. FUnt had informed Callahan that there was a possible benefit to paving the trail west of Hutchinson. The DNR had presented a concept of a nw form of aggregate lime that would be in keeping with its present limestone bed. A revised resolution will be presented at the Council meeting of January 8, 1996. ENGINEER REPORT Cook had no additional comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION meeting held on NOVEMBER 20. 1995 (#2) #2090 RON SHADYWOOD RO vacation of easements - 7:26-7.28 P— The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Blake Bichanich represented the applicant. ;„■£ s .St .ffc «• - -» within the building envelope. There were no public comments. Peterson moved. Lindquist seconded, to recot^end approval of AppUcation #2090 with the 2 Staff recommendations. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays (#3) #2092 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 NORTH BROWN ROAD - preliminary SUBDr»TSION - 7:28-7:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that during the sketch plan r^cw the “« ““ *riSore aS 150' setback. The east lot is inadequate in wid* at So.* B^n resulting in the need for a shared driveway^ There .s now »^ setback variances as the backlot configuration requires 150/o rtandard. A „.u.ck ^'t^ed^m the side lot lines. The existing restoce is encroaches 45' into the front setback at 75'. The front lot's building envelO|» is defined at a 50' setback from the south, west and east lot lines. The accessory s ru on east lot will be removed by the applicant. The house on the property will probably be moved elsewhere. The pool will be removed when the lots are sold. Mabusth said a deadline would have to be set as the code does not allow an accessory stmeture on lots without a principal sttuemre. An average deadlme is one year. minutes of the orono planning comnqssion meeting held on NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (#3 - #2092 Dennis Plattetcr - Continued) the accessory structure was removed. Hawn received confirmalion from Mabusth that there was adequate lot size in which to build. There were no public comments. Smith commented on the lener from the DNR regarding future views of structura ^m the lake. Mabusth said the letter outlined standard practices and requirements of DNK Steve Schroll of 2006 Sugar Woods asked if a joint road would be us^ for the two lots via access to the back part of the subdivision. Mabusth ^d a shared ^veway would be used but there were no requirements to upgrade. The driveway must be at least 10 from the south lot line of outlot. Schroll was informed that there was no standard or requirement of driveway improvement. Connie Gray, 819 Brown Road, asked where the two new homes would be built. Mabusth showed on a map the lot outlines and of building envelopes. The City doM not stipulate where a house should be located, other than meeting required setbacks of code. Mabusth noted that the home on east lot would be at least 30* from the side lot Ime with the Gray property. Peterson commented that the location of the septic systems usuaUy drives where most ho*nes are situated on the lot. bcnoll asked and was shown on the map where the septic system for these homes would be placed and the likely home locations. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2092 with a 1 year deadline from the date of final approval of plat for removal of the accessory structure on east lot along with Staff recommendations 1-4. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 S-P TESTINGt INC. steven B. Schirmers - MPCA Cert. No. 627 * 05^ Kstydid Lane NE • St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497*3566 November 15# 1995 u Dennis Platteter 809 No.Brown Rd. Lot 2, Block 1 Orono, Henn. Co.» MN This On-Site Sewage Treatment System is Designed tor a SSSrooS home Desi|ned in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. The soils on this site are a clay loam. The seasonally saturated sSils were located at 20" to 28" (mottled svitemLrface. Due to the saturated soils, a Pressurized Mound System will need to be installed to treat septic effluent. The soils at a depth of 12" have a percolation rate averaging 9.8 min/inch. A pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area. The manifold and supply line pipe must have ^®®!j,^g^their ends*'* pumping chamber. The distribution pipes shall have ^heir ends capped. Be sure the rock and sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mounded area must be turned ove , 3 break up the sod, be sure not to over work. The power supply and switches must be located outside and pSmping cLiber in a weather proof ^must be installed with a light and sound device, this is in case of a pump failure. (mer All neighboring wells are located greater than 100' away from the proposed treatinent area* Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed and after construction. The treatment area should be marked oft before construction. This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Site Sewage Treatment occurs. CONT•D r with proper installation and maintenance# this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than gray water (laundry# showers# etc.) human waste 6 toilet tissue should be disposed into the septic tanlcs. Garbage disposals are not recommended. Excessive amounts of soaps# cleaning agents & chlorine agents may Icill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & clean your tanlc through the manhole by a certified pumper every year if you have 1 tanlc and every 2 years if you have two tanks. Steven B-. Schirmers SBS/ds -rv^-e- _____ S ^cotoiion Tests XSoil Bortf^ €B•ec^. Mork Scale %|"-=^^l) Note • Th« tystm « lo be cortsirucied lo meet Iht MrMCso-a PQlulcn Coniro’ Agency Chapter 70B0 Local Ordinance . rh^rk all tinderaronnd uH 11 ties A { PROPCRTY QP:P^wi% Kia. nwifanjO tg,5r>_______ s,o< 3l ‘^i-C/^SC. A- o^uo »-nK*- svtftja . ^ 5-/^ TESTINGS Designed Bf- TESTING INC.4 a. Cote JJ/iW.V PM 6?-<97-^S66 i.<^t-.-. ....... ----------anrf, GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _S65ft A RESOLITTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PL.AT AT 809 BROWTS ROAD NORTH FOR DENNIS PLATTETER • FILE NO. 2092 WHEREAS, Dennis L. Pl^tteter on October 27, 1995, filed a for.Tial subdi vision application the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of propert>’ legal!) described as; Tl:c South 354.75 feet of the East 990 feet, except the North 150 feet of the East 323.4 fee thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter ol Section 27, XoN'Ti.ship 113 North. R.ange 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, (hereinafter "the picpert> ’’ ); and W'HEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.-358 et. seq. and the City of Orono’s zoning, platting and on-site septic codes, tlie Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 1995, at which time all persons de.siring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunit)' to spe.*!!: thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on December 11. 1995. the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Dennis L. Plattcter noting the folloo ing findings of fact; The property is located within the RR-IB Single Frjniiy Rural Residential Zoning District rcv]uiring a minimum of 2 acres of diy contiguous buildable land within each r.ewlv created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 5.64 acres, all of which is considered dry buildable. Tl'.e proposed plat contains two lots each meeting or exceeding the 2 acre minhrium lot area reauirement.4 The property is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. Lot 1 is a la.keshore lot contiguous with Dickey Lake, a natural en\ironment lake. Lot 1 meets the required 200' width at the OHWL, 985.5 elevation, of Dickey Lake and at the 150 ’ building setback line. Page 1 of 4 r llvl CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^65 9 5.Lot 2 is 155' in width to the rear of the street setback line measured from Brown Road North. The code would require 200' of width and as a result access to Lot 2 shall be via private driveway outlot. 6. The oversized accessory structure at 2,100 s.f. on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed along with all other accessory structures (i.e. pool, shed, etc.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Dennis L. Platteter for the propert>‘ located at 809 Brown Road North per the survey dated 11-15- 95, by Mark S. Cironberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. If the existing principal structure is to remain on Lot 1, north'south lot line shall be adjusted so that structure meets required 75' setback from east lot line. 2. Approval of the 2 lot plat and the lot lines as shov\n is based on the removal of all existing accessory structures on both Lots 1 and 2. 3. Prior to the removal or demolition of accessory structures and new residential construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting septic test sites. Tlie following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator ^’O w'eeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of tne month: 1, Record plat drawings in tl;e form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminaiy survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 11 95. -15- Paae 2 of 4 r GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 6 5 9 J. B.Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' \\ide along all perimeter property lines (not to be designated at shoreline of Dickey Lake) and 5 each side of internal propert>' lines C.Portions of lot located below 985.5 at northwest corner to be designated as Dickey Lake. D.Applicant's surveyor to determine if a Type 2 or 3 w'etland exists at southwest comer of property adjacent to shoreline of Lot 1. The Cit}’'s wetland maps have located a protected area in that portion of the property. If the wetland e.xists, it should be located as a drainage casement on the plat. E. Dedication of 33' of risht-of-way of Brown Road North. F. Naming of plat 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with propertj’ interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other J1J1 * * * •documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded casements currently affecting the propert>’. Fees to be paid: Total due: S20Q.00* based on 1995 fee schedule A. Legal review and filing fees = S200.00 B.*Park dedication fee to be determined upon City Assessor's valuation of fair market value of 2 acre rural lot. Park dedication fee payment is due upon the filing of the final plat and associated documents. Page 3 of 4 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 5 9_____ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11 th day of December, 1995. ATTEST: ■f / Dorothy in. City Clerk Edward J. Callajwn, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foreeoinc instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of Dw.mber 1995. by Edward J. Caliahai, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Cl«k of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behah of the City. It, i? LINDA S.VEE N0WWPU8LC-WNNCS0U H£NNB»IM COUNTY MvConw^ssky Wf«J>t31.2000 Notar%' Public Page 4 of 4 r M_«r4rit- m / m«.74 t y/,' ^y/ ''W /// / i^'Z/'jJij i I N aa*4r f»- m 990^1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: rht South 354.75 foet of the East 990 feet. ErCE®T the •torih 150 feet of the Ea^t 3P3.4 f#»»t M r • »A.. ' t f . .. «■ • •; ^ • « • • r n To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Membere Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Michael P. Gaf&on, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 17, 1997 #2294 LGA Investment Group, Inc. - Jim Waters - 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Revised Preliminary Plat - 6 Lots - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: Applicant has submitted a revised plan for a 6 lot subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Heathercroft and Lot 90, Tonkaview Gardens. This item was reviewed as a 7-lot proposal at the September 15 Planning Commission meeting and was tabled to allow applicant to address issues raised by staff in the September 11 memo. List of Exhibits A - Sheets 1-4, Revised Preliminary Plat B - Schoell and Madson Letter of Transmittal 10/6/97 C - Excerpts from Wetland Delineation Report by SchoeU and Madson D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/16/97 E - Conunents from City’s Consulting Landscape Architect F - Comments from City Engineer G - Staff Analysis Regarding State of Minnesota Environmental Review Regulations H - Letters Received from Adjacent and Nearby Property Owners • James and Roxanne Stasik, 1270 Wildhurst Trail • Robert and Marit Birkeland, 1298 Wildhurst Trail . Bob and Velma Wolff, 4450 Forest Lake Landing • Sanford and Margaret Erikson, 4455 Forest Lake Landing • Gary and Sandra Welsh, 1214 Wildhurst Trail • Brian and Sandra Rasmussen, 1186 Wildhurst Trail I - Memo and Selected Exhibits from September 11, 1997 Staff Memo J - Excerpt Map from Draft Stormwater Management Plan K - Draft Park Commission Minutes from October Meeting L - Area Topography Map Planning Commission Action of September 15 At the September 15 meeting, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to table the request to allow applicant to submit a revised proposal addressing the following points: 1.Subject to Park Commission and Council approval, the City should protect the ravine by having it dedicated as a park. Zoning File #2294 October 17, 1997 Page 2 of 9 2. Subject to review by the Cit>’ Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a stormwater pond should be established per the initially subnutted 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. 3. The temporary cul-de-sac should be platted as a permanent cul-de-sac and relocated to the southeast of the drainageway at the head of the ravine. 4. 5. Applicant should provide the information requested in the City Engineer's review of the preliminary plan. Applicant should provide a new site plan that accommodates these revisions, and confirms that each lot contains one acre area exclusive of drainage easements necessary for the stormwater pond and ravine areas. Park Commission Recommendation The Park Commission reviewed the current 6-lot proposal at their October 6 meeting, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended that the City accept a cash contribution in lieu of dedication of land for parks. Discussion revolved around whether the proposed drainage easements over the ravine would adequately protect the City's interests. It was noted that the base of the ravine has been delineated as wetland, fhe majority of the Park Commission members indicated that it is unlikely the land to the northwest side of the ravine would be altered, and felt that the cash payment would be more valuable to the City than acquisition of the land itself Comments from City Landscape Architect Prior to the September 15 meeting, staff walked the northerly ravine site with Wallace L. Case, Landscape Architect/Planner with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, the City's planning consultants. The primary issue for discussion was the stormwater basin then proposed within the upper reaches of th^rav^e. Mr. Case's comments are attached as Exhibit E. His comments compare the impact of the location of the stormwater pond as previously proposed, with the location now proposed under the revised plan. His recommendation was that the City' preserve as much of the existing w'oods and ravine as possible, using a sensitively designed and natural looking pond located in the area of Lot 1, Block 1 (the north end of the Sollner property). He also suggested that the cul-de-sac as previously aligned would have significant negative impact on the natural ravine system and aesthetics of the project. Note that both concerns have been addressed by applicant's revised 6-lot proposal currently under review. Zoning File #2294 October 17,1997 Page 3 of 9 City Engineer Comments The City Engineer reviewed this subdivision at the sketch plan stage, and has submitted additional comments after review' of the current 6-lot proposal. His comments address utilities, streets, grading and drainage, and are attached as Exhibit F, summarized as follows: 1.Utilities. The sewer design appears acceptable. A future line to serve the property to the south of Lot 5 appears feasible. Extending the sewer along the west side of Wildhurst Trail will be difficult due to steep slopes along the^^ roadway and may be more appropriate down the center of Wildhurst Trail, ia- 2.Streets. Street locations appear acceptable. Horizontal and vertical curve data is needed to verify meeting_rs4uired design speed and radius standards. The easterly cul-de-sac does not appear to meet the centerline radius standard but may be acceptable due to its short length. Final plans to be submitted by applicant should also include a typical street section based on a geo-technical analysis of the site. 3.Grading. Additional erosion control measures are needed for sanitary sewer construction on steep slopes. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to site grading, and grading plans for Lots 1, 4 and 5 should be submitted to, determine any impacts to the ravines. 4.Drainage. Outlet structure in the stormwater basin should be sized to provide rate^ontrol. Since post-development flow conditions may not exceed pre development conditions, applicant must submit drainage area maps and storm sewer and ponding calculations with the final plans. All stormwater plans should be submitted to the DNR and MCWD for review and approval. Conformance with State Environmental Review Regulations Exhibit G is staffs analysis of the LGA Saga Hill projects in relation to the State of Minnesota Environmental Review Regulations administered by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Staffs conclusions are as follows: 1.LGA’s northerly project and southerly project are independent of each other and not "phases" of a greater development plan. 2.Neither project is in a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) category. iP i I I Zoning File #2294 October 17,1997 Page 4 of 9 3. Neither project is in an "exempt” category due to being partially wUiin the City ’s Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, both projects could be subject to a discretionary EAW if the Council so orders, pursuant to its own initiative or in response to a citizen petition of at least 25 individuals. In the case of a petition, the Council shall order preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners demonstrates to the Council's satisfaction that because of the nature or location of the project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Commeiits from Adjacent Property Owners A number of adjacent or area property owners have written letters expressing concerns writh the proposed subdivision. Some of the letters request that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is needed. Most if not all of the letters express concern about drainage, stonnwater runoff, and the potential impacts of additional development on their properties which, in most cases, are downsteam from the proposed subdivision. Please review the comments of the neighborhood property owners. Wetland Delineation Applicant's consulting engineer has completed a wetland delineation for the property and has identified three wetland basins, none of which are protected under Orono's wetland ordinances, buat all of which are subject to the Weland Conservation Act rules. Basin 1 is a small Type 1 wetland located within proposed Lot 5. The area of this wetland isTli^tly over 1,000 s.f., or 1/40 of an acre, approximately the size of the Council Chambers meeting room. Based on topography of the site, this wetland provides minimal benefits regarding habitat or stormwater storage, and applicant indicates that this wetiand will be eliminated by construction of a residence on Lot 5. Basin 2 is an Intermittent Riverine System (i.e. a drainageway) flowing from east to west acfossTIbt 90, the Sollner property. This wetland will be altered by the stormwater basin, as it is at the south perimeter of the proposed stormwater pond. Basin 3 is the streambed at the very base of the centerline of the northerly ravine maiidy in E'(5r IT Block 2. Under the current proposal. Basin 3 will remain undisturbed and will be prot 1 via drainage easements. Note that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the City ’s designated Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review and approval of the subdivision is required, including approval of the proposd wetland impacts. Note that MCWD normally will not review a subdivision proposal until it has Zoning File #2294 October 17,1997 Page 5 of 9 received preliminary approval by the local Planning Commission. Revised Proposal Summary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The proposal is reduced from 7 lots to 6 lots. The stormwater pond has been removed from the ravine and is proposed within the north 1/3 of Lot 1, Block 1 (the north end of the Solner property). The northerly cul-de-sac has been moved to the southeast side of the head of the ravine, and extends slightly east of the existing right-of-way of Garden Lane. Vacation of Garden Lane is no longer proposed. Each lot, as proposed, contains at least 1.0 acre of dry buildable acreage exclusive of non-perimeter drainage and utility easements, and each lot meets the 140' width standard at the 35' front setback line. c.^ The current plan indicates a 0.59 acre dedication for park land incorporating most of the area of the northerly ravine within the property boundaries. This plan w^ developed by applicant prior to the Park Commission's recommended cash payment in lieu of land dedication. Portions of the ravine not included within the park dedication are either in the right-of-way of Garden Lane, in adjacent properties not controlled by applicant, or proposed for protection via a drainage and utility easement within Lot 1, Block 1. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 5, Block 2 are proposed to involve filling to create a building pad suitable foLii walkout-type residence. Both of thcsc-lots ^e relatively flat. Lot 1, Block 1 generally needs to be filled in order to create^a building pad that will be higher than the surrounding area. The building pad on Lot 5 serves a simila- purpose but also is necessary in order that its driveway runoff can be directed towards the ro^. A similar expectation is held for the driveways serving Lots 3 and 4, although building pads are not intended to be graded at this time. ^ Applicant proposes constructing approximately 1,000’ of new 28' wide paved City roadway, with two 80' diiuneter cul-de-sacs. All of the road and cul-de-sac dra^ge is proposed and designed t^be directed northward to the proposed stormwater pond in Lot 1, Block 1. A significant proportion of the existing drainage which currently flows to the southeasterly ravine in Lot 4, will be redirected northward, to reduce the existing drainage area impacting that southerly ravine. It is anticipated that the driveway runoff and approximately half of the roof runoff from the houses on Lots 3, 4 and 5 will be r Zoning File #2294 October 17, 1997 Page 6 of 9 9. :cuJ to the road, and applicant has been requested by the City Engineer to provide drainage calculations defining the 'before' and 'after' flow rates tlirough both northerly and southerly ravines. Applicant proposes sanitary sewer extension to the propert} approximately 300' north of an existing manhole on Wildhurst Trail, then e.xtendir.g westward up the slope between Lots 3 and 4. The City Engineer has suggested that the section of sewer paralleling Wildhurst Trail will be difllcult to construct due to adjacent slopes, and that an alternative is construction of that segment underneath the travelled portion of Wildhurst Trail. Due to the narrow design of Wildhurst Trail and the fact that it has no alternative ingress/egress. City staff will further recommend a condition that this segment of sewer be directionally bored tq. avoid traffic disruption on Wildhurst Trail. Further, staff will recormnend that the segment between Wildhurst Trail and the easterly cul-de-sac be directionally bored to avoid disruption of the 17% slope between Lots 3 and 4. 10.A drainage and utility easement 20' in width is proposed over the southerly ravine, a portion of the acreage of which has been subtracted from the area of Lot 4 because it is not strictly a perimeter easement. Note that perimeter easements abutting properties outside the plat should be increased from 5' to 10', similar to those shown adjacent to streets, and interior lot boundaries should be provided with a drainage and utility easement 5' either side of said boundaries. Stormwater Planning In the context of protential stormwater impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, this subdivision is situated and has been designed to provide certain stormwater benefits which have not been available via the hitherto sjxiradic development of individual building sites in the neighborhood. Surrounding property owners located downstream from the drainageways at the north and south end of this site have indicated their serious concerns about adding new roads and homesites to what currently is an undeveloped, and mostly uncontrolled, upland watershed. In response to these concerns which are shared by the Ci^, the City has required, and the applicant has responded, with the following stormwater management systems and techniques: 1.All drainage from the entire length of proposed new roads will be directed northward to a storage and retention pond located above the head of the northerly ravine. 2.Likewise, virtually all drainage from Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2 will ultimately be directed to that stormwater pond. 3.The driveway drainage and a portion of the roof drainage from Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, will be directed to that stormw'ater pond. J Zoning File #2294 October 17, 1997 Page 7 of 9 4 As a result of Items I, 2, and 3, the watershed area draining to the southerly ravine will decrease, and this is anticipated (and must be confirmed) to result in less runoff and slower rates of rxinoff to that southern ravine. 5 TTie stormwater pond in Lot 1 will store and release stormsvater to the northerly ravine at a ^-Hived flow rate from the current condition, even though volumes will be greater due to the added runoff from development. The stormwater pond is positioned in a location that could potentially be_^anded if City development of the tax forfeit park property ever required additional stormwater ponding. 6 The City will gain drainage and utility easements over the portions of the rame within the proposed subdivision, giving the City the ability to manage those ravines as part of the City's comprehensive stormwater plan. While some residents have expressed a concern that creation of a number of subdivision creates immediate new pressures on the existing stormwater system, the City ^ the abilitv to require stormwater controls from the developer. As a control, the significantly less ability to require comprehensive stormwater c°«^rols hi^rically-platted lots have been built on one-by-one over the last 15-20 years in neighborhood. Each of those recently constructed residences have to existing stormwater problems in the neighborhood without any . controls The proposed subdivision is required by City, State and Watershed Di^ct requirements to mLiage its stormwater and is doing so by providing the measures noted above. The City acknowledges that this subdivision cannot be expected to solve pre-existing neighborhood stormwater problems but it will not be allowed to make P™ c^miction The City is nearing completion of a comprehensive stormwater plan which includes construction of neighborhood stormwater basins and may include segments of storm sewer as well (See exhibit J). It is anticipated that the stormwater plan will also result in the City adopt g additional restrictions in regards to lakeshore property maintenance and the use of fertilizer . Subject to the applicant providing sufficient calculations and information City Engineer that the development of this site will not add to the runoff problems in the area, this^ subdivision proposal should not be perceived as making existing problems worse, but may in fact provide some relief to the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation The revised subdivision proposal for 6 lots appears to have addressed the^bdivision layout eoneems expressed by the Planning Commission on September 15. The one item not r Zoning File #2294 October 17, 1997 Page 8 of 9 specifically addressed by the applicant to-date is provision of watershed run* IT calculations to confirm the pre- and post-development conditions, which applicant will be providing to the City Engineer. Staff recommends approval of the prof)Osed subdivision subject to the following conditions, manv of which have been noted elsewhere in this memo: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Prior to Council preliminary plat review, applicant shall provide watershed runoff calculations required by the City Engineer to confirm pre- and post- development c.mdilions. Storm sewer and ponding calculations shall likewise be submitted llte proposed impacts to non-Orono protected wetlands delineated by the applicant are subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Stormwater plans and facilities are subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and anv other agencies with jurisdiction. Final plat approval . / _________ . . • .1 i W -W --------------------------------------------- 9 ^ by Council shall not occur until MCWD approvals have been granted. Applicant shall provide street design information to the City Engineer and if necessary shall make changes to the vertical and horizontal curves to meet required standards, subject to City Engineer approval. Final saniU’ sewer design plans shall be submitted for City Engineer approval, showing service locations and elevations. The segments of 8" sewer within the right-of- way of Wildhurst Trail and between Lots 3 and 4 shall be directionally bored to minimize impacts to the road or to the steep slopes on the property. Additional grading plan details as required by the City Engineer shall be submitted, including anticipated site grading plans for construction of homes on Lots 1, 4 and 5, in Block 2, which each have an impact to the ravines. Such preliminary grading plan details should show how residence structures can be developed within those lots without impacting the ravine areas. Pending review of such proposals, the City may impose a "no-disturbance" line within said lots adjacent to the subject ravines. Perimeter drainage and utility easements abutting properties outside the plat shall be increased to I O' in width, and interior lot boundaries shall be provided with drainage and utility easements 5 ’ either side of said lines. Although not in keeping with the Park Commission recommendation, staff continues to reconunend that the areas near the no;lherly ravine be dedicated as park land rather than placed within the useable area of Lot 1, Block 2. In staffs opinion, the area between the two branches of the northerly ravine should become part ot the park system. Absent ! J r Zoning File #2294 October 17,1997 Page 9 of 9 such dedication, the owner of Lot 1, Block 2 could legally make significant changes to the character of this part of the ravine. 9.Subject to the standard Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit requirements; subject to developer responsible for all costs of road, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and stormwater facility construction. Upon completion by the developer and acceptance by the City such improvements shall henceforth be maintained by the City. 10. Subject to any additional conditions which the City may deem necessary as this review process continues. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval subject to staff recommendation 2. Recommend approval with additional or revised conditions. 3. Table for further information or additional revisions. 4. Recommend denial, specifying reasons. 5. Other. o 3 S S 5 S 3i? o o d > j 5. ^ 9 «?-• at t t I I t|l C p« M M O* Oi jk CM ta •kj p V, *« .'J U> if ot Oi -•-- O W «k -. NJ U>M Ut vt•n p y» •*1 • ■*» -» <-» O O U IM m ® O g «o (V ifcw P w P w ^ } w/» tx ■-(1 -1-L i ‘ L. ,1 StK lOi liNC I t / I «» w mnn HH!!! !i!!i|l.'I / / / / /r// A . /'■/TY n»-- / o f laif . '.qa A den Tane :7^r r m* ()«o Mocnr»/*w 314 >y ) — —AI4*» — ♦.i w/-III ■'/ . •’ O ' " s- ‘I-u 1,'I', s: a M,| •tS: 7 HOf^ii-wrc ✓ ?<l.«l / A y •■-^, w^vsA vAl®' A h . ]4 Av \ \ \ Cl r CUENT ^ LQA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. 10700 OLD COUNTY RD. 15 SUITE ISO PLYMOUTH, MN 05441 PHONEi 612/505-0511 FAXi 612/505-0512 ^ DAK: AUGUST 1997 V S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62753-002 SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS SCHOEUL & MAOSON. INC. CNCMCCm • SUKVCT0R9 • PIANMCR5 SCM. USTMC • [Pft^NONMCNlAt SCRVICCS fo&ao MAV2AIA OOUCVARO. SUIC I IIMNCTONXA. UN 33305 (tWJ S4«-760l rAX 346-90*3 fttnmmt mwi nm iMfr.oio* m H'W Wit nMAMtD *• M 04 CWX* H« <WICI vniwso* uto H«l I «. A DLA« «C/tM«0 WOMtl tMCMU* «MUA M IA.4 » »»« tun cx WMNtOIA v«MM0 a> RTTsioNS A 75^i-67 ja 7 c (n JA ai . at^ 7 lOtl »Q i iQtl I 1 A I iiii ii!!! I ’ S § I M I I I I >3 nl ^1! ^• It! f" S S 8I Hi « 6 'H ii Illffii!!!!!!Illli0 a ^f HSS I I 8 9 9 8 S ill I HI! I s II I I § K I i Se i * om ^ CLIENT > LQA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. 10700 OLD COUNTY RD. 15 SUITE 150 PLYMOUTH. MN 55441 vPHONEi 512/505-0511 FAXi 612/505-0512. V DATE: AUGUST 19S7 . / SCHOF.LL & MADSON, INC.^ CNCMCCRS • SURWIYOAS • SOA USTiNC • CMVMOMUCNIill. St^CS loifo hat/ata nouicvAAO. i umNCTONHA. UN ayys (SI2) S4ft-760t rAA54«-IO«» I *>«u i»« nMi v<r*C4i<0M, o« ^ U1 •NV'-MIO I* M( 0. VMM. «> OtHf.l v^.vnoi MO ••Mt t m « out? oviMva ..oitioMi UNW. IK Uat or IK IUl( or kw?KM<«. f REVISIONS QAit ■? > iCij >Q 4 \ S.M.l. PROJECT NO. 62753-002 SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS POL J5s 8 1'H i 1 i 1 ?.i?f 3 1 { S 8 S Shiii I Milil 38 mteU* y X ^ CUCNT > LQA INVESTMENT GROUP. INC. 10700 OLD COUNTY RD. IX SUITE ISO PLYMOUTH. MN SS441 PHONEi ei2/50S-Q511 FAXi 012/505-0512. ______________________DATC: AUGUST 1997^ m-SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.^ CNCMCCRS • SunvtTOftS • PUMNCttS 90H, USfMC • CNVMONUCNIiH MRvCtS lOSBO NAr2AU BOUUVARO. SUifC I UNNCrOMtA. UN SSM5 (•12) S4»-7IOI rA)(:S4#>fOM I •«««• UMI n«N. an ~ «»«• •*» .T M M CMM* .* tmtv IMO • <M * OUI> «cn>(«0 u««uu >K uwt or M »WI or uwwtou «*«M0 *r REVISIONS 0*U >r______ m\.yoM Wtv^t > iQH >Q > tQ»f S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 6275J-002 SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS iS (/) Xmm if!*Pi.!!■?!•!] ‘ !f'■io*n 1 j tv'a * * «t« -<*s8sjif *!’I HI s s !?'«!U LO Xm c] in r ••£ ijm ‘*J5| Ilf* «!»; ill ill ' i 2\t A $! IS s i;‘» ii ^ f ?JI 5 sg il={l!«>5 i!'j R 3 il I % ?1! >=> L-c. w SchoBlI Si rs/ladson, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners Son Tosting • Environmental Services 105B0 Wayzata Boulp«/arcl. Suite 1 Office 612-546-7B01 Octobers. 1997 E Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Subject:Garden Lane Site LGA Investment Group, Inc. Dear Mike: Enclosed are the following items related to LGA’s Garden Lane Site subdivision proposal: 1 . Three sets of full size revised preliminary plans 2. One set of 11" x 17" revised preliminary plans 3. One copy of wetland delineation report The olan revisions, in general, are those required to address the city staff recomS'ons on the previous plans. This resulted in the reduction of one lot Vacation of existing Garden Lane right of way is no longer required. The storrn wa Dond is sized to comply with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District . watershed permit application will be made after preliminary plat . from Orono^ The necessary detailed drainage calculations will be submitted at that time. The plans also show the existing wetlands on the site These the report We initially felt no wetlands were present, but a °Nn on LiPtlai5ds exist along the drainage ditch and north ravine, and another basin (No. 1) on lot 5. wetland basin 2 will be altered by the atom, water lot 5 will be a«erS by the proposed house construction. It should be not^ that even rf bLi* ^s n^^ tt-e proposed house construction, it w°u« st,« be frnpTcte*bl.^uJ^tt.e majority of the surface runoff to this wetland will be dwerted to the north ravine as requested by city staff. ©mr ^0 n/ears of &cyi>ioe Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Bar Schoell Sl Madson, Inc. Eng/nesrs • Surveyors • Planners Soil Testing • Environmental Services 105S0 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 1 Minnetonka. MN 55305-1525 Office 612-54B-'7B01 Pax B1 2-5«4B-SQB5 B October 6, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Subject:Garden Lane Site LGA Investment Group. Inc, Dear Mike: Enclosed are the following items related to LGA’s Garden Lane Site subdivision proposal: 1. Three sets of full size revised preliminary plans 2. One set of 11" x 17" revised preliminary plans 3. One copy of wetland delineation report The plan revisions. In general, are those required to address the city staff recommendations on the previous plans. This resulted in the reduction of one lot. Vacation of existing Garden Lane right of way is no longer required. The storm water pond is sized to comply with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards. The watershed permit application will be made after preliminary plat approval Is obtained from Orono. The necessary detailed drainage calculations will be submitted at that time. The plans also show the existing wetlands on the site. These are described In the report. We initially felt no wetlands were present, but a closer investigation showed wetlands exist along the drainage ditch and north ravine, and another basin (No. 1) on lot 5. Wetland basin 2 will be altered by the storm water basin construction. Basin 1 on lot 5 will be altered by the proposed house construction. It should be noted that even If Basin 1 was not impacted by the proposed house construction, it would still be impacted because the majority of the surface runoff to this wetland will be diverted to the north ravine as requested by city staff. ©iM’yy UO Q/ears c9rerutcc ' Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 5 . SCHOELL & MA080IM, INC. Mr. Mike Gaffron Octobers, 1997 The total altered wetland areas of basins 1 and 2 is 1.856 square feet. The WCA allows for a 2,000 SF diminimus area which does not require mitigation. The proposed storm water basin provides 9,150 square feet of wetland mitigation credit (12,200 square feet pond area at NWL x .75). Please contact me with any questions. Very truly yours. SCHOELL & MADSON, INC Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj cc: Jim Waters. LGA investment Group, Inc. 1 -JCT3»r>T:»Tr' r r'" i J I I 1 I i 1 1 J 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 C Wetland Identification, Delineation and Classification for LGA Investments Orono, MN Prepared by Schoell Si MadecHij Inc. September 29,1997 SCHOEU- S, MaosoNj Inc. Minnetonka, Minnesota I a ] 1 1 I i I a I I I I I » I I ! I I I Wetland Identification, Delineation and Classification for LGA Investments Preview Based upon the boundaries indicated on the site map, we have identified three wetland basins. These wetlands were field identified on September 17,1997 Review of U.S. hish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory maps indicated the presence of one wetland basin at this location. Based on review of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters map, there are no protected waters existing on the property. Recorded rainfall at the Minneapolis International Airport for the 7 days preceding the delineation was 0.01 inch on September 11, a trace on both September 14 and September 15, and 1.97 inches on September 16. There was no precipitation on the day of the delineation. Total recorded precipitation for September to the date of delineation was 2.94 inches. Average precipitation for this same span is 1.65 inches. Precipitation for the month of August was 6.01 inches. This is 2.39 inches above the 3.62 inches f precipitation normally received in August. Project Location and Site Description The site is located West of Wildhurst Trail in Orono, MN. The sites leagal description is as follows; “Lot 2, Block 1 of Heathercroft and Lot 90 “Tonkaview Gardens Hennepin County”. The property is currently vacant but there is an approximately six foot wide, maintained trail running southeast to northwest through the western portion of the property. There are no road accesses into the property. There are single family residential units existing on large lots adjacent to the property on the south, west, and northeast portions of the parcel. The parcel V -iudes Saga Hill. The northern boundary' is bordered by a large vacant property that is cur ently owned by LGA Investments. The area was vegetated primarily with bur oak, basswood, American elm and sugar maple. There were areas that appeared to have been disturbed and regeneration was taking place. The species regent ating in these areas were staghorn sumac and common buckthorn with some prickly ash. On the slopes ground cover was 5% to 10% consisting mostly of jack-in-the-pulpit, ScHOEU- Gl Maoson, Inc. Minnetonka, Minnesota 1 r I 1 wood violet, and some zig-zag golden rod. On the hilltop there was an 80% to 90% ground cover of grasses and forbs. ! 1 1 Characteristics of Wetland Basins Basin 1 Wetland basin 1 is located in the south-central portion of the property on top of Saga Hill. It is classified as a Type 1 wetland (Seasonally Flooded Flat) as defined in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). Based on the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, basin 1 is classified as a PEMIA (Palustrine Emergent Persistent Temporarily Flooded) wetland. Vegetation 1 J I \ ] J I 1 Soils Observed vegetation, along the wetland boundary, consisted of golden-fiiiit sedge Carex aiirea, a facultative wetland plus plant; American elm Ulmus americana, a facultative wetland minus plant; common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica, a facultative upland plant; green ash Fraxiniis americana, a facultative wetland plant; and Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis, a facultative minus plant. Observed vegetation, within the delineated boundary, consisted golden-fruit sedge, American elm, and common buckthorn. Upland vegetation consisted of Kentucky bluegrass, American elm, green ash, and zig-zag goldenrod Solidago Jlexicaulis, a facultative upland plant. Soils were classified by the Hennepin County Soil Survey as Kilkenny loam with 6% to 12% slopes(ICkC) for this basin. The hydric soil component of Kilkenny loam is the Glencoe soil inclusion. Soils along the delineated boundary had an Al horizon that extended to a depth of four inches. This soil was a clay loam that was colored as black (lOYR 2/1). Beneath this Al horizon , to depth of at least 12 inches, laid an A2 horizon. This horizon was black (lOYR 2/1) loamy clay. SCHaEU.GLMAQSON,lNC. MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA ^ r 1 I 3 I I I I 1 I I I f I I ♦ 1 li Soils inside the delineated wetland boundary were colored as black (lOYR 2/1) loam throughout the A1 horizon to a depth of six inches. An A2 horizon was found below the A1 horizon. This horizon was a very dark grey (lOYR 3/1) clay, loam that extended to a depth of at least 12 inches. The upland soils displayed the same epipedon as the wetland soils, an A1 horizon overlying an A2 horizon. The A1 horizon was black (lOYR 2/1) clay loam that extended to a depth of eight inches. At eight inches the color changed to very dark brown (lOYR 2/2) and the texture became clay. Hydrology Basin 2 The soils were saturated within the top two inches of the soil profile. Below this, the soil was not saturated. There was also a considerable amount of surface flow through the area to an off property swale. Wetland basin 2 is an intermittent riverine system that flows from east to west in lot 90. It is classified as a R4UB3 (Riverine Intermittent Unconsolidated Bottom-mud) as defined in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). Vegetation There was no vegetation in the stream channel. Observed vegetation along the delineated boundary included common buckthorn Rhammis cathartica, a facultative upland plant; zig-zag goldenrod Solidago Jlexicaulis, a facultative upland plant; wild black currant Ribes americaniim, a facultative wetland plant; and hog peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata, a facultative neutral plant. Upland vegetation consisted of bur oak Quercus macrocarpa, a facultative minus plant; basswood Tilia americana, a facultative upland plant; sugar maple Acer saccharum, a facultative upland plant, and common buckthorn. SCHOEUL. Gi MADSON, INC. MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA ]l I i 1 1 j I i I i i % * Soils Soils were classified by the Hennepin County Soil Survey as Kilkenny loam 2% to 12% slopes(KkB&C) and Cordova silty clay loam (Co). The hydric soil component of Kilkenny loam is the Glencoe soil inclusion. The Cordova is considered hydric for the whole unit. Soils along the delineated boundary of basin 2 were classified as black (7.5 YR 2/1) clay within the A horizon tha» extended to a depth of 10 inches below the soil surface. From 10 inches to a depth of at least 12 inches, the soil was very dark grey (SYR 3/1) sandy loam. Within the delineated wetland boundary the soils were found to be muck. The upland soils consisted of a Yz inch Oa horizon. The A horizon was dark brown (7.5 YR 3/2) loam from inch to eight inches. The B horizon was brown (SYR 4/2) clay loam from eight inches to a depth of at least 12 inches. Hydrology Hydrology was observed in the basin as inundation ranging in depth from less than Vz inch to 3+ inches in some pools. Basin 3 Wetland basin 3 has the same origin as wetland basin 2 but flows in a north by northeast direction toward, but not directly into. Forest Lake. Only 31 square feet of his basin extends onto the property. It is classified as an R4UB2/3(Riverine Intermittent Unconsolidated Bottom-sand/mud) as defined in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). Vegetation There was no vegetation observed within the stream bed. Observed vegetation along the wetland boundary consisted of common buckthorn Rhammis cathartica, a facultative upland plant; zig-zag goldenrod Solidago Jlexicaulis, a facultative upland plant; wild black currant Ribes americanumy a facultative wetland plant; SCHOELJ- G. IN/lADSON, INC. MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA rtTfiitit [ilMC4!i r«^rAiai*i tltll lltj iS^ RlllllilCt]Mtlr/t mtwj ^TiTtKK i^rt] RTWlXtJ rtr^t] Mdiilt] u.y 1 1 z <^ 1 • 0 1 b i CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Jim Waters, Vice-President LGA Investment Group, Inc. 10700 Old Co. Rd. 15, #150 Plymouth, MN 55441 ZONING FILE #2294 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION action DATE OF NOTICE; September 16,1997 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATiON; SubdivisionA^acation DATE OF MEETING: 9/15/97 Planning Commission recommends the following; Tabled for reasons noted below. Arnold & Renee Soskin 600 South Hwy. 169 Plymouth, MN 55426 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to submit a revised proposal addressing points 1 thru 5 of the staff recommendation on Pages 5 and 6 of the September 11 memo. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 20 meeting is Monday, October 6. 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. X:\APPS\WPWIN60VWPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2294 i )N •7 kin 9 t26 5T staff nine from ! I t t 09'17/97 09:32 ®$12 337 5601 I) SI*. INC ©OiU (m2DAI II GRFM SHARDI OW AM) UBAN IMCOKronkTEO CONSULTIKG PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN S5401 612-339-3300 PHONE 612-337 5601 FAX FROM: RE: 16 September 1997 Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning administrator City of Orono Wallace L. Case, ASLA Landscape Afchitect/Planner LGA Project I was pleased to meet with Greg Gappa, Tom Kellogg, and you last Thursday, to review the proposed LGA project and their ponding issue. After discussing their proposal, reviewing the plans and visiting the site, I offer the following observations and preliminary recommendations. My comments are based on a land planning, environmental and aesthetic perspective. Proposed Alternatives: Th« currently identified options for the required NURP basin include; A. Locating the basin entirely on the northern part of Lot 1, Block 1, adjacent to the common boundary with the park. B. Locating the basin in the existing ravine on Lot 1 , Block 2. This option would require constructing a dam across the ravine to form the pond. ImBacts: Location A. 1. This location would result in the loss of approximately .25-acres of oak, maple, basswood woods due to pond construction. It would require removing a number of maple and oak trees (most in the 6 to 18 inch caliper size range). 2. This location would reduce the buildable area of Lot 1, Block 1 by approximately .25 acres. With tha pond in place, the lot would have approximately .7-acres of dry buildable. OAJOBS-v 1 609 3\9 1 697LGA. Fost-ir Fax Note 7671 £,Al=P2oki "“WAIXy C^£ coyo^pt^rTT oP oeojoo 10 Fax It @001 110 2 09/17 97 09:32 ®612 337 5601 I>SU. INC.@mi2 oti2 3. This location is gently sloping and would facilitate adjusting the shape and location of a pond to minimize the loss of significant trees, and to create a more natural looking pond. If sensitively designed and constructed, such a pond could serve as an long term amenity for both the new homes and the existing park. 4. This location offers the most flexibility for expanding the pond to meet future needs. Depending on the agreements/regulations that controll the use and development of the park, a pond in this location could be built partly on Lot 1 , Block, 1 and partly in the park to meet future ponding needs as the park or adjacent area develops. Location B. 1. This location results in the loss of approximately .4 acres of oak, maple, basswood woods due to pond construction. It results In removing a number of maple, oak and basswood trees (most in the 10 to 24 inch caliper range). 2 This location also results in the loss of approximately .4 acres of a natural wooded ravine system. The existing ravine is a very attractive and fragile natural system that is an asset for both the park and the proposed home sites. Filling the ravine to create a NURP basin will significantly diminish the natural and aesthetic quality of this system, the future park and the home sites. 3. Building the pond in the ravine does not reduce the buildable area of the lot as the ravine is unbuildable for home construction. the require ber of Recommendation: I recommend working with the developer and their consultants to preserve as much of the existing woods and ravine as possible. To this end, a sensitively designed and natural looking pond located on and around the common boundary between Lot 1, Block 1 and the park would seem to be the best solution, and in the community's and developer's best interest. I also recommend that the City and developer look closely at the layout/location of the proposed cul-de-sac, as the current alignment would also have a significant negative impact on the natural ravine system and overall aesthetics of the project. If you have questions or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at 339- 3300. DAHLGI 1 EN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. Wallace L. Case, ASIA Landscape Architect/Planner nity EmployerPE • "p..PE • n, P.E •To:Planning Commission From: Date: MPG October?, 1997 Subject: 1S97 State of Minnesota Environmental Revie'’' ' uirements: EAW/EIS Status of LGA’s Saga Hill i rojects ix-Iot t west I with \iture rth of hould fficult the curve y cul- cation led on mitary irLots tmaps ixceed I plans srshed Both projects are partially within the Shoreland Management District, hence per 4410.4600, Subpart 12, neither project is "exempt" from the EAW/EIS process. Each project is far below the 250-unit threshold above which an EAW is mandatory in the 7-county metro area per 4410.4300, Subpart 19, and each project does not impact wetlands nor cause other impacts reaching any of the mandatory EAW thresholds, hence each project is not in mandatory EAW category. Likewise, each project is far below the 1,000-unit threshold for which an EIS is mandatory in the seven-county metro area per 4410.4400 Subpart 14. These two projects in staffs opinion are separate, unrelated, and not 'phases' of a greater development plan. Each project could happen independently of whether the other is ultimately approved. Further, they are not contiguous, but are separated by more than 500’ of public and privately owned lands. As a result, it would be improper to consider them as a single unit for EAW/EIS status assignment. Both projects could be subject to a 'discretionary EAW' initiated by either the City or by a citizen petition of at least 25 individuals. In the case of a petition, the Council shall order preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners demonstrates to the Council's satisfaction that because of the nature or location of the project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Summary 1. The two projects are independent of each other. 2. Neither project is in a mandatory EAW or EIS category. Neither project is in an "exempt" category due to being partially in the Shoreland Distnct. Both projects could be subject to a Discretionary EAW if the Council so orders pursuant to its own initiative or in response to a citizen petition. )ait :ant CITY OF OBONOJ V ______^nl[iE[iomiJAMES & ROXANNE STASIK 1270 Wildhurst Trail Mound (Orono), Minnesota 55364 October 1,1997 .O CX 2 am iiA\i , Mr. Michael Gafifron Planning Commission Orono council P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Gafifron: I am writing you with concerns regarding the proposed subdivision in the Saga Hills area. I feel it imperative that the council be aware of the run ofiF situation as it affects our property. We have owned and lived at this property since 1981. Because of heavy rains, spring thaws and/or a prolonged rain, we have experienced the following: 1. The ravine on the west side of Wildhurst has filled with debris from time to time, and consequently not worked as a ravine should. The water has gone over the street, entering the lake properties at random spots. We have had the gravel driveway ok our neighbor on the west side of Wildhurst, Scott Hennessey, literally at our front door - our door being 100’ feet from the street. This not only damages our landscaping, but has caused damage to our asphalt driveway - to the extent that a portion has had to be replaced. 2. We consistently experience gravel, sand, street debris, etc. being washed into our driveway, creating a constant maintenance problem. 3. We also share a ravine with our neighbors, the Welsh’s. The water from this ravine which should, by the rules of nature, direct the water from the hill above. It doesn’t. The water flows out of the ravine and into our yards, causing again, a constant maintenance problem. 4. The continuing “thawing, melting” process that occurs during most winter months also directs water from the street into our driveway. This runoff during the colder months r - =.rr ” ’■ ^ “:i,;ssS'd'SS'. flow through the ravines into the lake, but does not. “r I««[^ (» 1 would like lo tequed ihai a ^ *at of ow iS-". £11.11.... M, feekao .. did ff”'" ” advise you. „ I.,», Tosix-sibiii.,.. d« <>™» :s^r.!r rrsc—s r.-.u. w^kdwei. Sincerely, QpU<nC aim & Roxanne Stasik H- CITY OF CRONO RO^B 1 , ROBERT L. BIRKELAND MARTT S. BIRKELAND 1298 WILDHURST TRAIL MOUND, MN 55364 OCT 1 5 1997 TO: MR. MICHAEL GAFFRON - PLANNING COMMISSION P.O. BOX 66, CRYSTAL BAY. MN. 55323 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. WE HAVE LIVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS FOR THIRTY PLUS YEARS. AND HAVE ENJOYED A GOOD QUALITY FAMILY LIFESTYLE ON FOREST LAKE BAY OF LAKE MINNETONKA. THE LAST FEW YEARS THIS LIFESTYLE HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT. WHERE AT TIMES. IT IS ALMOST UNINHABITABLE, BECAUSE OF NOISE FROM HUGE TRUCKS ON HIGHWAY 19, DUE TO THE OPENING OF HIGHWAY 6. ANT) INCREASED TRAFFIC ON WILDHURST TRAIL, A DEAD END ROAD. FROM THE LAKE COMES A HOWLING CRESCENDO OF NOISE FROM PERSONAL WATERCRAFT. NOISE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE APPLIED TO A HUMAN BEING. NOW COMES ANOTHER PHYSICAL THREAT OF FORCE DOWN ON OUR HEADS FROM SAGA HILL. BECAUSE OF NEW HOUSES. AND DEVELOPMENTS, (WITH RESULTING HARDCOVER). WHICH WILL CAUSE CASCADES OF RAINWATER TO INNUNDATE OUR HOMES AT THE BOTTOM OF SAGA HILL. MY HOME. UP TO NOW. HAS R\D MY DRIVEWAYS WASH OUT. AND MY CONTIGOUS BARN LOT HAD A RIVER 50 FEET WIDE, RUSHING WITH TREMENDOUS FORCE, CARRYING DIRT, DEBRI, AND ALGAE PRODUCING CHEMICALS DOWN TO THE LAKE CHANNEL IN BACK OF MY HOME. THE 12" RAIN HAD WATER ON WILDHURST TRAIL ABOVE THE KNEES OF LARGE CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE ROAD. SINCE THAT 12 ” RAIN. ASPHALT BERMS HAVE BEEN BUILT TO CONTAIN THE WATER ON WILDHURST TRAILS. TO ADD ANOTHER DIMENSION TO THIS. A HOUSE I BUILT FOR MY DAUGHTER AND HER HUSBAND ON HIGHWAY 19 (4500 NORTH SHORE DRIVE) IN 1978, WAS INNUNDATED ON ITS LOWER LEVELS (ALSO HER NEIGHBORS HOUSE) LAST YEAR DURING A HEAVY STORM, RESULTING IN MUCH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DAMAGE. MOUNTING TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THIS WAS DUE TO HARDCOVER FROM NEW HOUSES ON TONKA VIEW ROAD GOING UP SAGA HILLS’ SOUTH SIDE. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM OF WATER DRAINAGE WHERE I BUILT THE HOUSE. NOW MANY YEARS LATER. ORONO HAS BEEN FORCED TO BUY PROPERTY. AND INSTALL A STORM SEWER INTO WEST ARM COSTING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. AND LAWSUITS PERHAPS ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. HISTORICAL SAGA HILL. SHOULD BE SAVED FOR POSTERITY, AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY VALVE, TO PREVENT POLLUTION OF LAKE MINNETONKA, AND THE LAKESHORE SURROUNDING THE LAKE. PLEASE TAKE THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PRESSURES OFF THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS OF NOISE. TRUCK TRAFFIC. DANGEROUS BOATS. AND THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF FLOODING WATERS. PLEASE..., YOUR CONSTITUENTS NEED AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SINCERELY. MR. & MRS. ROBERT L. BIRKELAN’D Af'3. i j r»Tv CF ^ r lOCL 1 .8 1997 October 8, 1997 Michael Gaffron Orono Planning Commission P.O. Pox 66 Crystal N!N* 55525 Dear Michael Gaffron and Commission Members. We have a real concern about the water run off into Forest Lake with the proposed development, we live at 4450 Forest Lake Landing, Even though we don’t have a water problem with water running across our property in heavy rains, like some of our neighbors, (we don’t even own a sump pump) we have experienced the poisoning of the lake from water run off. Two years ago our dog drank the water from the lake when it was covered with a green slim, he died within one hour at the vets office in Delano. This poison was caused by the water run off containing phosphorus from fertilizers used on lawns according to the University of Minnesota. A study of environmental impact is recommended before the further developement of Saga Hill is permitted. You must deal with the 2-2^ acres of added hard cover that comes with development. The run off from that hard cover will wash the fertilizers from the remaining acres of lawn into the lake. The water clarity of Forest Lake is very poor when compared to the water in the eastern part of Lake Minnetonka# V/e are concerned that this condition will further degrade unless all facts effecting the environment are evaluated and delt with. Sincerely, Bob and Velma V/olff Phone 472-4054 h -H nrU''CI'^OF ~ -C'iO Michael Gaffron and Orono Planning Commission PO Box 66 Cirystal Bay, Mn 55323-0066 OUT. i 5 1997 >in\; - Mr. Gaffron and Planning Commission, Saga Hill has a unique soil make-up. Residing here during just one spring melt or one summer downpour confirms this for even the casual observer. We remove a partial wheelbarrow load of run-off residue from the end of our alley drive after each rain storm. Winter melt-down has trapped as much as two feet of water between our driveway snowbanks in just a few hours. No eunount of modern engineering can change the way our backyard hill seeps, like an open wound, each spring; a trait of Saga Hill clay. The density of any Saga Hill development is a great concern. Building only to the density that is environmentally sound i essential. Traffic at the 19/Tonkaview/Wildhurst intersection is another concern. Safe entrance from Wildhurst to that intersection can be hazardous because of the speed of traffic exiting 19. Increased development means increased traffic. Careful environmental decisions are vital. We have lived here since May, 1994, and enjoy the beauty of the area; the wetlands, the bluffs, the lake. Cautious development after thorough environmental assessment can maintain that beauty. 4455 Forest Lake Landing Mound, Mn. 55364 M-<. Gary and Sandra Welsh =1111=1111=1111=1111=1111=1111=1111=1111=1111 1214 WUhurat T«a • Mound. Mnnosobi SB384 • Tolophono ei 2-472-6G65 • Fax 612-472-5663 Octobers, 1997 Michael Gaffron Orono Planning Commission P O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Michael Gafifron and Planning Commission: We have resided at 1214 Wildhurst Trail since 1967. As you have heard from other residents, we have noticed heavier run off problems over the years on the same amount of precipitation. Because of the Erin and Killkenny soils and their unique qualities, development on these soils must be limited according to the Hennepin County Soil Survey. It appears that the storm water management techniques used so far are inadequate. Our dock is 50 feet further out because of the silting of the lake cause by the run off from Saga Hill. When 1 was on the Orono Council in the 70's when the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, it was understood we wanted development to be controlled to preclude the need for expensive storm water projects that are not as effective as using minimal hardcover and preserving wetlands. Before any more development is approved, we should take the time to do a study paid for by the city to set guidelines that will establish policies that will gain the confidence of the majority of the residents. Sincerely, Gary and Sandra Welsh Phone number 472-6955 )4~(^ ffll CIIVO^ 1 irUU_0S2«0_JnjBeao^ SEP- 1 6 1997 A 0^ Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Sr. Planning Coordinator City of Orono Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 September 14, 1997 Dear Mr. Gaffron. We are writing to whom it may concern regardmg 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 unable to attend the public hearing of the Planning Commission on September 15, 1997. However, we are intensely interested in the q)propriate 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 underlying 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 pressure 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. r Finally, concerning the expansion of access to the local lift station for sewer. Our property and die adjacent lot owned by Dave and Katy Kruskopf periodically experiences problems with the sewer venting via our home's roof vents. Venting frequently 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/or #2293 may create significant health concerns on top of an already serious problem. We take great pride in the quality of life in our community. We support the existing zoning requirements of the City and thei: appropriate enforcement. We ^preciate your attention to these matters and are anxious to hear specific plans to address them within the proposed development Sincerely, Brian D. Rasmussen Sandra J. Rasmussen 1186 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN S5364 From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator September 11, 1997 #2294 LGA 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 'Soskin 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. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - 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. The 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. maiy Trail y has The arden ewer. WhUe ed the iff has and/or #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 2 The 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 Hermesey 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 of a parallel roadway that does not limit future access to the north and west. The 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 e.xcess 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 utility easements. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 are cul-de-sac lots witli 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 filling in the front yard. Lot 2, Block I 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 north, 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 of 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. cess ssey le if has Scant irects ed at Scant ck 2, td by r' I #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden Lane - Preliminary Subdivision September 11, 1997 Page 3 The proposed stormwater facilities will provide a general benefit to the reduc^ng^ the rates of flow which impact downhill properties via the two major ravmw^ However staff has great reservations regarding placement of the stormwater pond witlun uopTreachf Although the City Engineer’s comments du^g Ae sketch i^an re^view may have suggested some runoff rate control facilities at the head of the did not expect that the southerly leg of the ravine would be turned into The uniaue natural features of this ravine within a mature maple/basswood/o^ woods make it a much more fragile environment than the similar woods west of Garden Lane where e stormwater pond w^ initially proposed (See Exhibit E). It appears to staff Aat the pond w^ relocated specifically in response to City policies and Code requuements wbe^^^ not allow lot area credit for areas within drainage easements (SecUon 11.41, Subd B(4)). area of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 would have been only 1/2 acre under the imtial plan. Lot Standards Each of the proposed lots is subject to the normal 35' front and side sheet, 30' rear, »d 10' side setback ^uirements of the LR-IB district. Subject to certain lots being to mret lot area standards, each lot appears to have suitable area for construction of a single f y residence meeting setback requirements. Note that Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 and the tear 1/4 of Lot shoreland, mainly in the 500-1,000' setback zone. Portions of those lots m the 500-1,000 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 build on these lots. The northerly ravine area within the property boundaries is not m designated Shoreland district. City Engineer’s Comments The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat proposal and made a number regarding utilities, streets, grading, drainage and easements, and has animated the ~ ^ sewer, storm sewer, and stormwater pond construction for purposes of a finaricial be posted as part of the developer’s agreement. To summarize the Engineers comments. 1. Sanitary sewer will be extended by the developer to the site from Wiltest Trail. Final plans will need to show surface locations and the steep bank, it may be necessary to put sewer down the center of Wil urs rather than on the shoulder. 2 Applicant must confirm that the streets meet the design, speed arid radius standards and a typical section included on plans. The City should detemune » i 1 ; to idius nine #2294 LGA Investment Group, 1181 Wildhurst Trail/Garden L^uie - 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-of-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 flow^. 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 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 stormwrater 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 1. reasons: I HIM a. Results in the removal of numerous mature trees. b. Results in a total change in the character of the ravine area. c. Has a negative visual impact from the adjacent park land. d. Forces the location of a single family residence within 10-20' of a neighbori stormwater pond, on a lot that is intended as a walkout towards that pond. It appears to staff that this is not an environmentally fnendly 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, property 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 K)nd ving I • n an #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. The replacement nght-of-^y for Garden Lane should stUl be dedicated to make the full connecuon as shown, subject to meeting road design standards. 3 The Park Commission has not yet reviewed the proposed plat to detennine whether la^ or a park fee will be required. Eight percent of the 8.89 acre area of the plat would approximately 0.7 acres, which could encompass most of the ravme m Lot 1 Block ^ TWs would potenUally 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 still accommodate a stormwater pond on the site as well as maintam the inte^ty o ravine in its natural state. Note that the property exclusive of proposed nght-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 vm easemente or dedication as park, and 7.0 acres for 7 lots. The numbers don ’t qmte 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. Subject to Park Commission and Council approval, the City should protect the ravme 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 m 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 drainageway at the head of the ravine. Applicant should provide the information requested in the City Engineer ’s review of the preliminary plan. 2. 3. 4. r m 1 #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. §7 A«e 29 9l:94:da r:NtNG^2793\002\H»hi27|)OQ2 JAZ r CU£NT > LQA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. 10700 OLD COUNTY RD. IS SUITE 150 PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 PHONEi 012/505-0511 FAXi 012/506-0512 ^ DATE. AUGUST 1^97^ » 5.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62753-002 SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. fNCMTcm • suNvrrtMS • puMNim so*. tlSlMC • (NMKMMNrAC SCIM^tS lOMO «MV/ATA nOULCVMIO. SINIC I IMMNrrONKA. MN SS305 (ei2) rAx.&4e-9MS • t^mm nNWT ih *i ims .um . tnctfciuM. on ^ «.nwi irr m on iMia mt omci M« r»«*> • tm • OMf MCAnMO rwvttvoMi iNLAlia iMIlfl Ii4 IM») fW |H< »Un Of IMMVfiA ■iMwo m OATt RtVlSlONS mvt»ON 0§r03:41 F:mSVS2753>002>f02^€2753002 JAZ IP pi IP .Is ki § |:'I| o HS 8P 14*fi illi |g 5»§ t,§ r*2 |S5i § ■ sll ;S! ^ I I i < I i»6 -ii i M- mmmS... ||j;. ijUlHil,,. Ill s»i[!|l L.J' // V Ji T.1034*4. \ ^OAlTDfH LAME^f.. ««»«• * Vi « y *'..'• r*'»- O M /i \ \ •4. cr j *5. \ ... \/ CLIENT LQA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. 10700 OLD COUNTY RD. 15 SUITE 150 PLYMOUTH* MN 56441 .PHONEi 612/606-0511 FAXi 612/605-0512. \__________________________HAir AUOIST too; S.M.I. PROJECI NO. b?/b^-002 SIIUII 2 Of 4 SMLLIb SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.'\ CNCMCCn • SURVrrORS • piannciis son ICSfMG • CNVMONUCNIAL SllfVtCCS loseo WAY/AIA BOUlCVAM). 5U*TC I laNNCtONKA, UN SSSnS (fi7) S4«-;soi rAis4ft-«n4S I MMtvr ctaiwY n«i n «i nut. tnt«CAtm. on ^ MinMt mAi rmuma *t m m uwm . yr imici M)0 i<.ti I m . CMY Muuiwo mmitvoML umoty U4 itm% Of U4 «i«n oi mmnux . tUTf WMfNO m___ REVISIONS nrwsow % MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 sentence was added to the ninth paragraph, "Gappa said he sees a gofid option available is for use of widened shoulders." Page 14, 3rd paragraph, "dead-end roads" was changed to "smaUcr residential roads". ^^ Beal moved. McDermott seconded, to aonrove the Minutes of the Seotember 2. 1997 Park Commission Meeting as amended. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (Use and White had not yet arrived.) (Item #2 follows #9.) (#9) SUBDIVISIONS - GAPPA A. GARDEN LANE Tim Waters, representing LGA the company developing the subdivision called Garden Lane, was present. (White arrived at this time.) Gappa reported that the plan has been revised and is being considered for preliminary plat approval. The Park Commission was asked to determine whether the Park Dedication would be in land or cash fee. Gappa explained the subdivision property location in its relationship to the park land. Gappa indicated a line of property along the ravine with the right-of-way on its other side which could be considered taken for park land. minutes of the regular orono park commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 _____________________________________________________________________________________^ Welles asked Waters how the ravine would be factored into the subdivision. Waters said a ^ amount of the ravine would be required for frontage for a private lot, which requires 144' width, but the ravine would have an easement running across it. Waters said with the additional land grouped together for a .59 acre total, the land would be contiguous to the park land by the ravine through Park Dedication and by easement. Waters said it would require a combination of both cash and land to meet the required ratio. He is concerned, however, with decreasing the Mze of the adjoining lot. McDermott questioned the purpose of the casement. Gappa indicated that the drainage cannot be altered but felt the easement should be made more restrictive, especially in regards to trees. Wilson said she was concerned with the idea of monitoring what would be a backyard easement. Gappa said the park land also runs into the lot. Waters noted that Garden Lane was not being vacated at this time. Gappa reported that Parcel 3 was in private ownership and would require access from Garden Lane. Access from Wildhurst would be difficult with the steep terrain. Wilson did not favor taking land on the side of Garden Lane. Welles indicated that it would be difficult to develop this area anyways with the ravine at that location. Wilson agreed that the ravine cannot be built on. McDermott indicated that the ravine could be changed visually, however, through removal of trees as an example. MINirfES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 Gappa suggested the area be protected. WUson thought it would be appealing if only the road was vacated. % Waters reported the CouncU had considered a possible trade of land with the owner of Lot 3. Gappa said the subdivision would extend to the cul-de-sac. which would be constructed by the developer, but the developer of Lot 3 would have to extend the road to serve that property. Waters indicated that this would be an expensive endeavor. Gappa said it would only involve a driveway rather than a road. Waters informed the Park Commissioners that a developers agreement would specify the terms of the easement. Gappa added that it would be a drainage easement and Umitations would be stipulated. Waters said it would also be delineated as a wetland. He showed the extent of the wetlands to Welles noting the easement extends beyond the wetland. Welles indicated he would be inclined not to take land at that location. Waters responded that he thought it would make sense to take that land as it would be the only opportunity to do so. Wilson inquired about the development of Lots 4. 5, and 6. Waters said he is currently reviewing the plans for that and additional property for development. Gappa reported that they were separate applications, and this particular subdivision was not at the point of review by the Cominission. minutes of the regular orono park commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6. 1997 Welles said he did not sec the benefit of taking land due to the natural area, the impact on the Garden Lane cxtenaon, and the protection of land in the area. He preferred to take cash. Beal was informed that the cash would amount to 8% of the assessed value of the 6 lots, which is currently unknown It was estimated the range would be around $20,000. McDermott favored taking land. Even with the wetland delineation and drainage easement, McDermott thought the easement would be of less value when held up against the private property rights of individuals. He suggested the City possibly condemn Lot 3 and making a continuing park land including the road and this 8% of land. Wilson asked McDermott how he would feel if the City was not interested in condemmng Lot 3. McDermott said if there was a driveway to the lot and the property is heavily wooded, he would still feel it would add significantly to the appearance of the area. He voiced concern with the cutting of trees for a yard and additions built such as sheds or swing sets. Welles felt there was adequate protection under the zoning ordinances. Beal thought the decision was difficult without knowing the assessed value. He said he was inclined to take the cash as it would be difficult to get to the land. Wilson agreed. She did say, however, that she would possibly change her opinion if the City did acquire Lot 3. minutes of the regular orono park commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 Beal said he is concerned with the fact that no tree poUcy yet exists. White said he would prefer taking cash. He feels it is unlikely that the land would be altered and easement would be an aid. White thought it will be difficult to develop Lot 3 and feels the cash would be of more value than the land. McDermott informed the Commissioners that the Saga Hill Preservation Group also did not think Garden Lane would be developed. Erickson said he preferred to take the cash, Welles moved, Beal seconded, to recommend cash payment of 8% of the assessed land value of the Garden Lane Subdivision for Park Dedication Fee. Wilson asked for comments regarding Lot 3. White said it was not part of this issue. McDermott suggested the City consider acquiring Lot 3. Gappa noted there was a time frame concern. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, McDermott. B. BROOK PARK REALTY Commission reviewed the sketch plan of Brook Park Realty Subdivision in the Navarre area. Gappa indicated the plan under review included a possible future expansion of the subdivision but there are no assurances that the expansion would occur. The subdivision consists of a higher density townhome development. The first concept reviewed by the mwin, \ i ► o ► • • = |af5jfsssa- 2 1 I I 8 88 8 ^ ‘ ^ a► g* szm Iss S s f I 8 : ^rg 8 s 8 To:Planning Commission Park Commission Council Ron Moorse Greg Gappa Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator October 20,1997 # 2294 - PARK DEDICATION OPTIONS Site Parameters Area of existing site excluding existing rights-of-way: Standard Park Dedication (8% of 8.43 Acres): 8.436 Acres 0.675 Acres 'Fair Market Value' before development (Estimated for discussion purposes only) = $25,000/acre x 8.436 acres:$210,900 Park Dedication Cash Payment in Lieu of Land at 8% of Fair Market Value (Est. for discussion):$ 16,872 Proposal A (Per plat drawings presented to Park and Planning Commissions) Proposed Park Land Dedication Portion of R':%^,'red Park Dedication via Land (0.591/0.675): 0.591 Acres 87.6% Park Fee [(1.000-0.876) x $16,872]:$2,092 Ramifications: Ravine area including the area between north and south branches is protected as park land for public use Small portion of steep southeasterly ravine bank remains within north end of Lot 1 The natural character of the head of the ravine is protected from use as private property, eliminates possibility of tree removal or accessory buildings west of the ravine City gives up $14,800 in park fees #2294 - Park Dedication Options October 20, 1997 Page 2 Proposals B & C (Per Park Commission) Proposed Park Land Dedication Proposed Park Fee 0.00 acres S 16,872 Ramifications: Under Proposal B, only the portion of ravine bottom designated as wetland is dedicated as drainage easement. The area between the north and south ravine branches, as w'ell as some area north of the ravine, all becomes private property as part of Lot 1 Under Proposal C, a wider drainage easement is dedicated, encompassing the steeply sloped banks of the ravine as well as the ravine bottom, but still leaving the flatter upland areas in private owTiership in Lot 1 Under both B and C, the possibility exists that the owner of Lot 1 could remove all vegetation and place accessory buildings within the area between the north and south branches of the ravine, potentially negatively altering the natural character of the head of the ravine >ark Staff Recommendation In staffs opinion the degree of protection yielded by Option B is minimal at best. Option C provides the minimum drainage easement width necessary to encompass the environmentally sensitive ravine bank slopes; but neither B nor C result in protection of the natural characteristics of the head of the ravine, including the area between the two branches of the ravine. Those characteristics extend beyond the scope of a normal drainage easement, and should be protected via other controls. Such controls would necessarily include placing severe limitations on the private use of the land, such as prohibiting tree and other vegetation removal, and prohibiting accessory structures or storage on this portion of the property. Staffs preferred alternative is that this area be dedicated to the City as a logical expansion of the adjacent park area, in a manner similar to Proposal A but incorporating an additional 0.084 acre along the easterly side of the ravine to incorporate more of the banks. This would eliminate the possibility that a future owner of Lot 1 would place an accessory structure within the area between the two ravine branches, and would likewise eliminate the possibility of private tree removal. Further, this would open up access to this side of the ravine for a walking trail overlooking the ravine, making it an enjoyable amenity for the public. r I I TO: MEMBERS OF THE OROHO PLAMMiriG COMMISSIOri FROM: KATHLEEN KASPRICK RE: SAGA HILL DEVELOPMENT Enclosed are some pictures taken at one of Quest Development (a. k.. . LGA Investment Group) sites. This particular development is locatec in Eagan, Minnesota and is named Seneca Woods. Mr. Waters, of Quest Development furnished me with a list of developments his company been Involved with and if memory serves me they were: two located in Eagan, one located in Inver Grove Heights and one in Mahtomedi. Each of the above areas have very distinct identities and each is quite different from Orono. After reviewing the pictures you will see that the "woods” in Seneca Woods are rapidly disappearing, replaced by a few new plantings and a narrow green belt of old growth woods. As you know, the guiding principle in good development is that the clues to the development should come from what already exists. n I realize the daunting task before the Commission as you weifcih the issues of whether or not to grant Mr. Waters and his colleagues variances. Additionally, I also realize that we live in a land of law and process. My hope is that law and process might include a civility towards what exists, that principles of development are conformed to -and, that these pictures are worth a "thousand words . Finally, and most compellingly, why would you grant the variances this developer wants? Presumably, ordinances and rules are already in place | him from developing Saga Hill in the way he would like. he woul-' not request variances, to develop. This would seem to fall 4"o^o:rc\ardsMp- is not a valid reason for a various to be granted. The great vitality and value you have provided to the residents o Orono should not be comprise ^r this development. Sincerely, A1 \ U I? ■Y?i ^ -'ir_ 'li'V*:3r<aL ft. ,\ V iV fv-^ivkVV^ ^'‘■ ■ ov' (L', mh bi,.^ '..>«9M^ ‘Ife i'.f ‘'M.im L W """H> if:mil »^»i ♦ • * 'tf i-r • ■'» '■ pr M'M11 riV-:i - i' \ <m r.h U ^ ■ ■■ ^ -If L i«j '• .' l. p-Y ■ * i 4' i •/ • . >. u > * • '■:■■ I' .\X^' o{ I u X, V Vj Vir ' I Vv %X . tmm ‘4-4' K'i' ^'■'S ► tm ■;>:'!*■ Ml ‘t ' ;!'y Y i’ »fe,^ '-■""Til" 44^ 3 <<v^ i * ‘'A .’avi r Ir ay l^t:'v"-i:-A-WSk'Y r"A *• '*. f L a/L I \ f * i 6" TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 3,1997 iJ SUBJECT: #2SlO Richard Bury, having an interest in 3850 Shoreline Drive Request for Clarification/Finding of Substantially Similar Use ! I Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District 40,808.81 sq. ft. (.93 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting clarification of the intent and purpose of the B5 zoning district and asks that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that an office and showroom for classic car sales is substantially similar to other uses in the zoning district, specifically, an antique store or museum. : j Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.44 B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District # ^0 Classic Car Sales, Richard Bury 3850 Shoreline Drive October 20. 1997 page—I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards BS District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 20,000 sq. ft.100’20*10*30* Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 40,808.81 sq.ft.175.03’68 ’ from center line; 35* from edge of right-of- way 15* on east side 80 ’ The subject property meets all of the lot area and lot width requirements. Setback Requirements Front Rear Side 35*35*15* The subject property meets the setback requirements. The property also meets building design, construction, height and drainage requirements for the B5 district. 2210 Classic Car Sales, Richard Bury 3850 Shoreline Drive October 20. 1997 page~2 ZONING The B5 zoning district does not specifically list classic car sales or automobile sales as either a permitted or conditional use. "Open sales lots" are allowed only by conditional use in the I, Industrial District. The applicant is not proposing an open sales lot, but rather an enclosed showroom for classic or antique vehicles. The Zoning Code does not adequately or specifically address the proposed use. The Zoning Code does give the City Council the authority to interpret when a proposed use is substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district. BACKGROUND In 1986, this site was purchased by Furniture Minnesota. The owner proposed construction of a furniture store to function as a smaller satellite store to a larger store in St. Paul. Furniture stores were not specifically addressed under the B5 zoning district. The Planning Commission was asked to determine the compatibility of the proposed use in relation to the intent of the B5 district. The Planning Commission and City Council found that the proposed furniture store was similar to a "gallery" in function and operation. The commercial site plan for the furniture store was also approved. The Zoning Code lists approximately 23 permitted uses for this zoning district. Most of the permitted uses listed are not practical for the existing building and the amount of parking available. An office building or clinic would need more parking for clients and customers. The building would also need to be remodeled to put in more restrooms and walls for either a clinic or office. The building is also larger than most of the retail uses that are permitted. Typically, a hair salon, hobby shop, gift shop or jewelry store would locate in a smaller facility. If multiple users were located in the building, there would not be enough parking. The existing building size, 6,880 sq. ft., and amount of parking, 9 spaces, limits the plausible reuse of the building for the uses permitted. Likewise, the conditional uses that are noted also usually require less square footage. The building is designed for a showroom rather than retail space that depends on the proximity of other retail uses for traffic. Staff has received several inquiries about locating a liquor store at this location. Callers have been informed that no liquor license is available and that the zoning does not allow liquor stores. Staff has not received any other inquiries for other uses. Brad Bressler, planning intern assistant, has surveyed the other properties in the vicinity and determined that only two other uses, the vet clinic and restaurant conform to the use list in the B5 H 2210 Classic Car Sales. Richard Bury 3850 Shoreline Drive October 20. 1997 page—3 ^ . [ zoning district. The hardware distributor, sign shop, and auto^oat sers ice do not conform. A third use, Com-Tek may conform if it functions as an ofBce. Staff, however, is not farm lar its operation for purposes of zoning classification. through the mail. The proposed location would provide the applicant more indoor storage space and is designed as a showroom. # 2210 Classic Car Sales. Richard Bury 3850 Shoreline Drive October 20, 1997 page—4 ISSUES 1.The proposed use is not allowed in the zoning disttict as cither a permitted or conditional use. 2.The existing furniture store was approved in 1986 at which time the Planning Commission and City Council found that it would operate similar to a gallery. 3.The current uses in the B5 district in the vicinity of this property generally do not conform to the list of permitted and conditional uses. 4.The size of the building, 6880 sq. ft. and amount of available parking, 9 spaces, limits the reuse of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission finds that the use is substantially similar to the intent and purpose of the B5 district, staff would recommend that a resolution be i^fted for Council consideration that addresses the use for classic car sales vs. new or used vehicles. The resolution may also include standards for outdoor display of vehicles, parking, signage, and landscaping. Should the Planning Commission find that the use is not substantially similar to an antique store or museum, then the Commission should provide the applicant further direction regarding the possibility of a zoning amendment to the B5 district to revise the list of permitted or conditional uses. Attachments A B C D E F Application Applicant's letter Intern's report 1986 staff report re: Furniture Store Previous 1986 minutes Old site plan # 2210 Classic Car Sales. Richard Bury 3850 Shoreline Drive October 20, 1997 page—5 Application # 3l?>ID Date Received Amount Paid ___________ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Pro^ IdenUficalion Number fP.i.D? IH-UO- ^ O OQt. ----- SiryV.kp-Uac. APPLICANT . Name RidOfl/U Address OWNER (if different than apjjlicant) Name Tl Ml rvnf^4'K Address ______________________— Phone (home) ^1*43^ 2^9^ Phone (work) Q 3Q - TD I f City MN Zip Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ Citv Zip. Date Property Acquired______________________________________ 1 (do) (do not) also o^^■n the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application 3HZ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ~ $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals a' . * ^ :X: other - see F« Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Prewm U« of Residential X _ Other (specify)F?AynilWg Sfey* • 4 Distinguished Motor Cars SALES REPAIR STORAGE CLASSIC SALES INC. P O BOX HOPKINS.'mINNESOTA 55343 Office and Showroom (612) 922-6711 3840 EDQEVVOOO AVE. ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 55426 Sept 26, 1997 FLEET & LEASE AUTO WHOLESALERS Mrs. Elizabeth Van Zomeren City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minn 55323 Dear Mrs. Van Zomeren, With this letter I hereby request permission from the City of Orono to operate a collector car museum and sales store on the property at 3850 Shoreline Drive. As a requirement of the State of Minnesota Transportation and Licensing Department, the City is required to sign my application for the transfer of my Used Car Dealers license from my present location to the new one in Orono. We presently are located in St. Louis Park, and have operated for years without incident or problems. Our present hours of operation are 8:30-4:30 Mon thru Fri. We anticipate the display and sales of collector cars at this location. I'm including some pictures of previous sales to show the type of cars that we may have at any given time. We also anticipate limited sales of newer JOodern cars and probably limited Saturday hours. The prosent building meets all requirements of yourSec 10.44, B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District as far as I know. We have a purchase agreement signed on the Bay Furniture store contingent on Orono's permission for us to move in as of Nov 1st. Should the planning Commission reconmend and the Council approve on Nov 10th, the owner will extend the closing date until after approval. Please advise me if you need any further information for this request. Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter, I remain, V^ truly your^ ^ Richard B. Bury P.E.' ^ President rb:RB8 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 9/17/97 Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant Uses in the B-5 Zoning District ATTACHMENTS: A: B-5 District Information B: Property 0^\•ners List C: Plat Map of Zoning District D: Zoning Map of District Today (9/17/97) I completed the visual survey of the B-5 zoning district to review what types of business is located there. All B-5 zoned properties are located on Shoreline Drive. The following are my fmdings. Address Name of Business Nature of Business 3495 Applied Communications of Minnesota, Inc. Data Communication Hardware Distributor 3502 The Sign Age Sign Shop Com-Tek Comprehensive Technical Sales, Inc. Electronics Manufacturing Representative 3542 Pronto Auto Parts Auto Parts 3572 Lake Minnetonka Animal Hospital, Inc. Veterinary 3574 Dairy Queen Restaurant-Drive Thru 3800 n/a Single Family Residence 3850 Amish Heritage Furniture Furniture Sales 3860 Shoreline Service Center Auto/Boat Service The intent of the B-5 district is to provide limited services to the surrounding neighboriiood. As this list suggests, some of the uses currently in place do not conform to the zoning. The proposed classic car dealership would fit with the character of the neighborhood and not negatively impact other uses. f 5 this assic uses. S 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-4" Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty fe^t in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SBC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHCX)D BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the 3-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) L0.43 1 be : lot line from such and side than :hree ected ction o use oods, inage .1 as / the n and perly in or boater be in 11 be Code av ing ‘xceed ed in rhood lesses / for re not iraount :ts or .ct ive iquate of the in the n that that raffic -1-84) S 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. % Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business District, no structure or land shall bn used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: (Jl^* Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. U3T A. B. C. D. E. F. estate office. U5& G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. Barbership, beauty shop. I. Camera and photograph supply store. J. Locksmith. K. Hobby shop. L. Gift store. M. Glassware and pottery. N. Antique store. O. Jewelry store. P. Watch repair. Q. Library. R. Museum. S. Record shop. T. Music store. U. Tobacco shop. V. Galleries. W. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. I 2. Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. 5. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. 6. Home and garden equipment rental. 7. Veterinary clinic. 8. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) i . S 10.44 orincioal sit*» nf Parking. Off-street parking when the Lother "B" or "I- ^lan^^ fn I.h« ?a- ?r» Same ownership as the ; 2 fo2^h f c f."" V District and -utject to those conditions al Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 a.id other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. conditions UmihoH ♦-« ?' Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildinas suf'h a« tanks^°liffc*2^flf!^® stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. N-iflhhorh««i’‘^; Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: anaxx oc naririnn i«.5* Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. fo?^a°;Vriod"of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter, r. Incidentals. Any incidental reoair or conduct a permitted principal use,'provided tSe pflLlpai buUdlng? G. Public Telephone Booths. and Deslgn^Reqilrimentlf' Setback Requirements square feet. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 feet. feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 fY^rds. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 yc»rd adjacent to "R" D'strict shall be 15 feet* side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. ' -v, ,c Setback Requirements. No building shall be lot line ^15 feet^fro'^ 35 feet from any rearadi35 feet to side lot line "R" abutting or across the street from an line? ^ building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) I >1 s' V. » I r I SHOREUNE DRIVE CON’T , DIVISION: Sec Previous ^ .Wayzata 55391 No. 3470/72 3480 3496 , Lyle & Joyce (mplex) ‘■’Xe P~f B°r- David Bie. Owncr^ 2 store fronts 1st floor , Lowell’S Auto Parts \ Rod McCharlcs, Owner LNR Properties 3572 Richie, Robert 3574 Navarre Dairy Queen Evert Gcycn, Owner PID 17-117-23 43 0094 17-117-23 43 0093 17-117-23 43 0091 Fi m SD# SW Z»B Mo 2/43A 277 Sew/Wtr LR-IC 17-117-23 43 0114 17-117-23 43 0113 17-117-23 43 0151 17-117-23 43 0149 17-117-23 43 0107 (sec 2389-2395 Blame Ave) N.W. Bell Telephone Mtka A-1 Rental Wagner Building Balboa of MN Casco Run Offices (Crcar) Balboa of MN (L.O.) Good Shepherd Luthem Church Balboa of MN (L.O.) Shons, Matthew Larson, Paul W. Olson, Melvin J. Furniture Minnesota Shoreline Service Cemer Oberhauser, L.R. (A-O.) Oberhauser, L.R. Oberhauser, L.R. (A.O.) Hennepin County Held, Edward & Marsha Rauschendorfer, J./Locken S. Scheibel. Laura Kruger, Konrad Ovadia, Clifford I Bedell, James E. (S P- 5538 ) 17-117-23 34 0012 3605 3607 3609 3700 3701 3740 3745 3760 3770 3790 3800 3850 3860 3865 3875 3877 3880 3890 3895 3905 3915 3925 3935 20-117-23 21 0028 20-117-23 21 0029 20-117-23 21 0029 17-117-23 34 0008 20-117-23 21 0033 17-117-23 34 0006 20-117-23 21 0025 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0003 17-117-23 34 0004 17-117-23 33 0007 17-117-23 33 0006 17-117-23 33 0005 20-117-23 22 0007 20-L.7-23 22 0007 20-117-23 22 0006 17-117-23 33 0002 17.117-23 33 0004 20-117-23 22 0004 20-117-23 22 0003 20-117-23 22 0005 20-117-23 22 0001 20-117-23 22 0002 B-5 B-l l: ic-i B-4 LR-lC-1 LR-IC LR-lC-1 B-5 LR-IC LR-IC LR-lC-l LR-IC O'**Office And ProfessionalB>5 Limited Ne1g h bor hootB-6 1 on n«d Uroon D*jveio 1 Industrial District Adopted by Or LR-1C Effective As amended b>< Ordinance 185 Ordinance 189 Ordinance 201 Ordinance 206 Ordinance 213 Ordinance 2K Ordinance 22i Ordinonce 23( INSERT r TOt • #»Mayor Butler Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Orono Council Members I FROM: OATS: SOHJs Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator 1> April 10, 1986 •1013 Furniture Minnesotf 3850 Shoreline Drive Commercial Site Plan Zoning District ~ B~5 Area - 40,808.81 s.f. or .93 acres 20,000 s.f. required Application - Cormercial site plan review tor proposed 80’ x 84’ structur (6720 s.f.) to house furniture sales/storage operation. List I T- : of Exhibits ~ A - Application B - Plat Map . C - City Engineer Cook's Letter D - Minnehaha Creek Katershed District Report E - Planning Commission Minuses 3/l|/86 • Drainage Study . > Landscape Plan - Site Plan • Watershed - local - Building Plans 6 elevations P G H I J • 7*.. Steve Katainen, owner of Furniture Minnesota, has purchased construct a "gallery" furniture store - "gallery operation has such Sot«m?nationsA-,s soon .s the needs end tostes of the loenl eonrum.' ire determined. Furniture sales use is not specifically addressed und<>r ic-ked the Planning Commission to determine the conpat i bi 1 i t y of proposed use in Wlotion to the intent of the B-5 ton.n., .I,n,,.et n- oattern of surrounding existing commercial development. the intent of the district is to provide n district for bur.in-sr.es th .;rernAATe°'’A^V"tr°;f fT/n°nT eAes‘s7vt'!,rui.tr Planning Commission found the proposed use compatible not requiring "pedal soning abend-sent. The use would be a low tra f.c for hardcover the B-5 district has no hardcover i s"^^an .dvcdl°\ r^en^rrte^dss'hddovoA Than th"e mixed use f aci 1 i ty .^P-;■ ncwell Zitzloff in 1979 on the -same site. u -°thAe is adequate green area around the building, structure and retenti aond . .« ar ■•-*•** »« *• ^ *»*'*^*^ •* i* i ! * ! r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1906 #1010 DOAHB B. HALL 1860 SHADYWOOD ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION , ^Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the request for a subdivision and variance at 1860 Shadywood Road in which properties are legally combined. Applicant is requesting to a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to create a new building site and variances of lot area, lot width, and hardcover. Planning Commission recommended denial of this application. He noted that Mr. Hall has notified staff and Council in his letter (attached to memo) that he would not be able to be present at this meeting but requests Council to act on his application in his absence. Mayor Butler asked Attorney Blatz her opinion regarding action on this application without applicant's presence. Attorney Blatz stated her recommendation would be to defer action until applicant and/or a representative for applicant is present. Based on Attorney Blatz's opinion, it was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to table this application. #1013 STEVE KATAINEN 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW , ,,Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the application for a commercial site plan reveiw tor proposed 80'x84' structure to house furniture sales/storage operation. He noted that the furniture store use is not currently addressed in the B-5 zone, however the Planning Commission has found the use to meet the intent of the B-5 zoning district. Applicant has provided all necessary information and has agreed to enter into a developers agreement to assure completion of certain site improvements. Steve Katainen was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the City Engineer and M.C.W.D. has confirmed that the property will have no drainage problems and are satisfied with the hydrolic information submitted by applicant s engineer . Mr. Katainen indicated that the proposed building would be finished on all four sides with brick & wood siding, however the actual building drawings have not been finalized. -VnX 8 MINUTES OP THE HEGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14» 1986 #1013 STEVE KATAINEN continued Because Council would like to see the final plans before giving final approval, it was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to grant preliminary approval of the Commercial Site Plan and upon receipt of the final plans for signage, lighting, landscaping, and exterior finish of building will grant final approval; and developers agreement to be provided before issuance of building permit. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1986 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE* SANDY BEACH PLACE RESOLUTION #1980 It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #1980 approving a Joint Use Dock License to Sandy Beach Place for the period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. ENGINEER'S REPORT: ORONO MHCC INTERCEPTOR UPDATE City Engineer Glenn Cook introduced Michael Lynch of Bonestroo & Associates who is working for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission on the Metro Waste Interceptor in Orono. Mr. Lynch reported that the infiltration/inflow study done in 1981 indicated that it would not be cost effective to eliminate the infiltration/inflow to extend the life of the interceptor system. At that time, Orono ' told MWCC to increase capacity or there would be a problem in the near future. He noted that in April 1985 they reached capacity in which 15,000 gallons of sewage overflowed into Lake Minnetonka. At this point, he was hired by MWCC to study the system to determine the areas that were under capacity and present a preliminary design report. Upon approval of the report by MWCC they anticipate improvements to begin in Spring 1987. Mr. Lynch explained the findings of the study which contained present and future daily wastewater flows, future flow summary, and lift station & interceptor analysis. He pointed out that most of the lift stations were currently over their respective rated capacities. He presented three alternatives to improve the system taking into consideration cost efficiency and causing minimal disruption. Because this project is only at the preliminary stage. Mayor Butler requested Mr. Lynch to keep them informed on this matter. :ir»_2"iSi2» T:3C_ » » ' • M»« * *>V<i *^.^0 JK9MtK.iC^^ '* ‘ Si '' * ' • •'I —•• %♦“•* [Muns OP TO KB60LMI ORONO COOIICIL MBBTING BBLO OCTOBBR 27, 1966 /%101X/SmE KATAIMBM mr^SBORBLXm DRXVB miKL APPROVAL OP COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN Steve Kateinen was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the plan whi was conceptually approved by the Council on April 1 1986. Applicant has fulfilled all requirements. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the or . outstanding concern was the type of outside lightir proposed. . - ^ r* ,V V • . ‘ ^ Ti :-r#* •- ' ■ A : * • , i $ •* * • «• • - V*. ^ • = • • t ■ Mr. Katainen stated that he proposes a light above co< of the 3 side windows in the portico, 1 coach light c each side of the door and a light above the door, sp< lights on the building facing the parking lot. stated the type of lighting for the sign has not y* been determined. I Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the spot lioht should be directed !to shine down. She stated that r.h feels assured that staff and Mr. Katainen can woi together on the appropriate lighting. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded I CounciImember Adams, that the Council approve the fin.' and amended commercial site plan and prelimin.i] building plans for Stephen Katainen for a propor.r furniture store on the property located at 3 1< r» Shoreline Drive, subject to staff approving lighting. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. #1064 CITY OP ORONO SPATES AVENUE - LIFT STATION CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the in'-: regarding the requirement for conditional use pernit for lift stations, an ordi.iance that has been cn *• books since at least 1968, however the City has nev*^ r previously filed a formal condtionol use perri‘ application for construction of a lift station. When issue was raised this year, staff had two courser, action to recommend to Council: a) obtain an after-the-fact conditional use permit; > t b) request an ordinance amendment to delete requirement never utilized. Staff chose the former as it felt that location revi'-- of such facilities is appropriately a land use iss>;'^. GRADING I DRAINAGE PLAN FOR STEPHEN RATAINEN IN SECTION 17-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA f 04tt * 2-7-86. 2-28-86 propostd contours sNoun It.:*-!Eitstlno flfwillon • : Proposed tlevetlon : Oreinege COFFIN I GRONBERG. INC. Engineers I Lind Surveyors Long LiAe. Mlnnesoti Oitua: Mem Sei Level r f.r' N • ; n </ iz r; \>I >i fu<?r-r uAN m-ijt _:?..! _i- / it.y ttiOO "IL"^ 8Af6 ►1(« Wi • INI I fA<s f;n<c^' pLF-VAl «wii»; y,*. ..s' ■"v. &.■»...' »JW ^-.-r-V--r... fN.. I ^\tT i; V✓rt//>ps t*i'>H 'ft-•’ O' Floor PlcH / t.-TT*r»r • .T»<^ r.; TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE:October 15,1997 SUBJECT:#2283 Gary and Bormie Bimbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Laksshore Residential District (1 Acre) 43,295 (total) square feet (.1 acre contiguous) Application: The fq>plicants wish to renew elapsed variances granted in 1987 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. This application was previously tabled by Planning Commission pending an updated survey Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B); LR-IB Lot Requirements U22B3 Gary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page I 1 ‘~ 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area I acre Lot Width 140 ft. Front Yard 35 ft. Side Yard lOft. Rear Yard 75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Lot 1=.38 acres 110 ft.n/a n/a n/a contiguous (no structure Lot 2=.62 acres (Birabaum residence) 148 ft.79 ft.9.3 ft.85 ft. The subject properties do not meet lot area requirements. The updated survey reveals that Lot I has been reduced in size due to lakeshore erosion. The lot area for the portion of Lot I that has access to Kelly Avenue is .38 acres. The surveyor did not indicate how much land is adjacent to the Lydiard Beach area. Additionally, Lot I does not meet lot wdth requirements and Lot 2 does not meet the side yard requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 16,335 s.f none none 26,960 s.f 2,510 s.f 9.3% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. H2285 Cary and Bonnie Birnbt^um 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/15/97 Page! Hardcover : Lot 2 Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75"Lot 1:8,722 s.f.(1987 figure) Lot 2: 6,025 s.f. none none none none none none none none 75'-250"Lot 1:20,935 s.f. Lot 2: 8,035 6,394 s.f (30.5%) 6 s.f (.007%) 5,233.75 s.f (25%) 2008.8 s.f (25%) 6,394 s.f (30.5%) 6 s.f (.007%) 1,161 s.f (5.5%) none Lot 2 (Bimbaum residence) does not meet hardcover requirements in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. The previous resolution allowed for 30% hardcover to remain. Lot 1 is undeveloped. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Attachment J is a letter from the applicant expressing hardship. Applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. 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. Lot 1 has been used as part of Lr»? to date because both are held by the same owners. Lot 1 is not buildable without lot area and width variances. 2. 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 current city zoning ordinances. The 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. The updated survey reveals that the lot area, as well as contiguous area of Lot 1 is less than the lot size approved previously. Rock was added along the fence by the city several months ago. tt22S3 Cary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2695 Keily Avenue Variances 9/;>'P7 Page 5 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lot size, lot width, and hardcover would change the character of the area. A residence could not be built upon this vacant lot without the granting of numerous variances. 4. 5. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors may be a consideration with this application. The property may be sold to a future owner who wishes to separate the parcels. Undue hardship also include >, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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. 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 lack of contiguous area on this lot does distinguish it from many other lots to which variances have been granted, however. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The 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. Both lots of record are less than 1 acre, which is the current minimum lot size requirement. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 02283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue yanances 9/15/97 Page A The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the majority of the lots in the area. This is a unique situation due to tlie decrease in lot size attributable to lakeshore erosion. Both lots are also considered to be comer lots. This further limits the allowable building pad on Lot 1. 10. 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. Lot 1 has never been built upon, however. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The lots were platted and approved prior to current zoning requirements. The request for lot area and hardcover variances have previously been approved by resolution. It should be noted that the Planning Commission had u: inimously denied the previous application in 1987 for the reasons cited on the attached notice of Planning Commission action (Attachment I). Is.sues 1. 2. 3. Lots 1 and 2 combined consist of approximately one acre total. 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. If the variances are renewed, a lot width variance would also be required as Lot 1 does not meet the 140' requirement. 4. The non-conforming side setback of 9.3’ for Lot 2 is not an issue with this application. U2285 Gary and Bonnie Birnbaum 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/13/97 Page 5 5.While the previous application was approved by the City Council, the Planning Commission unanimously voted against it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the renewal of lot area variances and a variance for lot width for Lot 1 and a hardcover variance for Lot 2. Staff recommends the hardcover variance to allow the existing hardcover on Lot 2, in excess of 30% be denied. If the lots are legally combined, the hardcover requirements would be met. Staff recommends the applicant be directed to legally combine the two non conforming lots into one tax parcel, which would conform to the zoning district requirements. Staff recommends denial of the application for the above reasons. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Miq) Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey of Lots Hardcover Worksheets 1987 Resolution 1987 Planning Commission Recommendation Statement of Hardship ^2283 Cary and Bonnie Bimbatm 2695 Kelly Avenue Variances 9/h/97 Page 6 kr;v Application H Jf Date Received - <9 7 Amount Paid id r^{ O \4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) / / Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ v ‘Cl) 5"^ (no change trom original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress kKLCy Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Xo-in. XA~f^ - ooo7 Attach legal descript.on to applicaUon if not included on required survey .^'^Z /??7 _______________!_(month/year) 1 (do not) also own th^adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _^residential other fsnecifv^ Zoning District:______ __________ “ APPLICANT Name ^ 5 jS/A'tJS/jO^l Addressi^i?/ KZLLV /j-Jeu^c Citv: 0 ’C^^5nR Phone (home) Ptone (work ) llS-x.^3S _____Zip: SS3^f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address;City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: RQJ<\/jRl. of ^oT I Estimated Constmetion Cost $ ——P^of€^7yy. p^s/QSi SIT Rrrrf^cHzo LtrllR. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ■X Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desenbe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing comphance with Zoning Code requirements; P/\^\Jio0S -----^PP0 ^ pL€/JSZ L^t T€./^ ^7 s^'6sr^m/F)L PiTJPr (attach additional sheets if necessary) / S 15 CL fZ •c c c e c 9SS.«SPOf £lCv 100 $••1• 0 I C«ii|fyf lultfw NE1/4 SEC TI17N.R HENNEPIN C FOA Or 0 n 0 • Min Dale af PKaU|ra»k '• %*T**'#> HORlZOf' aerial nATPinC PRi ■**•< C<lf. to t//0«-J)>4 ««aa. • Permit No. 4V^'m an. mi Ub<i /5S PERMIT RECORD ^~/2, -SZ, V'^i) //0-3€-'^S? Lj I 4-i-^i kktu ffktM 'iHsuLyo \u s IjL d&a^Jtn ^JiJlLLO^Ar lif c-/< F Mk WmIIbUHBi k* «iff «• itl tM •• PM f. tM an kr •Im r. oik ntM. I HMIDCQVEII CALCULATIOH WCWKSnBBTIcircl* I& I 0-75*SdO~lOOft« r 11.6 « ^3 - R3S «.f. wMUi \6«6 ■ 3.3 « m h. aw e. Otl •••__34 f itEii£id* _ m u4. 414^1^ 3M m.6 kf flaatlc •kMtlat _ f. otiwr _ CftHoimMdr 0 IT 14.4 . TOtftl. mtTlIlO MtOODVni IH tOMt 1 2M • of o • of o • of o 1 i4a • of o \M4 • o f o o • of • "io4 • of. libi fl.r. 36 • of. k^S • ofo 144 • of. o.f. t.f. o.r. o.r. o.r. \%• ofo «o.r. •Stt-8 • of. > OT 1, buck \ (ot)CARMAN Cov£■aUtlat M>r4c—r « • St4S ,.i. 4l teitl— Mltkla ■ IM m IM 444ltl«Ml ■>f4c44>r tm • 2I.C !■ 14 ItM Jhetllt^ ■ lUMk • ^kUU K S p MlaRlaf l4f4omMC to k« «.f. . ■•f* . 121 ils& , If aiiy t MJtli • W4L «.f. -______________•.!. P tOIAL S.r. TO M rtaol —rkcoTor fr«paRRlt |Um 111 • Uoo III -Um fSII - t.r. s.f • •.r. Ill I -l*ls M» ■KUtlof TO ko t M4o4 To bo riool tioo 141 ■ 100 t.lM III A • of • of « loa - ☆ m«0 •210 s• • 3 o« H* K) U» K* (D Kl 3 Si £ s t . t > ( I i f ^ 1 ^ 1^ I c n T » o s A y 1 I. RtMiUTIOlil Of tNf CITY COUNCIL NO. 1 _______ A MSOUmOH CAMITIMC VMIlAlieiS TO NOMICIMO. tOHlNG 0001 10.at, soaomsioN a onoM io.a4, soioxvisiON s (oi Flu iiiaa City of ORONO W! ' 4^ WMRIIKAO# Sheldon nn«l Ifolcne Kopian (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owncri> of the property located at 2i9S Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as X.ota 1 and 2« Block I* Carcan Cove* livnnep&n County* Minnesota (horeinal'tcr "the property")} and WHlUlKt «• the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zo.'iing Code Section 10.23* Subdivision 2 to approve an esc.r.n of exist inq hardcov«*r of 0*110 s.f. or whore only S*100 n.f. or 25% is alicwea on hot 2 ar.d per Section. 10.24* Subdivision 5 (h) to approvv area vartunce for I.ot 2 conuisting of 2C*D€0 s.f. or .62 acres of lot arv.. where 4i«^00 r:.t. or 1 acre is required and that same section to approve an ar^a variance for undeveloped hot 1 cunsir.ting of a contiguous buii.dii.cj envelope of 16,757 s.f. or .10 acrcc where 43*560 s.f. er 1 acre is required. UOM* TlieRSFOiie* BB IT mSOLVBD by the City Council ot Orr.n' . INDIMCS i'.ii. ic itior. v.of. rcvii wc-d as Zoning Pile #1166. >.!; g- ■ ',1 ;t rt.if -»v 1. I.'i* prof.iTty ir. iccatcu in the* I.R-lh .Sinnlc Pair.ily T.okesheit* I'-sie i.o* 1 It. ii;.<leveiope*.'i and be.-1: assessed fer s-w.*r ana v.at..;r. lot:. I t.:. i 2 r.u’.c be**r. retained at* i.'.depc-n'Jetit parcels ..i.'i *...•.•».* r.*-vor s.ec;. i«*'}aliy cor.sincd for tax purpotiot; each lot ic r.arato : y by t be Statv. An ir»ir-p.-*ndent safe accocs can bo provided to Lot 1 if cevvloped in ‘-J.e future. This access has been reviewed by the Public Workt. Diractor. 6. The proposed developaent of Lot 1 at .39 acres appears consistent with the pattern of surrounding development of the Carman Uoad neighborhood. 4 of the 7 lets* or S7%, adjacent to Carman Itoad are similar in area ranging from .2 to .4 acres. Page 1 of 5 ? ) > a »t .. Jj i city of ORONO NltOtMTION Of TNI CITY COUNCIL NO. 2281 7. VSsh th« proposod biiildinq sit* and th« sits with sxistinq rssidoncs arc siaiiar in arsa to other cowaca - ownership lots which ha\s been approved as building sites since 1984 within the LK-ID soning district as fellowst ll^••estead Vacant m *fi1830 Sailtty* 2720 Pheatbnt Road •lOSl CiesnOf 1475 Cherry Place .88 •1084 Manfield* 4175 North Shore Drive .57 • '«24 laingOf 4180 Forest Lake Drive .40 .84 ‘.1(1 * , .,j ./ '7* "I .48 .45 ^ f i-- ■ 8. ?ho lots were created in the early 50's prior to the City's adoption of ordinances that would have provided standards for the development of lets. 5. The applicants have owned the lots Cor cpproxlaately 30 year.. 10. Lot I contains no accessory structures and would a^^poar to servo aerexy as additional area receivinq minima 1 inainter.ance. 11. Clenn Cook» the City CnginiDcr* in a report dated October 8. 1087 status the followings I Oevelopoent of Lot I on |(elly Avenue will not result in any drainage probleos for edja^nt resident. The run*off from the neighborhood is currently directed ro tho City owned property South of Lot 1. Development of this lot will rcr.uit in ;:dditional run-off to the lake because of an Increase in hardcover. We do not anticipate that this increase in run-ofS will cause any significant adverse effect on the lake. 12. Tho City Council has considered this application ir.cludir.q reports i.y City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health* safety «*nd viol fare of the comriunity. 13. The Ci^y Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting thw 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 applicant* but is necessary to alleviate a uemonetrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would bo in keeping w!t.^ the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan c>f t K<» City. Page 2 of 5 i T ’ 1 Jk. -A t * i ( V, f M T t t, ^ ‘ i n t . o »« s Wl^ City of OROIVO . HitOiUTIOM OP TNi CITY COUNCIL <cr 'NO.Z2H\ Ik'" OOHCmiOMt*AMO coMomom llat«d upon on« or ooro of t*ur findings notod above* the Orono City Council hereby 9r«nto vnrioneos to Kuiacipal toning Code $oction *^•22# Subdivision 2 end Section 10*24* Subdivision S (b) approvinp lot .ires and hardcover variances for f.ot 2 and an area variance for Lot 1 to allow tne lot to be developed* subjec** to the iollowing conditionst 1* Applicant shall relocate lakv;.hore dock on Lot 2 prior to sale of Lot 1* such dock snail Met all current standards of the Lake M&nnctonka Coeservetion District* Mpon sale; of fx*t I* a dock can not be confctruc»w‘d on the lakeshoro until a C':rtiCicate of Occupancy is «ssued for tha now residence and a bulldinc) pernit in obtained fr»^r.: the City for the dock construction* 2* The raxioue sliowed hsrdeovor for Let 1 is 2*00V s*f* or ^S%* 3. Hardcover on Lot 2 is approved at 6*I0b c*?, or 30t* Any future i!nprovaB.ent of tho property that will result in ad.1iticr.ul hardcover over the approved 30% cay necessitate equal or ratchinq accounts of resolution of existinq hardcover* 4. Prior to the sale of Lot l*'the private fence located on public property oust be renoved* Apbiicsntl shoulu be advised that nr fenec/strueture can be located within 75 feet of che lake* 5. /vuthorities qranted with this resolution ru.*i with tho prcp--Tty not with the applicants* but sro permissivo only *.r.d rust bo cxcrciucd by sppliriti.'*n for a builcir.g pernit with!., cn-. year of the date of Ccunc*.! approval* cr thin variance will expire on that date (Cctobor 26* 1981). yioiution f • f o* ncn~conp 1 i ance v/iih any of tho t^.rns an. cor.iitions of thin resolution sh.iii conr.tituto .t Violut.oj. of th^.* lonir.q rode* shall autoe.atiral ly tcrr.i nat o »ny uuthorivy grantc- heroin* and shall he punis!:shlc s:; a r.isd>;T.eanor*• a 7. The undcrnignci? applicants have road* undorstoed .$nd uvrehy agree, to -.hr. - f.rjss of thin resolution .-tr.d or. beh.i 11 of •'h.on.r.r; i vr-u, their h*.**rs* fauccessors and assigns* horoLy agree to tl.o r*.*coriiini of thi:. resolution in the chain of title c*f the prcp<‘rty. rage 3 cf 5 ,5 I "i t r . ■r r' k' OOCUI^FMT C O K^^^UWlCnriOMS till I I—p""< -?■r < « '4. ^ r^.:'CUv CF OflONO % City of ORONO 4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL NO. ________ I9t7. ATTCSTt Adopted fey the Orono City Council on this 2lth day of Octofeor« « /ioeithy M. /ffniin, ---------- •J City Clcrh Jar.ot l<. Grabcfef Mayor Property Owner(s) \J . ^ t • i - j/. * -a • •u 1 * r‘ ••i ♦ K •! ■ 1 • “* • ' ' ^ ' . • * . i' * Sr% -f w ' V • * i, '■ Page 4 of S City of ORONO CITY • */ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO, 2283___________ 0||ONO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this U.‘198? before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared U#t.c ^known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,“lind acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. KATHLEEN M. HOLTON i \ MOTAMVfUtUC - MNMtWTA f DAKOTA COUNTY f Mr IMMMMWaMi NOTARY PUBLIC 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 oerson(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrum^t, ^ . -t_ _ _1 -,3_ _,a ftame as hlSand acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 „„ » »-sss.- p.o. BOX 66 171-7357 Date of Notice: 9/9/h.Crystal Bay. Mh 55323 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . TOt Sheldon & Helene Kaplan COPIBS TO: 2695 Kelly Avenue Excelsior. MN 55331 _ _ _ _ _ _—- - - - - - -——— ifYPB OP APPLICATION* XX Variar.ee_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—-- - - - - - - - Mw'ormiiwi V0/87...........'«>«• 5 ® Pl*niiiii9 Co»i««loii reeoMend. the foUo-ins: XX Denial Cor reasons noted below notbs and special conditions* The ptanninq Cseeiasion unanlmoualy application using one or more of the following findings. 1. The total arm of the two lots is 49.622 s.f. or 1.1 -ro In ~ acre zoning diS*TiCt. this type of I ! us»'. 3. Lots 1 an.l 2 cc.Ul be legally corbined to torn one conforni- : (1.1 acre). 4. The intent of the -’PP«hin^ district"'Orono Cotnprehcnsi%’'' Plan for a i.R IB. i acr j 5. The property has not boon improved and night, at -• later apply for addition.! 1 variances. 6 in 1982. Hennepin County lowered the 1*because it did not meet current zoning standards. 7. 15% of the lots in the area arc less than .4 acres in size. 0. only 2.009 s.f. of hardcover would be «1 ^ the houJe. driveway and other lot improvements. 9. D:-ainage in the area seems to be an issue. meS“nT = tar;s at 7:00 p.n. If you desire certified ^opies of the of f ici^a 1 P1 minutes, they are available from the City Recorder approval by the Planning Commission. 1 r -M.O.. .k<:: JJ \. •t 9 •» i i::.’ Gary Bimbaum, M.D. 2695 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN. 55331 August 20, 1997 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55336 RE: Renewal of Variance as per Resolution of City Council #2283; Rlc #1188 Dear City Council: Wc are seeking a renewal of the above noted variance 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 wc plan to sell this lot separately from Lot 2 of our homestead. Renewal of the van^w is sought to preserve a substantial property right of the owners of this property, as cited in Paragraph 13 on Page 2 of the above noted “Resolution of City Council. We hope our application for renewal for this variance will be acceptaWe. Please let me know if there is additional information you may need. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator n FROM: DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 14, 1997 SUBJECT:#2289-Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:191,664_____square feet (4.4 acres) Application. The applicant is proposing the keeping of one horse on their property during the summer months (approximately April through November). A conditional use permit is required for the keeping of a horse. Two pasture areas are proposed, separated by an existing drainage way. Despite having not received a survey with an identifiable scale, staff estimates the total area of the two proposed pastures is roughly 1.5 acres in size. Attachment F shows where the pastures are proposed to be located. The applicant had proposed the construction of a bam and the keeping of two horses year round on the property- in a previous application in 1996. This application was withdrawn due to staffs denial recommendation. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 9.13, Subd. 13: Regulation of Horses Section 10.02, Definition 5: Animal Unit Section 10.03, Subd. 15: Non-Encroachments Section 10.20, Subd. 3(M): LR-1A Conditional Uses. Animals Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 1: Animal Feedlot Section 10.56, Subd 13: Conditional Uses in Shoreland Areas Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (N,2): Animal Feedlot Standards 1^2289 •Jon Ptndleton 350 Sorth Arm Lane Condtuonai Use Permit October 20, 1997 Page I 1 Findings: 3. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Horses are allowed as a conditional use in the LR-1A zoning district. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An inspection of the proposed pasture areas was conducted on September 8, 1997 by Jeremy Geske, a University of Minnesota extension educator specializing in animal feedlots. Mr. Geske has indicated the proposed pastures should not negatively affect the neighborhoods or waterways. Runoff containing manure should also not be a problem if the pastures are properly maintained. His recommendations are attached as Attachment G. The keeping of a horse on the property would not be out of character with the neighborhood as the horse is currently kept on th** property across the road from the applicants. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. According to City Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 3, Definition I, a confined area allowing more than one acre for each animal unit is not considered a feedlot. The previous proposal was considered a feedlot as two animals were proposed to be kept on less than 2 acres of pasture. The current proposal is also not subject to the 300' setback requirement from the OHW a feedlot would be to such a setback requirement. This proposal has the fence located approximately 160' from a waterway at its closest point. A minimum of 2 acres of pasture area is required for the keeping of one horse according to zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision (3,M). This code section also makes a provision that when pasture is not required for feed purposes, the two acre requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the City Council. The applicant has indicated that additional feed will be provided on site for the horse. il2289-Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit October 20, 199^ Page! The proposed fence would not exceed 6' or be located within the 75' lakeshore setback. Fences not exceeding 6' in height are considered non-encroachments and are not subject to zoning district setback requirements. There is no defined setback requirement for fences from prop>ert>’ lines. Tlic applicant is proposing locating the north fence for the pasture directly behind the property line. There are no codified setback requirements for pastures from drainage easements, structures or septic systems. The City Septic Inspector has noted a 1 O' setback from the septic system is the advisable guideline. It appears as though the applicant has met this recommended distance. An accessory structure to shelter the animal is not proposed, nor is it required for the seasonal keeping of an animal. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application based on the findings of the extension educator subject to the fence being located 10' from septic sites and that the manure is composted on site according to best management practices advised by Mr. Geske. Attachments: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Showing Location of Proposed Pastures Jeremy Geske Letter 1^2289 -Jon Pendleton 350 Sorth Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit October 20, 1997 Page 3 Application # CITY OF Date Received J>/2 2./«y-y Amount Paid trP /t SE '«¥LICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address A» =’•+<« /Ifm Type of Application to be Filed :JT ---- i SProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT s Name /Vi ^VtU^C-h; Phone (homd Y7i-‘J(.8r fc tS" Address 3 Y« Ov*-*-City Phone (workSJ *7 c - c (7 0 on..\c _____^ Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name----------------- Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date ProperP/AcquiredrP^Ac not^ (month/year) I (do) (4^notj^lso own the adjacent parcels of land, FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application y~ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_______ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). I ! •y (•0 t 1 - 'I •* tf U) (3;- .L u « (/I (I) 4» (2) *•0 ^W«6-38*£ i? f**« « • «• • •Xv• ••••• • '.*.■.*.*.*•*. 0 m 0,*,v• * *•* r?4 ^ •*•*■*•*•*•*•*•*' * *♦*#* *♦ *#*i ••.•.•.S'.’.'k-.*.’.'.- .•»*.*.*.*.*.*l’..wmmmm B 0 W ^9 ••«•*••• • ««••• ••••• «•••••■•••« • •••••••&•• • ••••••••>«• • #•••••••• yyyyyyyyyy. «•■«•••••«•••••••«• ••• •«•••• ••••««•• • •««• ••«• •••••«••«•••••«« • « # t a t % KOOT, iM III) Zlfi(p ^ ^V.Ui :,r?I 5??)i5rJH Vj SEE MA.- 17 'Z 3^ hJc,\U ce V__• mi ***** •CD CD CZIj i ■ J L_J I_____I • mam c t ■ « o A — NU T I HENN Of o 0* • • PERMIT RECORD a Permit No. o V/J- >S4?3o ^u/A sSl^f /53 Date /O -/f '95 /C v-/-^3 -9 5> //-/7 yj? /o2 “ /7 'f J' Type of Permit *~1 / i//^ ) tP y '^~2L s^ <3 . i; . r 5 ST> /<J •r+S l^r^x C**SLSt I ^ ik*«f A^»rft. «n Michael SteadmanOMiopmenI Sm^noBt REALTOR* But. (612)476-5316 Rtt. (612)945-9174 Ft*: (612)476-5333 1120 £mi rngum M Miyitla.lMSS30l a«iM2i MARKOE ADDITION 'T \; =S',--7 .. \ •\'*\ ! 5i O - - - - - -M? rr - - =.-■< •/VQ c r •. __________—---•• '-••i.-T - - • - - - - —- V\\ IT- !^C- « I% -s.v: \\\ i\A r C • •^ORTH ARM LANi \ \ \ .-----I- -J- A- - V- -------------------—'ro - ^ \i i \ ItI > : # r? £1 w / /n # :__/ O -. -rc » / # • t # v i'- "n Minnesota Extension Service UNIVHRSII V Of MiNNtSOTA D akota Coi \t^ 4100 220th Street West Farmington MN 55024-9539 (612)891*7700 TDD (612) 091*7749 FAX (612)463-8002 E*maii; dakota^dmes umn edu Sept. 8. 1997 TO: Mr. & Mrs. Pendleton FR: Jeremy Geske, E.xtension Educator RE: Sept. 5 farm visit I wasn ’t sure who to address this to, so I’ll send it to you along w ith a copy for you to forward to the appropriate people. As I understand it, the Pendletons are hoping to build a small pasture and a riding arena (which could also serve as a second pasture) to keep their one horse during the summer months ( approx. 6-7 months. April- Nov.). The horse would be boarded over winter. Currently, the horse is boarded year round. I assume the reason I was asked to inspect the site is because of the concern over manure, considering the proximity of the lake, a small creek and a septic system. I'm not familiar with the local setbacks for these regions, but the Pendletons will comply w ith regulations and build their fences accordingly. The plan would be for both the pasture and riding arena to maintain a cover of vegetation, which greatly reduces the potential for run-off to carry' manure into the lake. In addition, one horse will not produce manure in large enough quantity to be a major concern. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from the manure should be utilized by the existing vegetation. Their are plans for the lot to be cleaned occasionally, and the manure composted. I can ’t see manure building up in significant quantity to become a pollution hazard. If 1 understand correctly, there are about 4 and 1/2 acres of land; however, I would like to know how many acres will be available after the setbacks arc taken into consideration. This would help us determine if supplemental feeding would be necessary. The amount of horse traffic on land also has an impact on the vegetation. Having two pastures, so the horse could be rotated every so often, would reliev e some of this pressure. The Pendletons indicated that they have a very good working relationship with a veterinarian, and with the family that sold the horse to them. They have given me every indication that the have the desire and the resources to take care of the horse, and arc very anxious to comply with all regulations. Based on our visit and the inspection of the land, I do not see any reason to deny the permit. 11 the permit is granted, I would like to visit the site late next summer to see if the pastures have maintained the vegetation. If the pressure from grazing and horse traffic reduces the vegetation too much, one could simply board the horse at another site. Since the horse is boarded part of the year anyway , this shouldn’t be a problem. When selecting a site for composting the manure, choose one that is not in the path of runoff, and preferably out of view from the public. If necessary , we could also look at diverting clean water runoff away from the pastures. I hope this letter meets your needs for this permit process. Don’t hesitate to call me at 891-7704 if I can be of further assistance. 1 would be glad to provide information on such things as composting manure or horse management. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. AND MINNESOTA COUNTIES COOPERATING TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 13,1997 SUBJECT:Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use—Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1/2 Acre) Sewered Lot Size:22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application:Applicants are seeking a conditional use permit in order to grade within 5' of the southerly property line to install 25' of retaining wall along the edge of the driveway which would allow the driveway to be approximately 24'- 25' wide in front of the garage doors instead of 21' where 30' is typically needed for a 3 car side-loading garage. Background: The applicants applied for variances (#2206) in March 1997 to allow removal of a residence and construction of a new residence. Resolution #3851 granted approval for the following variances: 1. To allow the deck to be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2. 3. 4. To allow 3,685 sq. ft. (29.64%) of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) was existing and 3,109 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. To allow 1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) of hardcover in the 250'-500' setback where 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) was existing and where 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) is allowed. To allow 3,435 sq. ft. (15.32%) of structural coverage where 2,510 sq. ft. was existing and 3,363 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. 1^2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page-! The house construction proceeded following approval for the variances. The topo information that was used to obtain the variances was based on city tojx) maps which are drawn from aerial photos. These topo maps can be off on an individual zoning lot by 2'. It was discovered during construction that the topo maps did not reflect the actual elevations on site. Fill from the excavated basement was used to elevate 'he site to provide for a lakeside walk-out. During the footings inspection it was detennined that there would not be adequate room to back out of the three car side-loading garage. The Building Inspector instructed the builder to reduce the elevation of the garage floor because there was a 5 foot difference between the grade at the floor level and the southerly property line. It was apparent that a 5 ft. difference in grade over approximately 25 ft. of driveway would cause access problems for the garage. The garage floor is currently proposed at the 959 elevation and the southerly property line is proposed at a 956 elevation. A 3' grade change is an improvement over the 5 ’ change that was originally planned due to inaccurage topo maps. In order to increase the size of the driveway, the applicants are asking for a conditional use permit to grade within 2 ’ of the southerly property line to construct a retaining wall approximately 2.5' to 3' in height. Grading within 5' of the property line requires a conditional use permit. If the applicants chose to build a retaining wall 5 ’ from the property line and less than 42' in height it would not require a conditional use permit for grading nor a side yard setback as the retaining wall would be considered a non-encroachment and grading would be considered normal and customary .. As proposed, the retaining wall 2' from the property line provides approximately 24' of driveway between the garage doors and wall. If the retaining wall was constructed 5' from the property line, the driveway would be 21' in width from the garage doors to the retaining wall. Turning of vehicles will be difficult at either length as 30’ is recommended for driveways serving a side-loading garage. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and indicated that 10' is usually recommended along side yards for drainage. A minimum of 5' should be available to direct water from the driveway to the lakeside yard. As proposed 2' is not adequate to direct drainage away from the adjacent property. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Prohibitions and Subd. 21. Exceptions #2290 Elaine and Stew Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit ! 0/20/97 page-2 Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to: a.remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; c.or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subd. 21. Exception The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern: a.the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a new ly constructed building, or the grading of a driveway serving such building, nor c.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 earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance to this Chapter. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations; 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 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. U2290 Elaine and Sieve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page~3 1 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. • Section 10.09 Conditional Uses. Subd. 6. (,'onditional Uses: Granting of Permit HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Hardcover with former residence Hardcover proposed with new construction Hardcover proposed with retaining wall 0’-75 ’6,117sq. ft.None 13 sq.ft. (.21%) None None 75’-250'12,436 sq. ft.3,109 sq. ft. (25%) 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) 3,685 sq. ft. (29.6%) 3,685 sq. ft. (29.6%) 250'-500’3,867 sq. ft.1,160 sq. ft. (30%) 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) 1,208 sq. ft. (31.2%) 1,208 sq. ft. (31.2%) The applicant has redesigned the driveway so that previous variances for hardcover can be met with the proposed retaining wall. Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; Land alteration or grading is difficult to consider as a "use". Nonetheless, the Planning Commission shall consider whether allowing the grade to be changed within 2' of the property line along the retaining wall for the driveway is consistent with the intent of both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires that grading changes be reviewed and not have a negative impact on adjacent residential propert>'. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission would have to find that the application meets the objectives of the zoning code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. U2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page-4 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In order to meet this condition the grading plan needs to demonstrate that it will be maintained in a manner that does not impact the adjacent propert>'. The retaining wall needs to be constructed in a manner that water does not run over the top of the wall but is collected and directed away from the lot line. The survey show a 12" PVC directed toward the side yard, however, no design was provided to explain how it would function. The new house is also farther from the southerly property line than ^e previous residence which will provide a larger side yard for drainage. However, 2 is a limited amount of area to channel driveway runoff. Other issues relating to how the grade would be maintained involve snow removal, screening, vehicle emissions, and vehicle safety. Snow removal would need to be done in a manner that does not place snow on the adjacent property. The 2' strip is not wide enough to allow for any landscaping/screening other than sod or ground cover to be installed on the subject property As ihc vehicles back out of the garage, the rear of the vehicle will encroach into the adjacent property if the rear wheels stop at the edge of the proposed retaining wall. This will result in vehicle exhaust emming across the adjacent property. There is also concern that the vehicles could back over the 3 retaining wall as no railing or wheel stop is noted on the survey. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the location of the conditional use is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply w ith each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The conditional use permit would have to be in compliance with all other regulations, including previous resolutions regarding hardcover. In order to approve -i»e application, the Planning ^ ^mmisson must find that the application complies with all other zoning icquirements. Considerations 1.If the conditional use permit is denied, the applicant can install a retaining wall 5' from the property line and have a 21' driveway from the garage. This will result in the driveway being 9' shorter than what is recommended. A 5' separation between the retaining wall and the property line would provide more room for drainage. If the applicant finds that a 21' driveway is not suitable, the applicant can change the 1*2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page-5 orientation of the garage to have a street facing double door instead of a 3 car side loading garage. This would provide better access but may increase the amount of hardcover depending on the width of the driveway. 2.If the conditional use permit is granted for any distance between 2' and 5', Planmng Commission should direct applicant to provide scaled drawings for an engineered wall and a plan to mitigate drainage by collecting driveway runoff and redirecting it into the 10’ sideyard adjacent to the residence so that is does not undermine the retaining wall. 3.The grade of the garage floor is 3' higher than the south prop *rty line. Reducing the grade 3’ so that no conditional use permit is needed would require substantial modification to the garage 4.The Planning Commission may want to consider comprimising somewhere between the required 5' and the 2' request. The drainage would still be inadequate, however, the wall would be farther from the adjacent property and may provide more room for landscaping or screening. Staff Recommendation The retaining wall proposal 2' from the property line would provide a 24' driveway where 30' is usually needed and recommended. The proposal does not provide adequate drainage according to the City Engineer. Without the conditional use permit the driveway is limited to either a 2T as a side-loading garage or reorientation from a 3-car side loading garage to a double street-facing garage, subject to hardcover modifications. Staff finds that proposal is consistent with previous veuiances granted for hardcover but does not adequately address drainage and safety issues. Attachments AA BB CC DD EE FF GO Plat map Applicant's notes Property Owner ’s list Previous motion by Planning Commission New Hardcover Calculations Letter from Neighbor New Survey with Retaining wall H2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page~6 1 I m m mm mi m IHi M •izuni* m ii il ■Bipai^^aSfS P—FZT] « mfl m^mm I 1 ii •I«la ('-. . \ r. -4 ’ ^ ' r t ■. r BB 9/26/97 Zoning File #2290 Tabled 9/15/97 Reaponae to Notea and Special Conditiona 1) Provided aa Requeated. 2) Provided as Requested. Hardcover figures have not increased from previous approval. 3) A new plan is provided showing a engineered wall as recommended by the City Engineer. The wall is located 2' from the lot line only in front of the garage doors as illustrated in the approved site plan. Answers to additional concerns: 4) With regard to the concern of snow removal, snow removal at this property, as in prior years, is not done by plowing. Snow removal is done by shovel and snow blower. There is adequate space to the west of the garage for excessive snow condition placement. There has never been any concern or problem in prior years. 5) With regard to possible drainage problems, this plan will improve same. With elimination of the previously combined driveway, there is now an area along the upper lot line that will have grass planted on it. This area is approximately 60'long and should be very helpful with absorption of water. The balance of the lot along the lot line will be graded down to level with the adjacent property. This will allow any runoff to go down the middle of the lot line. This area will also have grass planted on it. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMPROPERTY OWNERS LISTPROP ADDR ONNIR KAMI TAXPAYER HAMB/ADDR 38 20 117 23 43 00043229 CASCO G R TRIPP ASK TRIPP GREGORY R A SHARON K TRIPP 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 43 0005 3 8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARY SUSAN SWANSON MARY SUSAN SWANSON 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDm • 38 20 117 23 43 0013 3237 CASCO CIR G NASIEDLAK A M NASIEDLAK G NASIEDLAK A M NASIEDLAK 3237 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR 38 20 117 23 43 0014 3235 CASCO CIR S D SILUS A E C SILUS STEPHEN SILUS A BLAINE SILUS 3235 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 ccmm • 38 20 117 23 43 0015 3233 CASCO CIR D M SPILSBTH A P D SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSBTH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 43 0016 3231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J B COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR 38 20 117 23 43 0031 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT O MACNIB 3135 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 20 117 23 43 0050 3241 CASCO CIR K T A P A KENNEFICK KEVIN T/PATRICIA A KENNEFICK 3241 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDm 8 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF Q DATE MllWu r> 0 ) t)D Application #2290 Motion at Planning Commission meeting Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 for public notification of application and hardcover calculations. The engineered wall can be no closer than 5 from the property line and will require review by the City Engineer. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Silus asked how the approved site plan would be affected. Van Zomeren responded that the effect was not known at this time. X:\APPS\WPW1N60\WPDOCS'1.IN\LIZ\2290NOTE fV J% •j ■li i I fi i f -1^ T i- I f i j .* I » 1 1 H^pnroVFj^ C>^CULA l lOiS WUKlOtU:.!:. • ■ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^5-250’ 2^-500 ^rt/. /o-j-jy 500-1000’ ' o €t: EXISTING hardco ver TN ZONE A. House _______________ Lxngih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck X X X X X \ F. Landscape __ Underlain __ By Plastic __ Or Fabric • CXOflOCK G. Other __ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A . / ?_______ ^ - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________* Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X E. Patio/Dcck' ‘ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X G. Other Wiiiih s.r. 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'/// 6iIZ S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 0.21 Mf./O Width ss ta S l^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O______ * ® < /tl. tC//7 X 100 - • S.F. " S.F. " % • ■ 14 A B A D hardcover CALCULATIO^V UKK^tiiiL» SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ^5-250^^ 25-500’500-1000’ EXTST.T^G HAPnrOVTER IN ZONE A. House _______1 04^ s.F. Bau< Length Widuh I « • -^TpP5 -i^dAoC CCV MCJC ^TfPS X X X ,1 B. Garage C. Driveway i: %• • [x i. X X mI: ^PfU\/JAY D. -Cidewalk COH^* f yJAf^iOU^ X X 4.•I t E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric X X X pAi2T G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A IS^Z. + B /2.X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Widdi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X /»-v r/. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X n r\ G. Other /l(r. C4yALL TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -^€75 + B /Z,43C_X 100 - • ' 14 Bo ^S.F. S.F. ITT s.F.66 IIS7 I9B ^3 3562, S^o /ZSL s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____________S.F. 12,43^ S.F. 2^4-____% Z 7CZ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 300 S.F. S.F. 9 0 S.F. /O O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3ry5 s.F. ^ ^ 3 - S.F. A B A B i 1 hardcover CALCULATiOiN NE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ 75-250 ’ (^ 25-500^^■ SETBACK ZONE EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________ Length .innn»500-10QQ • » •a % X X B. Garage 30.^ C. Driveway f wooOsi^f^ ©6aRM£ V . !•; • i-> •; I'. I H V •f •t D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain . .By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X m X X X X X TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway ^ /f r, tt J D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X x“ X X X X G. Other _S.F. Width •S.F. " =‘s.F. _S.F. 22.4 -B•^ €6 _S.F. ‘S8% 0 ~7lO » • S.F. =51 ’s.F. a S.F. "" a ‘s.F. •a S.F. a •‘s.F. •S.F. ”” a " S.F. a [s.F. • * * • •> _S.F. • 9 1429 S.F. •"s.F. ?86 7 X 100 «yc,_% • 248 • • • _S.F. Widdi f S.F. a ' S.F. a _S.F. a • • ._ S.F. • a 9^^S.F. a _S.F. • S.F. ~ a _ S.F. ._S.F. a “ S.F. a _ S.F. a _ S.F. a _ S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A ® -M£J- /ZO? • S.F. ZS.F. A B A B X 100 - #• t • « m 9 •#«•••«»• #14.• t It • • » • «P1* • Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 September 8, 1997 Ms. Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior. MN 55331 Dear Ms. Berg. This letter is regarding our opposition to item #7 (#2290) of the September 15 planning commission agenda. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) to move an 80’ long . 4' high retaining wall 5’ which would put It up to our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for ttie last 17 years had to come out, which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us. ** The Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes. With the now 4' elevated driveway our house looks very crowded In. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even •* Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with It would go on our property as it has during the construction. ** Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. *• Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. ** If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? ** Orono has not normally allowed “90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A “straight drive in ” garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the neighborhood. . *• We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, QCr % ' C,or\dAh Oo«^ '-p£j^»\A*^ ^^«^^^^ S’ <3^ ec fi/4r/^^S /) eJAACf z 9JT7. O 2) ray or rA^ary = 9^v. jl 3) ^rryr* r*^ r 9SO.S ^ CtfU, ^~—f7sT^----- • ft. ft/. UjjM :ihMi<iMK)N OF PUbMISfcS SUUVLYLU: Lul r>. Sl’RlN(i PARK. .Hsu all U»dL pdr I o* I ij K »• S III'M* Avi'llUl* ilfl'l !»l I ln' llriCl of t Hllll eorvdUh omJp V MLLCLe*^ *(W 5(\a£U^5 *0 ^^0^41 €0 ri ft/4 r* 00^S 0 4ffA4f Z fy?. O 2) rs^ 0/ • ?X^. J 2) T 9SO.S Xy - - f/x - —£2p— : r<^ ; ^*000/fs >.,Ai IRNi.k.PliJN HktMtSlS ■>uwvinu . Lilt I'l St'klMi PAkr.. .i!nu oil titdl po* t u Atfi'llU** •(fl'l **t lilc ItflCl ot Id Mil ,.j;.J *.i .ii.J I .iki* fi:if a wt. !i**» ••«•'• 'Ilf I’d .Iri ly «• * li*n s I i»n % uf I *»»• iiui N««il I Im* I I f I I III* *« *1 1 S il I l! Ill* I ^ . o. vlfii^ti *. 11 iiti m.ifkiM M'l • . iji’fiul*’. I. Ill i*i.i*k*'l • imHI'i lt«*.|l ir«|N 41 «■ l*»|N«**l lltMlII u:i •INMlHt*ll il : A « hM III i\m Ifil . survey iiiIi’ImIn I «• NtinN Itii* Iiuuim IiII ill* SI I I hr'I I I *• I I • ‘ * t 'M: I •• • » I Iill I* t u ti I* » I l{||t .|•|•• III I ? Ill* I Ml .1 I. I illl • * »l I I I* ^ I lllj ill* I ••III . I: •? ••••, Ill * ,'ll |i*ii * • '.I* •< III rii' I * «!• 1 •m'IiI *.. M«fC T4p0f^m^Y ** fr4m €»ty m0 0% • m iiiiy 5* COFFIN & GR0NBERG, Inc • I •« I* Mil* .1 •• pll I •»! fl. *• llkl III I* • Jit .till. *. ' ’ll. .!••. ■ • •* ll’t **'.l*» • •! Nf • TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator August 11. 1997 IVOAOW 5+a-fP- nf>eeKA^ SUBJECT:#2290 Elaine and Sl;\e Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 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 w as completed w as 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»1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 21. Exceptions if2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—I Warn.::- "grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of ^jacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches...require a conditional use permit" Section 10.03 General Provisions, Subd. 15, Non-Encrcaclmients, D. and F. "In side or rear yards only....fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off-street parking" "side yards only; ...nor shall a fence or wall constructed within 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. #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—2 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot IVidth 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 Yaids 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 requirements. 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 f)emit is required because the grade would be changed within 5’ of the property line. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage % of Total Lot 22,420 sq. ft.3,435 sq. ft.15.32 A variance for 72 sq. ft. was granted in Februar>' 1997. U2290 Steve and Eliane Silas 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—3 1^- Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Approved 2/97 Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75’6,117sq. 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 what staff estimates to be the hardcover amount in the 250'-500' setback area. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See Exhibit D. Criteria for Oetermining 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 grading 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 creiited by the narrov' lot width and the location and placement of the new garage. The problem was discovered at the time the footings were being installed U2290 Steve and Eliane Siltis 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page—•/ for the new garage. 3. The variance, if granted, will 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. 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. Driveways are permitted in residential districts. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporarv’ use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. 8. 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. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the distnct in which said land is located. W2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page~5 The Zoning Code does not allow grading within 5’ of the lot line and limits hardcover in all lakeshore zoning districts. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation 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. 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 Public Services Director, a registered civil engineer, has reviewed the pressed boulder wall and does not recommend it due to safety concerns. He suggests that an engineered wall be installed instead of a boulder wall. 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 were 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 bolder 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 Sieve and Eliane Situs 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 10' 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 1 J K L M N O P Plan submitted 6/97 Entry Elevation Permit Record Acknowledgements V inutes Minutes Code Excerpts Resolution *^2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 pace—7 Application # -^o3rctjSd be- ________ ^ dOC\d\kcrr\CiD Received erv \ -peVfv^f 4^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) f f _ l! I Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ihr /-? ;/ \j (no change from original application) ff ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A PROPERTY INFORiVUTION Site Address ^ ? v Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) /c Attach legal description to application if not included on simey ' Date PropwtyAcquired ^ 8 t i i I (do) no ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^resi.iential other (specify) Zoning District: ^ j ^ " ■ — .(month/year) APPLICANT Name ^g . , C Address:^? .r CSAcA. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name City: Phone (home) ^->/ « Phone (work) ^ 7 y ________Zip: » j Address:City: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estinated ConstiucUon Cost $ Desenbe request in detail: Sa- , i .O (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback:Front iC Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS c°om"i'a^cr^* ZoringVo^e'’r^uirit^^^^ ” (attach additional sheets if necessary) feyJoiloii- \ ^M O «■>n ;• vi Xiasy i D ■^u.OiUxr^^./o~ *T^ vvj&T^yMJ^ /V ^oLic w^-r vjvoe ‘TC^ '^U^CwLO ^VJT^^cUQJ;:! AUJO fT' o9- 4^\:\^ahi^'&\ u:r«ic> . U-Wi_ JAScVbW “TO AOp^ai:i>{iH^vrL^Y '*"/ pOVvJV Tc:? "TCj ^^=\£^rr. P / C^C&C.^’PtaC^O UvO t\iSLlAL_ Cc.tJt^rv\c:>0'^‘ OA:^jP^.,C.oJ CjC^T" ul) I C^TH- ^^^iacx\cikvl_. ox_ ‘^vjr^^t^jo.cs: / 'xx^'TD ^0vtv^_,;,Or .^cUU^^tOCs- -A feEXAVYjvvOGr- w^AvU_ t,OV*XVHVj ‘TWET tT" •RoeST' \OAKX_t£ \0 ^^4JSlv^xOU Ci-VAiUA-^ ■ ITEM #8 List of Exhibits (cont.) I. J. Floor Plans Resolution M. f),' r ■) i; "■ # ^Pertinent Ordinances: R^RDCOVER ANALYSIS I. Section 10.22, Subd.2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shail 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,’09 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. 1 i 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. M2206, Elaine and Sieve Situs 3235 Casco Circle-Variances CC 3/10/97 Page 2 «i^» • •• • — \ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Cr SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75* F.XISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 250-500'500-1000* Length / 7 X X X Wicith !. 33 B. Garage C. Driveway z, i- X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck /V X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER l Y AREA IN ZONE 5Z72,. Z g - B /i^ V Z Ca X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER LN ZONE A. House I 1 Length -r X X X Wi<jih X<;> tH&w B. Garage C. Driveway X.<^^ 7x- /I X X Z7 D. Sidewalk 7.< <5 X X E. Patio/Dcck / y X X F. Landscape Underlain _ By Plastic _ X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IM ZONE JC. 2: <.7^ -i- B /Z ^ j ^X 100 = /S7 ZL8Z Zero GS.F. S.F. 7 X,, C^f S.F. /.s. I 7 YS'^S.F. S.F. S.F. 'I N , 7S S.F. c p V • • : iS.F. . S.F. ^ ■’ S.F. '^-'.^..3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____________ S.F. ____________S.F. 2 <L. 3 t % A B / 'S»l S.F. Z Z.'tlZ S.F. j oo____ S.F. 7 > fe> f S.F. ( ~\ Y S.F. ?>< t S.F. S.F. 7 Z^S.F. S.F. 7 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___________ S.F. ___________ S.F. 7 9. fa % \ it 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X 75-250'500-1000' Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Drive D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other ZT. X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER l Y AREA IN ZONE Zf'2' H- B 38^7 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ; ONE A. House X Length Width B. Garage C. 'jiivcway D. Sidewalk E. Pat-VDeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X ZO 55 G. Other X X X X X X X X X 74^ SCO TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B 3847 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Cf A B « IHTO Ar ^vi €*p<%^-V VOA.W e HMl-i bffi#4ji m 7^ 3“ O” U NfWOONVmCTDNV TXC. SILUS HOME SntCAn>POMTCWCLl ONOiaMMNItOTAtUtl MUCf lAtltMOIClLMa IMtOmitnEMOMAV MAYlATiVIM IM1 4IMM« •UIWATTOCaiaN UMWOOOtOiUNf »«WMOOO.yNMU1 4IM7MAau»n ^ • <g t . PMtIt Mm & r ;/ L \ Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form ' 1)M:___SP(<- Sen-v of Ca-^x'o [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located ---------------------------- - ^Iso 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 Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and tlmt the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner -9' 7 Date Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located -----------------------------^Iso 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 Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. /^rope^/’OwTier^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. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#1 - #2211 Zoning Amendment - Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas within the City. Council Member Goetten said the Council has many of the same concerns expressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended. Van Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 1, Hawn. McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process. ACTION ITEM (#5) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARUNCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0.28% increase over the 15% allowable. The lot width requirement is 100'. The property in question is 55'wide. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal would result in a 123 s.f increase of hardcover in the 75-250' setback and a 221 s.f reduction in the 250-500’ setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two adjoining properties. Van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackberry tree located on the property. M I I r 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 review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the structure. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back further on the lot. Hawn informed the applicant of the series of recjuests 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 concerr)ed with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in structural coverage Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250* setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but 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 driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate. NONUTES 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 beneSt Orono. In regards to the potential concerns \\ith 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 from 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 Gaffron 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 STEVE 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 w’hen the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he w ould 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 AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3625 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CUP - RECOMMENDATION FOR DENUL Neil Heupel represented the applicants. • • r § 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot 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 a , 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 f cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter ^ 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 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 frontage lots which front on a major if till i 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 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 deuth 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 (.xceed a height of 6 fe_et above original grade andopen_otf- street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall ove£^ inches but not in excess of 72 incnes in neignt above original grade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence ° adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. , _Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 ORONO CC 256-1 (4-1-84) ET= § 10.03 outdoor picni/-she"!rerrf„a°"tycrtVtr^.^^^ pgulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than within a^'^eal yard txLed*'l heigh^^of 6 fISrabove*iri|i^a\^''gr'k^^^^^ .. . yards only; no accessory structure shall be than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or ^j^^Y^onstructed within a side"yard exceed a height nf fi 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 lines of two intersecting streets# thence 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 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- gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public services welfare will not be harmed by the essential 10-TC w All farms in existence on January 1# 1975 Shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions; *1®'^ "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) animals that existed on the farm as of ^ With animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such perait# the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be e erm^e y^ 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. 84) ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) ).03 ove Les S 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 buildingr 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 earth filling, removal or g rading rroposed bv a builder shall be referred bv the Building inspector to the Planning Commission and th6~C0undil fOr action in accordance with this Chapter. The Building Inspector: shalladhereto the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: _ . ., , 3 Uciinds "h^-f irv^plieeJ /\^jeA O 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 cordihonat pencil-Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 84) 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 (4-1-84) CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OETHE CITY COUNCIL NO.61 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-6) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2206 el 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 between 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 £illow'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. 14)Page 1 of 5 m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ■■ 8 8 5 1 ^ 2. t . ] 10, 3. 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 mature hackbeny tree located at the street side of the property. C. The proposed residence reduces overall hardcover (5,004 s.f. e.xisting; 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 propert>' 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 intial ) s.f. 1997 wing CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 51____ 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommend:'‘.Ions of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety at.-i 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 constmction, 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. 3. 4. 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). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 861 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 1997. ATH-EST: Dorothy M.^ltllin, City Clerk ■■ 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. m 5^; CAROLE A HASEMAN NOWirnflUMWNESOI) MyCuwnlulwlXlwiJw-y.WP Notary Public ✓ X y" ✓ ✓ Page 4 of 5 i I CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ Q 5 1 _ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of . 199:L_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared F~/g.'r.r» 6tf v 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. CAROLEANAI WTMYMU&I HENNEmCCXWTY K My CotmnisslonEiotres Jan. 31.2000 i Notary Piblic STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ELAINE SILUS IN LOT 19. SPRING PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA r# ft ftft f) s 0 i) j j) t 9St^.S ■■■ • *••*»**• ftt^. Utsch if I i^tr<'iUWl'luU; •<U l<tl I'l. SffIfUl PAR*.. I NU <1 I I tll4l fd* I U* V4t4tV«J A««miiii* .in-l (il ^(h* litii'l uT I 4ImI l/ifiii tiftwtfrd «.i- itiMl 4»*i»u** .ii'U Ki •1*101 uoA ii which lio\ • ho od-kli'Cly oiloitMvhs u» I ho iiuilhoily S<'iilh«i|^ ll••0^ 1. • Nillii lu! IV. O J« •• > ( I I i Ml M|l*Of \o I • U* iiu! I . I 'll * ubiMt llo.iiliMS h.'wi .!•• u|i««ii ji issuiOii IWM|.M|.|I^ INIAHS W« Mil . *.ut IIMi-ImJ. I s'i 'W I hliUM'i •• I ^ yl till* tftoVI* ilos'.ii^o. |'t.|.i* 1. I **o mii i'i I vh o*i%lli»v hiiw>o wmU •i«> «<|* III I *. ho lul.lltUM !•* .ill l'«l«1|iMJ '*tl<|l I ** llioionh. It Hi.' |‘iii I I !• .h >w .«••/ ulhoi I l•»|•l (.koaioii I * IM Olii I •.'•li. ^•■l‘l•l *1 , M»»« T0p»fr»phf t| ««liO /rfm> m*0t Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. ‘i: r • I. r I S iitn M »li*i |K.»I ih.» •«•»!» M.i* I’ll |Mfi J K fivlimit • nii Mifs r % i.*.i0 jml ih.ii I JIM j Jul. hxmii-mi i H il I itcimx-r jihI 14oJ Su«»*\i*i unJi-i ihi Liittfi iIm MjIi .4 \liMm‘.a4.i Nl.lfi MllMlt "••4.I I ktItM \* " HAII r»2o* •MU ■ 97^/6 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono Planning Commission October 21,1997 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your notification of tonight's consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it. we feel that it presents some thorny problenis. That the garage entry was designeu w ith its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. Thi s is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Cas:o Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Silus' the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company or having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from ‘he neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions - fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and. unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson T£)e<f(finy JlCusic Gonsulianl Uocaftsl 7^: VMWfvt^ - ^iiUA4^ He t ^ s^.£a.)lJ /Pyt^y!LC4di}j^ , V:?f^. ^-rtC — ^ ^ daAJ4^t^<yy^ ^ fiAJbti 1/ M ^ ^ % 2cHy^ ^ 2)d^ynH" 3J9J Casco 'Point G 129 ^fexan<ftrP!uenue, (Snowmass, Coforado 61654 -471-8926 (fax) 46 * 970-927-9/37 (fax) 14*_L / b ■1 V^HA. MeUtfT W»‘TH 5i^fi. «?>fl^P|^||!lil=y|;^|l{=:;|l!= Miilliiiai TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator October 16, 1997 SUBJECT: #2300 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Renewal Variance Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family L^eshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for renewal of setback and hardcover variances granted in October 1996 for restoration of an existing retaining w'all, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system located within 75' of the lakeshore. . 1 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Resolution #3786 F - Memo and Selected Exhibits from Prior Approval Summary of Request Please review the exhibits from the 1996 approval. The applicant was unable to complete this project this year partially due to sewer installation on Bracketts Point which has negatively impacted access to the site. The project involves restoration and repair of an existing retaining wall adjacent to an underground 'grotto', restoration of the grotto, and repairs to two lakeshore stairway systems located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. On the application form applicant also mentions repairs to the boathouse, however this came in as a renewal application and the boathouse was specifically not included in the prior approval. The wording of the current application request is identical to that of the prior request, and apparently was just transferred from the prior application. The prior approval resolution noted that "structural restoration of the existing boathouse is specifically not a part of this approval, and structural repairs to that building shall be reviewed by the Inspections Department and if determined to require a variance, shall be brought forth to the Planning Commission and City Council as a separate application". This review should be treated as a simple renewral of the approval granted in Resolution #3786 in October 1996, not involving the boathouse. lance - m for ocated te this pacted [jacent f^stems emas 1. The ly was ictural repairs |uire a iparate ted in Sij.: ate, >; i ApplicationDate ReceiTed R -/i -9~^ Amount Paid /i^c> 8 8* CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 Afker-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORxVIATION fc SiteAddress t^OO ^ tl/U . 9 /| Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) l\ -117 - j ^000! ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired <vlciL / ? 9 3L.___________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: A" residential ___^other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:^______^__________________ APPLICANT Name n w O tv /V AddressT /900 Ph ^ ■ City: DAcyvo Phone (home) 6 /^ - ^73 - Phone (woik)__________________ Zip: 3 f / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name t^eav\»v Address: / ‘/OO Pt■ t^J.. City: (Qa tmjo Phone (home) Grx - 97 3 y Ph' i (work)_________________ Zip: 53^3 9/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ___________ Describe request in detail: 1o v f.UaJj /^3 ^kjLt^jfryts I y (attach(!^dditional sheets if necessary) ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore. . Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) RUI DAU 00/26/9SOATCII OOAran> ADOR OHNER NAI1C TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HEIBIEPIH COUIITY pnOPCRTY IHronHATlWJ SYS! CM PnOPERTY OH«US LISTSB n-U7-« S2 BOOT OlAOO BRACKETTS POITIT RO J R JUNBT A MARY J JUNOT JAMES R JUNOT BOX I ■CRYSTAL DAY !fl 55325 3B .11-117-23 32 0010 01265 BRACKETTS POINT RO ^ MICHAEL E LYNN III t HIFE • MICHAEL A JORJA LYttI 111 1265 ORACKETTS POINT HAYZATA 55391 Htl'OUl NO.PACE 12 •30 11-117-23 32 001101420 BRACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUNOT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1CRYSTAL OAY H4 55523 .PROP AOOR OHMER IIAMC TAXPAYER IIAME/AOOR 3B 11-117-23 32 0017 01300 ORACKETTS POINT RO GEORGE S PILLSDURY ET AL GEORGE S PILLSOURY 6000 FIRST OAtK PLACE MPLS »fl 55602 30 11-117-23 32 0010 •01220 ORACKETTS POINT RO ELLA P CROSOY ELLA P CROSOY 1220 ORACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA 111 55391 30 11-117-23 32 001901200 ORACKETTS POINT ROJOHN S PILLSOURY JR ET ALJOini S PILLSOURY JR «6000 FIRST OAIK PLACEMPLS Iti 55602 PROP AOOR OMIER NAME TAXPAYER lUME/ADOR 3B 11-117-23 33 0001 01620 ORACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT A M J JUmT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL BAY IW 55323 30 11-117-23 33 0006 01650 ORACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S I A LACHLAN REED lURTHA S A A LACHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA It! 55391 30. 11-117-23 33 0005 01600 ORACKETTS POINT RD R A L HEADRICK ROGER L A LYIAI C HEADRICK 1600 ORACKETTS POINT RO FUYZATA »*l 55391 PROP ADOR OHMER tUMC TAXPAYER MAME/AOOR 3B 11-117-23 33 0006 01500 ■ ORACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REED ‘ tURTIIA S A A UCHLAN REED 1500 BRACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA 111 55391 TOTAL BATCH 006 00010 I 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INTORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARINENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. .•U. DATE > • I : wy5 m / / / / ' o ^ . ''-21 * ' r ri '• iir> u .<J ''. !|tSii 7^ /^'V,/'''. * * /'/ / .* - .' m^f •.......................................................... ' |1- / ------------ ----------.'1» .///<!,• 4 ,.---?{--..^1 ij-. .•' . " r / / /. ' 'x . ' .....<»•« ., • ^ • -.1 * 7 i \ \ M-/ K^'iE'rr*''' \ ^i'T'\''^^''/' '' \ \ J 8 f i/ |. ^-1 ^5C f X I i ■■'4 / ^ \ \ L* A-' /‘ 35 '. * / » « i.^( ! i \ X \w *€<• I «i 4 *5in ♦ '^ ;i ' , - * *M- * ^ A / ' ' i * * ; if • • 'A I *' / .' f V ' -i ■' yu' ■'' V'^' *r /<\ 'i : ' ✓ SI J# ooO^ b x \ —f ■'v,a .1 ?7- I i ,'u . • / / -j? • i • : ; <■■ i{ / ; • / / /; . -i, ! ! I > I • I f J kyyii ^•1 I > f :'-/.:^-x > / ^1 li >/M • X'./••.lAO -.••■I ^ X##* •.‘/••tA. • **»i I ><■ V-’/ /»i7 s*'v ‘ N i'S*> •\ 3 4 ^v.;: ('/// \.| '•r'J /"lUv •v.\ > ‘. > V''i I I > p/.vi .-yMf,y r ■ T ' *'ACi r ^ \ ^ » t ' • ■■■.■■.\•' ' • ^ J •' *" ;;',v- "iV >:.............. // ___X -rt ^ \U-\...., 5: -----r -'ll /7: /■ • '••• '■‘■yy • .• >^' • * ' ' * ^ / ' .' // ': •» » . . • t / • t $:fk y:'-P-"r/^: £?. »rf * A ip'iaa'sI SHI »*r^4 " ^*r ' ** til* I '• t'/f,'/'■'. ■A B ? ,7 7 I ) ^ \^v J ^ -S /% mwm- GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R 7 5^ fi A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C & L) FILE NO. 2159 WHEREAS, James and Joann Jundt (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: (Exhibit A attached); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to permit the restoration of an existing retaining wall, undergroimd grotto and lakeshore stairway system located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2159. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 16, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances to restore the lakeshore stairway system, retaining wail and underground grotto, based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 87 8 6 A.The property is unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that applicants have been diligently restoring the propert>' to its former splendor. B.The proposed work involves restoration of amenities or structures which already exist, and does not propose any new buildings or amenities. C.The 650' length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property which are as much as 25' above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5.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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to permit the restoration of the existing lakeshore stairway Page 2 of 5 > r n I m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL d786NO. system, retaining wall and underground grotto, subject to the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The restoration work shall not exceed that contemplated or proposed in the submitted plans. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone shall not exceed the pre-existing level of 0.7% as indicated on the site restoration plan attached as Exhibit B. Applicant is advised that any future proposal to add hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Structural restoration of the existing boathouse is specifically not a part of this approval, and structural repairs to that building shall be reviewed by the Inspections Department and if determined to require variances, shall be brought forth to the Planning Commission and City Council as a separate application. 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 (October 28, 1997). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 1 CITYof ORONO resolution of the city council NO. SyRA Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October, 1996. DoroW lM»n, City Clerk 0>^er (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of October, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. 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. / X ' ^ A I My C LINDAS. VEE JVPURI&MM' SUwCOUHTf \ Notary Public ^ y y I I Page 4 of 5 GITYofORONO tt RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 8 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of arcJirs , 199 7 . before me a Notary Public within and for iaid County, personally appeared il\oru n Jona-i-. 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. \W^:\”';ES0TA Notary Public I4lf H Jan.31,2000 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. LINDA S.VEE N01MYPU8UC4iNNES01A HOMEPIN COUNTY My Conwilssion Eiqrins J«L 31,2000 i ! ! On this day of Public within and for said County, personally appeared_____ _______ known to me to be the person(s) described in and wh$ executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.(their) free act and deed CfX^i V. (D ‘ NotirV Public JEAN D. SCANLON MorAirnNUC minmioia MY COMMISMON EXPIRES JANUARY 31.2000 Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION 37^4 EXHIBIT A T FGAT. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED Lots 5 and 6, Rearrangement of Orono Point; Also; that part of Lots 9 and 10, Rearrangement of Orono Point and the accretions thereto lymg Southerly and Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point in the centerline of Center Avenue 588.95 feet northerly from the Northwesterly comer of Lot 5, Rearrangement of Orono Point; thence southerly along said centerline a distance of 5 feet; thence southwesterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 221.17 feet a distance of 169.38 feet; thence southwesterly tangent to said last described curve a distance of 5 feet; thence southwesterly on a tangential curve to the right a radius of 445.72 feet a distance of 119.25 feet; thence southWESTsrly iang«nt to said last described curve a distance of 107.3 feet; thence westerly making an angle of 44 degrees 42 minutes to the right a distance of 79.3 feet to the shore of T jtfff Minnetonka and there terminating; subject to Border Avenue as opened by Document no. 2092886; Also that part of vacated Center Avenue as said Center Avenue was dedicated to the public in the plat of Rearrangement of Orono Point, lying southerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 4, said Rearrangement of Orono Point and northerly of a line drawn westerly perpendicular to the west line of said Lot 4 from a point on said west line distant 182 29 feet northerly from the southwest comer of said Lot 4; also that part of the westerly half of vacated Center Avenue lying southerly of said above described perpendicular line; and also that part of trK weste half of vacated Center Avenue lying northerly of the westerly extension of the northerly line A said Lot 4 and lying southerly of a line drawn easterly at right angles to the westerly line ol .aid vacated Center Avenue from the point of intersection of said westerly line with a line drawn 10 feet easterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point in the centerline of said Center Avenue distance 588.95 feet northerly from the northwesterly comer of said Lot 5; thence southerly along said centerline a distance of 5 feet to the pomt of beeimiing of the line being described; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 221.17 feet a distance of 169.38 feet, and said line there ending. RESOLUTION 37^^ That part of vacated Border Avenue as laid out and dedicated over and across part of Lot 9 in said Rearrangement of Orono Point which-lines between the westerly line of said Center Avenue and a line drawn across said Border Avenue at right angles to the side line of said Border Avenue from the point of intersection of the centerline of said Border Avenue with a line described as follows: Beginning at a point in the centerline of said Center Avenue distant 588.95 feet northerly of the northwest comer of said Lot 5; thence southerly along the centerline of said Center Avenue a distance of 5 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 221.17 feet a distance of 169.38 feet; thence southwesterly tangent to last said curve a distance of 5 feet; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 445.72 feet a distance of 119.25 feet; thence southwesterly tangent to last said curve a distance of 107.30 feet; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 56 fee: a distance of 19.7 feet; thence southerly tangent to last said curve a distance of 6.8 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 169.7 feet a distance of 53.9 feet; thence southerly tangent to last described curve a distance of 20.5 feet; thence southerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 78.1 feet to its intersection with the centerline of said Border Avenue, and said line there ending. 1 ! * C^’* *> r^C ■ !ii ■/,! /^' •. ■ lii-/' $ r^m.\ / NJ / J » • • V V.S isr- '•f I a:si.&.i* I • i> . LI il|l| Ml ll*M I li**! • ii ^\L ■f :i c*— t Ir:^rX :# * i / .. t '{ .t ir / I I w U il’ i 1 —ltf L..ry_v- il '?• I. h ii vm%f f;ti I I i ,!«!l!S!?. I ? £.t 5 4? V I J4J .5 •> 3 / ’!2 9. r :5^ C* I 7Z S / * < I 7 I ? I I I * I'• f-;/I ^;ll®i'.t«!/ 3lI' ■ J #. fli / A / JP * * / ! i I*MI, iJOiJ jji ij ' I !' I' i'''i'i'*M i6i'' i; i • j pVi' 7 .r V \ iM -1r # /\ /i / * ' 11 1 II i|.i* A I ^ 1/ ' 'I I" II' \ 'I '' ■' \ / ' *• i"".'\ \•' ♦'* V •' V'"*) 1^' /V -;!f 1 'i'V'(ft'-' / ■\/'; !'• I'kHM)/ / NL I I J^VA. I I my. ' ’•• !-4«- B \ •«v \ / i V (\ / # - ^ J \.. / / /I i I / / s'v- N.r--' •r^ I •■—K,J^}________-' 111 ^ /'■ V ! iliii'iliI 5 li?'.! I I I I I I f I I Ml 111 n',» II • 1111 ill V I I I 'l l|U* |l III ll Mill I I I I II l |i|l \1 II 11 III III Ml ''■".'.’A f 9 I/ #I!«I I * ‘» I \ I SI / I » I I I I ! I I I I I / I I f I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 19, 1996 Updated Oct. 23, 1996 ITEM NO.; Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres, Unsewered Application: Request for lakeshore setback variance and 0-75' hardcover variances for restoration of existing grotto, retaining wall and lakeshore stairway system (applicant also proposes cosmetic repair to existing boathouse). List of Exhibits Resolution Notice of Council Action 9/24/96 Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/19/96 Memo and Exhibits of August 14, 1996 NOTE: This item was tabled at your September 23 meeting because applicant was not present. Applicants propose to restore two existing limestone rock stairways leading down the lakeshore bank east of the existing house. These stairways have been in place for many years, and restoration will include repair or replacement of deteriorated stonework and handrails. Additionally, applicants propose to restore the underground grotto and its associated retaining wall. This is an underground cellar-type room, located within the lakeshore bank behind a stone retaining wall. Restoration will include mainly cosmetic work including adding stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, adding a decorative light fixture, restoration of the existing wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. Applicants had originally proposed significant restoration of the existing boathouse, which is in failing condition. That work was to include roof replacement, window and door replacement and modification, straightening of the frame, residing, a new concrete floor, and a new concrete step. The August 14 staff memo indicated that the apparent total restoration proposed suggests that the structural work intended likely exceeds 50% of the value of the structure at the time it became non-conforming. The zoning code limits the structural restoration of such structures with the goal that they eventually disappear. Prior to the Planning Commission review, applicants withdrew the boathouse work from this application. However, at the Planning Commission meeting, applicant indicated that rather than remove the structure they intend to I I ^7 5 - Request for Council Action continued Page 2 September 19, 1996 / Updated October 23, 1996 #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road repair the roof. Please review the discussion on Page 2 of the August 14 memo regarding the conformity of this structure. ent. nmg d to Hardcover Existing 0-75' hardcover on the property excluding the public roadways is less than 1% of the 0-75' zone. While applicant's submitted hardcover calculations indicate a 250 s.f. increase in hardcover, applicant indicates that is incorrect and reflects a prior application, and in fact there is no expectation that additional hardcover will be added as part of the restoration work proposed. Planning Commission indicated that they have no problem with the hardcover aspect of this application. Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 16 meeting. Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the restoration/repair/cosmetic upgrading of the stairways, retaining wall and grotto. Planning Commission directed applicant to work with staff regarding the boathouse repairs, but specifically did not approve any variances for the boathouse structure, and indicated that depending on the work ultimately proposed, that may have to come back for a further separate review. Planning Commission noted the following hardships which support the restoration work for the grotto, retaining wall and stairways: 1. The property ».s unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that ^licints have been diligently restoring the property to its former splendor. 2. The proposed work involves restoration of amenities or structures which already exist, and does not propose any new buildings or amenities. 3. The 650' length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property which are as much as 25' above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. Planning Commission noted that the boathouse would not be permitted if it were proposed to be constructed today, but members indicated that the boathouse appears to be an amenity which, in the context of the entire property, should be allowed to be restored. Factors which Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 19, 1996 / Updated October 23,19% #2159 Ja,nes and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road may justify structural repair to the boathouse include its age, its connection with the history of : .e property, and its unique former function as a "changing room" with a divider for a boys' side and a girls' side. Planning Commission suggested that applicant woiic with staff to determine the cosmetic versus structural nature of contemplated repairs, if structural restoration variances are necessary to bring that back as a separate application. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission that the stairways, retaining wall and grotto should be restored. Additionally, Council should give applicant direction regarding the restoration of the boathouse. A resolution for approval of the restoration of the stairways, grotto and retaining wall is attached for Council adoption. Options for Action 1. Approve per attached resolution. 2. Approve per attached resolution with revisions. 3. Table for further information. 4. Conceptual denial. 5. Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution or take other appropriate action. fO] PROPOSED MOTION: Moved byj) , seconded by . to adopt Resolution No.____ granting lakeshore setback and 0-75' hardcover variance approval for restoration of lakeshore stairways, retaining wall and grotto for Jr.-'^es and Joann Jundt at 1400 Bracketts Point Road. Vote: ayes, O nays. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 1996 6'3> (#6.) m35 ALBEE ESTATE, 1575 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3785 Applicants were present. Gaffron stated this item was tabled at Council September 23rd meeting at the request of the applicants. Since that time, Nancy Gawron, representative of the estate, has provided documentation that the Hedlunds are no longer involved with the request, hence the Hedlunds no longer appear on the proposed resolution. The estate advises they are in agreement with the provisions and conditions of the resolution and wish Council approval. Moved by Jabbour, seconded by Hurr to adopt Resolution #3785 granting variances for street setback, average lakeshore setback, lake setback, hardcover and work in bluff impact zone for the Edna Albee Estate property at 1575 Long lake Blvd. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. (#7.) #2159 JAMES ANT) JoANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3786 Mrs. Jundt was present. Gaffron stated the application is to restore two existing limestone rock stairways leading down the lakeshore bank east of the existing house. The stairways have been in place for many years, and restoration will include repair or replacement of deteriorated stonework and handrails. This will now give the property 4 access stairways on tn property with 600’ of shoreline. In addition applicants proposed to restore the underground grotto and its associated retaining wall. The grotto was originally an old pump house. The applicant has withdrawn the restoration of the existing boathouse. Callahan asked applicant if she was satisfied. Applicant indicated yes. Goetten stated this is a very unique case. Applicant indicated they are trying to bring the property back to its original condition. Kelley indicated pictures indicate a large amount of vegetation in the stairway and applicant must understand amount of vegetation removal. Jabbour stated he disagreed with the Planning Commission regarding the 4 stairways for 600’ of lakeshore, it should depend o” individual property. Goetten moved, Jabbour seconded, to adopt Resolution #3786 graniing lakeshore setback and 0-75’ hardcover variance approval for restoration of lakeshore stairways, retaining wall and grotto for James and JoAnn Jundt at 1400 Bracketts Point Road. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16» 1996 Q-i (#3 - #2169 Michael Renard - Continued) Lindquist asked what the hardcover facts were. Mabusth asked for a breakdown of the hardcover calculations and whether it included the landscaping. Betz showed the survey to Mabu-».h. ‘'ho did not have a copy of this particular survey. Discussion was had on the particulais of the hardcover. It was determined that if the 130 s.f of landscape rock in the 0-75' was removed, along with 420 s.f in the 75-250' setback, there would be no need for a hardcover vanance. Schroeder said he was concerned with trading of plastic and rock as it should not have been there in the first place. The plastic wa ^ installed by a previous owner. Schroeder said the hardcover should be separated showing what does and does not count. Mabusth said it would not be required if there was no hardcover variance required in the 75-250' setback and would only involve the average lakeshore setback. Schroeder questioned whether this was actually known. Mabusth clarified that the hardcover total was originally 6142 s.f or 26.7% where 5707 s.f. is allowed. With the removal of the 420 s.f of landscape rock and plastic, the square footage of hardcover would be 4( 24 9% and not require a variance. Smith asked why the shed was an issue in 1991. Mabusth said it was because the hardcf^t^ exre^ed the allowed at 16.1%. With the shed removal, the hardcover would beat There we‘. no public comments. Schroeder said he w as reluctant to allow the shed since the Council in 1991 recommended its removal with the same basic numbers presented. Lindquist noted that the structure was proposed larger at that time. Mabusth said there was also more hardcover and the updated survey was not available. Mabusth said the removal of plastic and rock would result in a 1.8% reduction from 26.7% to 24.9%. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2169 with the understanding that all plastic on the property would be removed along with the cement pad located in the 0-75' setback. The application would only involve a variance to the average lakeshore setback, and the shed would be allowed to remain. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #2159 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:54 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application was tabled at the request of the applicant at the August 19 meeting of the Planning Commission He noted that the application has been revised by the withdrawal of the boathouse from the application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1996 (#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) Mrs Jundt said the intent was non-structural in regards to the boathouse and repair only would be done due to a hole in the roof from a large tree branch that fell on it this past year. Lindquist asked Mrs Jundt if she had a problem with the total removal of the boathouse. Jundt said she would be reluctant to remove the boathouse due to its historical significance. Gafifron said caution would need to be taken regarding a repair permit for the 1930 ’s boathouse with the value versus the cost of repair. Smith clarified that the boathouse would not be deleted from the application, and there were no plans to remove the boathouse from the property Gaffron informed the Commission that the City would have to review the repairs proposed. Jundt questioned why there was a concern when only repairs were planned. She was informed that structural repairs cannot exceed 50% of the value of the boathouse when ordinances made such structures nonconforming in 1975. Mabusth said she spoke with Jundt's attorney, Tom Crosby, who noted the cement piers, which are part of its construction and were found to be in good condition. He was informed that additional information would be required if the integrity of the foundation was questioned. A window will be added but the roof slope would remain the same. Jundt said she understood the concern when asked by Lindquist Lindquist clarified that if any repairs exceed 50% of the value, the code requires the boathouse to be removed. It was determined that more information would be required before this issue could be resolved. Gaffron reported that the proposal includes improvements east of the main house to the underground grotto, a retaining w all, and repair of the stairways. One set of stairways has a gap which will be connected This stairway is located 5-10' from the shoreline. Another centrally located stairway will be repaired and restored. The retaining wall will be repaired along with the grotto. Gaffron said the e.xisting 4 walkways extend 650' in distance and questioned whether there were more than enough stairways. He noted the code allows for stairs to the lake but does not mention how many sets of stairs per property. The improvements to the grotto will consist of cosmetic changes with the addition of a stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, addition of a decorative light, restoration of existing wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. Gaffron noted that since the grotto was underground, it is not considered hardcover. The hardcover calculations are at 0.7% in the 0-75' setback with the exclusion of the hardcover in the public right-of-way. Additional hardcover of about 1% is proposed in the submitted calculations ui the patio and deck area but no specifics are provided and will need clarification. Mrs Jundt said restoration was only planned at this time, no additions. Smith asked if there were improvements to the grotto. Gaffron said the changes were cosmetic only. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1996 (#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) McMillan asked if there would be changes to the vegetation. Jundt said the plans call for trimming only. Gaflron said the code normally asks for a staircase to come straight down in order to keep the hardcover to a minimum. The stairs now angle down across the slope and are partially hidden by vegetation. Smith noted that the number of staircases was previously re'^iewed. It was determined that if the property was broken down into parcels that the number of stairways would be acceptable. Hawn commented on the uniqueness of the property and the fact that only restoration was being performed, not new improvements Hawn said she spoke with the gardener who said he used the far stairways alot in his work and the restoration would increase the safety. Hawn said she had no problem with the restoration. Jundt said it was their intent to return the property to what it once was and not change it. She said she had questioned whether the boathouse should be restored and was informed that it should be as it has historically value. She informed Mabusth when questioned that additional damage could occur if the repair was not made. Mabusth said, although the cost of repair may exceed 50% of value, she would be inclined to allow the repair because of the uniqueness. Stoddard asked how the valuation was determined. Gaffron said the assessor's value was usually taken from 1975 records However, no value was established for this building in the records. A value for a comparable building of its size could possibly be used. Lindquist asked whether the Commission was including the boathouse or not in this application. Mabusth said there was a need to allow the structural repair to the roof, but the applicant would have to come back with more information on the foundation. Lindquist said he would need more information before he could vote on the issue and asked for an estimate. Mrs. Jundt said she thought it would be okay to repair the structure. Gaffron said it was a matter or deffning whether and to what extent structural repair actually is needed Gaffron said he would want the building inspector to look at the structure if the boathouse was included in the application. Lindquist said the Commisrion would only look at the sidewalk, retaining walls, and grotto, and would not include the boathouse in this approval. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held OiN SEPTEMBER 16,1996 (#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) the restoration and cosmetic remodel t. Staffregarding the boathous^ ^ »'®rk with Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Affidavit of PubUcation and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. aggregate patio. A previous deck was placed in^a laro^ residence placed over the deck will be smaller in size There will L nn w rhe replacementsize. I here will be no reduction in the existing hardcover within75-250' setback area at 55%. The applicant said he began to repair the deck, and it fell down. Staff there would only be room for a oneS ei^e ^ ,n V'T' ® “tl serve as back out area 8 g , the nght-of-way would continue to TteWs‘nr250-. neighbors recardino oainin^ o .........he property. Rooke said he has spoken with his SSS' mESK » «»mi. .«.U possibility. P°8rap y of the area would probably eliminate that 8 10 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE:October 17,1997 SUBJECT: #2301 Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Femdale Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zooing District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for variances for landscaping within the right-of-way of Femdale Road, expansion of driveway iq)ron in right-of-way, and construction of a gate access within 75 ’ of the lakeshore and in the right-of-way. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Surv’ey E - Topographic Map F - Revegetation/Landscaping Plan and Staff Comments from 8/20/97 G - Tree Removal Permit H - Prior Fence Approval Resolution and Site Plan Pertinent Code Sections 1.10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16(C & L): No hardcover or structure allowed within 75' of the lake. 2. 3. 6.05, Subd. 9; Residential driveway and approach standards - approach limited to 20' width. 6.09: Regulation of grass, weeds and trees in streets - permit required for planting trees on streets. 4.6.07: Obstructions in streets and private roads - permit required for obstructions such as retaining walls, fences, etc. in right-of-way. Zoning File #2301 October 17,1997 Page 2 Review of Proposal In 1989-90 applicant did major remodeling to the existing residence. Hardcover variances were granted at that time, and a graveled shoulder in front of applicant's residence was required to be removed. As part of that remodeling, applicant planted arborvitae approximately 1 O' from the paved road. Applicant was also approved for a 6' high fence along the street lot line where only a 3 1/2' high fence would normally be allowed. That fence was required to be within the property boundaries. Applicant has recently acquired a portion of the adjacent Skarp property and has removed the existing residence from that property. As part of the house demolition applicant regraded the site (with staff approval) which involved the removal of certain distressed trees (including a 36" willow for which a separate removal permit was issued) and the temporary removal of others. A tree replacement plan has been provided which is acceptable to staff. Applicant proposes to continue the arbor\'itae eastward from his driveway at a 15' setback from the paved road but still within the right- of-way. Further, he proposes to expand the driveway apron within the right-of-way approximately 130 s.f,, flaring it out to the east for easier approach to the site and to match the opposite side of the driveway. Finally, he proposes to construct a gate within the right-of-way but approximately 23’ from the paved road, for access for yard maintenance. Placement of trees or shrubs in the right-of-way, and e.xpansion of the driveway approach is primarily under the pur view of Municipal Code Chapter 6 regarding streets and private roads, and is not normally subject to Planning Commission review. However, the dri' eway expansion involves additional hardcover serving the property over and above the allowed hardcover limits, and the proposed gateway at the east end of the property definitely is a zoning code matter since it is functionally a fence structure located within 75' of the lake. Staff is approaching this comprehensive request from the standpoint that the driveway approach and gateway are zoning variances, and the request for placement of trees 15' from the paved roadway but within the right-of-way will require Council action. On October 13th the City Council on a vote of 3-2 allowed the adjacent owner of the east half of the Skarp property, Conley Brooks, Jr., to replace the existing dilapidated fence with a 3 1/2' high fence located 15' from the paved roadway, which is still within the right-of-way. Staff interprets this as suggesting that screening plantings should also be no closer than 15' from the right-of-way for the McCourtney property. We are advised since that action that Brooks is now also planning to plant arborvitae at a 15' setback from the pavement and eliminate the fence altogether. Hardship Statement Please review the applicant's brief hardship statement on the application form. He notes that the i j riSife. Zoning File #2301 October 17.1997 Page 3 ;s were d to be epaved a 3 1/2’ roperty ^ed the the site willow A tree nuethe e right- imately sof the tely 23’ oach is ds, and avolves and the ice it is hensive and the require If of the h fence ; this as for the to plant that the unusually wide 66 ’ right-of-way is a factor in the request, and that a gate is needed to limit access from the road to the lakeshore while still allowing such access. The plantings within the road right- of-way are intended by applicant to limit the parking and trespass and to provide privacy from the road. Discussion A. Gate Access in 0-75' Zone: This gate is proposed within the right-of-way (not in the property as shown on the survey) but at a location within 75’ of the lake and 23' from the pavement. The location of the gate is about 100’ eas» of the existing driveway. The gate is intended to provide access to the property while limiting the potential for trespassing. As noted on the survey, the gate will be metal with brick posts (pillars) at either end. likely similar to the fencework near the house. Does Planning Commission wish to see any greater detail on the gate appearance or construction? Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the nature of the entrance? No paving is proposed, which staff assumes means also that no gravel will be added, and this will serve only as an occasional access ... B. Proposed Driveway Expansion: The current driveway layout was a reflection of the setback and layout of the previous easterly lot line. Because applicant's residence is so near the street lot line (average distance from garage to street lot line is 25’ where the standard in this zone would normally be 50') that additional parking was allowed to be created by expanding the driveway area when the house was remodeled per variance approvals in 1989-90. Expansion of the proposed driveway apron will have the impact of increasing hardcover to the extent of 130 s.f, which is an increase in 75-250' hardcover of approximately 0.8%. Applicant has noted to staff that given that the Skarp residence has been removed, along with the gravel driveway that previously existed to serve that house, the addition of this driveway apron is insignificant from a hardcover perspective. The overall result once the additional property is factored in, is a net hardcover reduction in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. The driveway apron width at the propert>’ line will not change, but the flare of the driveway will expand to create better access to the property from the east. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding this additional approach pavement? Is the hardcover tradeoff (removal of Skarp house, etc.) acceptable? C. Proposed Arborvitae Hedge in Right-of-way: Applicant has noted that the traveled portion of Femdale Road is quite distant from the property line east of the existing driveway. In fact, that separation ranges from 20’-35’, averaging approximately 25'. It is true that Femdale Road was formerly a County Road and therefore has 66 ’ of right-of-way at this location. For a neighborhood street, the City would only require 50’ right-of-way if this was being platted li Zoning File #2301 October 17,1997 Page 4 under today's development standards. Because Council just approved a 3 1/2' fence within the right-of-way on the property immediately to the east at a location 15' from the paved roadway, it would seem reasonable to staff that the proposed arborvitae hedge on this property also meet that 15' setback standard. Applicant also proposes arborvitae along the east lot line to the lakeshore, which does not require a variance and which appears to be acceptable to Brooks. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the hedge at its staked location 15' from the paved roadway. Staff recommends approval of the metal gate on brick posts subject to no paving or graveling of the approach to that gate. Regarding the proposed driveway apron expansion, staff perceives the existing driveway as too wide, but it was approved by Council at this w idth with the approvals for remodeling of the existing house. The expansion will tend to make the perceived width even wider, although the actual width at the right-of-way line does not change. A tradeoff would be to suggest that applicant narrow the driveway before adding the new flare, but off-street parking would be lost and replacement parking could only then be in the area directly to the east of the existing house, which would place more hardcover nearer the lake. The proposed driveway expansion may be appropriate in this context, and will not create an unsafe situation. way )nal way sion eoff Options for Action Planning Commission should separately address the three issues of the proposed gate in the right-of- way within the 0-75' zone; the proposed driveway expansion; and the proposed plantings within the right-of-way. Planning Commission should recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial. If additional information is needed, tabling would be appropriate. This item will be placed on Council's October 27 agenda at the applicant's request. y... Ui •Jlilr [•CtniRTiT?M -> t Mill rtriivi^ •j tTarx *1 • ’ITirii tiflp.Tirti 0'^T7:jnrj '.r«r*nfrtriT^ \ •1 »TA^ Q ^ •. [•TiiTiJlPi ItjOlt rtiiicnm [■.r COUNTRY CIU PART CF LOT GOVT LOT 2 GOV L r Ml OATf tf/YF/tF iAICH Ctlloot CMKi »OiiC lAJCrATIV 3« tF-IIF FI %S «P02 • 10FI MttCltf All M /touottcp insf tmUXJ091CH iosir I197I U rimt III MT/ATA tf.X. V AMltfuriM tf'♦ ii i%rritif imr-f * %iu»i 5iSMn1^* J IBIf t\Att iisie: n• -I Ctrl Cto;9 ri^A III AO M *1; p »i?r. >IC AH i. I ♦/• t 4 (ti * S • M' •# V % 9 9 9cio;;3 pf y/li i I»? • y^* *“ IZ .«» F A!I VI m. r|<•l^•.9| ri:t I/t: ji* :i ‘ I cmtt** 1‘! »» l» .* I I Til I r » ::i •.•’ii: V k I ».• Ml I I ?4,*l.’4l I »*i ite • r» » s•tv. t i n» Aoo« (MHt »UI« lAFfATIi NAt«/AQOII 9tOr AW M«e NAIC lAXFAflf MAIC/AAOt ivor ADoa »!«■ MAfC lAirPAtia NkM/Am )• le-iiF fi Ai ctes *0 u^/AH nn siiii M •1-117-21 AS 19:1 •* tlF 71 t;:% t •> BiCM irii I I ;ii u* > cif H If 10 O N f 7 >.ii7Ai« rti !'in 17-21 AS %9:\ ^ r aZ n iihirAn AO miiaoiillioiiaoii illtSlIfOH to isin Id tl-llF-^S A1 C02A • IdAV ro M Mtnir iy<pi«p 1* i«p l•Ay0^l•lA}4ll p!i HA i/a !A>K^ 111% 1'. •F-ii/'.M Ai co :f UfSS 111 C ill A3 U At AilO 1 K LUCHltl t 11 it wi*-no I t .1% i»a f less fci UP AHl 9?AD f« it. m ss\ii 'll ^ il 14 *•. »|• ei c:;cic IV t. 11/ ;i «i C.2* A • »!i«* i J pi ill/ r •...*i »^\i • ’t:t nut,’ r 3 u • iV i.i IV iv *f P9. I i: II / : I 41 c:.-1 rIII • I:k».; iti A.7 .. r A • ftu I t I 4 * lltf W|rt ^ t« • I: .s U ♦ I A»I 4 . ( AV k%l.*4l4 *81 Sv \%\ ^1465 {^tSook’^ I r l»‘l If I I••4 1 11(1 I 4' t*. c: IVl * ' •!!• . 4i t 4.4 4 I IS I VI IIIA t .l#l O* t»«» L*i **4f t'#| 4*. I I i. . #t • I 1*1 ll»l li|*ett» |*l Itvtilt D*14b:il!Mt *» fi nt p»ps.wt(’Ut 4!fi i»iiii. I f • » * * ■. I , * • c*f» . t• • 4(* 4*;. fl tit* It. !«f ill • M .. 1 .* Ill I 1 •.* i • . «• '"‘•t “• Vi r^zc> Oi vfro S 01*43' 00" E 'ptx>po<^ arbo^vAnc, .V . ___.f ^l^-S . VV w*f..* ^,;,/A ; •%\ k ' ^>f :\\ *;..A \ •>'i •;. •r . S.'#tr>’*‘ '/ I \ X %,.v \ X X 9 J \ •< V r-fe \ r* 9 V \ ♦ •/« 1. m. .i* m Bf:» ’ «?-'2!l ’il -------■iiJ»>ir^‘r' \ *v. nF Twonj -X9.T 1-. ',v^,> \ \ V 1 r«rr: asaw §'’ ■:'"!-'!ivV^i'?fb'5'!'ii^j!^.•V*^ rpiipw K£W y >\ T»J*A ^4 •»» .»»< iiS? 7 r*v in/^Vo I f.;.r i »rur^uon ii VCv«« t _/ I Si u y\ •A \'.c xc; *rm^4;Jjr- ; « -L*. rs5 \ J tL * '?] . - -: \-»02l.. VCW Ml/»pPiP ■'flii >A» ~^p|^ jnr^i Ssbr SSiSbr I City of Orono TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following page(s) to; Name: From: Gerald McCourtney Mike Gaffron Total number of pages including this cover letter: 1 Date:August 20, 1997 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL US A S SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (612)473-7357 and ask for: Mike Our fax number is: (612)473-0510 _______ Your proposed plans will require a number of variances, and some of these are not likely to be granted, so you should expect to make some changes to the plans. Items you will need to submit include the following: Variance application completed including hardship statement, plus the required plat map and property owners list from the Coun^. Survey with the following information: - Entire property including all existing buildings and hardcover - 929.4' shoreline contour and 75' setback line - Proposed structure locations and proposed setbacks - Existing zind proposd hardcover calculations Things on your plan that appear problematic: 1. You probably won't be granted a variance for a shed o» gazebo within 75' of the lake, nor less than I O' from the street lot line. 2. The gate will have to be on your property and needs a variance because it will probably be less than 75' from the lake. 3. City code only allows a 20' wide driveway entrance at the lot line; yours is already 40' according to your plan and its unlikely the City will allow it to get wider. 4. Most of the plantings your plan shows along the road are in the right-of-way and need to be pulled back out of it. 5. You must show any grading you will be doing, especially in the 0-75' zone to accommodate sodding, etc.; any significant grading needs a Conditional Use Permit. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway - RO. Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 (612) 473-7357 PERMIT PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued:08/14/97 SITE ADDRESS: 1055 FERNOALE RO W LSV p. I. N. ; 02-11 7-28-4;:-:-0022 DESCRIPTION: User Permit REMOVE 3b" COTTOMyOO Typs TREE REMOVAL REMARKS: FEE SUMMARY: Base Fee Total Fee ____Jj'2 $30"5o CONTRACTOR: 1055 FERNDALE RD U ORONO MN 55391 (511)475-1720 THE UNC-ERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIED AND AGREES TO DO ALL WORK U4 STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES ANO STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT PERMITEE SIGNATURE 7 ISSUED BY SIGNATUREc ^ Total Fee: $, Entered By: 3© -c-c Date Received: Permit#: F CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION All information must be submitted in full before plan review wiU be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS: JOB SITE ADDRESS: (circle one) Cj)WNE^OR CONTRACTOR !A/ ZIP: T / NAME OF OWNER: Tyfc (2^ll / \^Y MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE: (horne d V /'TZ.©) (work) r^/A CITY: ^ ZIP; CONTRACTOR; __________PHONE; CONTACT PERSON: //</es MOBILE/PAGER: MAILING ADDRESS:_______________________CITY:______ STATE LICENSE: #____________ ZIP: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER; MAILING ADDRESS:___ NAME: _________ PHONE: CITY:ZIP: REGISTRATION # TYPE OF WORK; New Move Addition Accessory Structure Remodel/Alteration Land Alteration PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail) s STORIES:SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: NO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS; ATT.DET. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete an accurate; tliat the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City an wit the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accord,ance with the ap^poved plan. DATE:APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE; NOTE! Parade of Homes events require separate permit approval by Police Department and City Council 60 days prior to the event. Non-permitted events will not be allowed. (9%K. CA/tVH City of OROIVO H RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2824 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO HUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 PILE #1465 WHEREAS, Gerald T. McCourtney (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 1055 West Ferndale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, a^cached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) to allow the construction of a 6' high fence along the street lot line where maxiraum fence height of 3 1/2' is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover on the property in excess of the amounts normally allowed, and variances to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 10.55, Subdivision 8, to allow construction of a terrace patio area in the 0-75' lalceshore setbacic zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1465. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lalceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed chis application on June 18, 1990 and recommended limited approval of the requested variances based upon the following findings: A) The applicant received 3 separate approvals for hardcover increases in 1987 and 1988, resulting in approvals for 369 square feet additional hardcover over and above that which existed in 1987 and prior years. Page 1 of 7 zz.cux:z: City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ant") 1 the emces 'f the rhere :e to :y in :tion tion :e no shore >n on !sted for vals that recent hardcover approval granted on November 2B t 1988 per Resolution #2546^ allowed no net hardcover increase from previous approvals but allowed applicant to trade off portions of driveway and sidewalk for other specific additions. C) In 1989 during the remodeling process, applicant removed the circular deck on the lake side of the house for convenience of construction. The applicant was unaware that removal of that deck would require a variance to reconstruct or replace it, because it encroached into the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. n) In the current application, applicant proposes the following improvements: 1) Construction of a loop driveway within the property boundaries, constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 2) Replacement of the formerly existing circular deck, with a slightly smaller hardcovered terrace area, encroaching into the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. 3) Construction of sidewalks constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 4) Construction of a 6' high fence along the street line, exceeding the 3 1/2' height normally allowed at that location, and constituting approximately 35 square feet of additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 5) Construction of retaining walls along the west end of the house to accomodate grade changes previously approved in that area, for an additional 68 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. E) The proposed improvements would result in a net decrease in hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 2.9% (associated with the formerly existing circular deck) down to 2.6% with the proposed terrace. No hardcover is normally allowed in the 0-75' zone. Page 2 of 7 L _ [ aRQNC^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F) The proposed improveir.ents would increase hardcover in the 75-250' zone from the approximately 38.2% hardcover allowed in past approvals up to 43.9%. Only 25% hardcover is normally allowed in the 75-250’ zone. G) The Planning Commission on NoVvSmber 20r 1989 recommended approval of the 6' fence, finding that it replaces a pre-existing 6' high stockade fence in the same location. The proposed fence will be within the property boundaries. H) The Planning Commission at their June 18r 1990 meeting recommended denial of the excess hardcover in the 75-250' zone associated with the loop driveway, finding that the excessive hardcover associated with such a driveway is more of a concern than the possible safety and parking issues suggested by applicant as justification. I) At that same meeting, Planning Commission recommended that the applicant be held to the previously approved hardcover (calculated by staff at 2.9% in the 0-75' zone and 38.2% in the 75-250' zone). Planning Commission recommended that applicant revise his terrace, sidewalk, and driveway proposals as necessary to accomplish this. 4. The applicant has indicated a secondary proposal for sidewalks and driveway that retains and slightly expands the existing driveway and back-up apron, includes hardcover associated with terrace, sidewalks, fence pillars, and retaining walls with a hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone to approximately 41%. The City Council finds that the scope of these proposed improvements is in keeping with the character and size of the house, and the additional parking area will provide for greater safety. 5. The Council finds that the propose^ terrace construction in the 0-75' zone, with the associated hardcover, will act merely to replace a pre-existing deck in approximately the same location, that the proposed terrace will be of less square footage and of greater setback from the lake than the previously existing deck, and that the applicant's intended temporary removal of the old circular deck was understandable since unat deck as it existed had been previously approved, hence applicant should not be Page 3 of 7 City of OFtOINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________________ penalized by denial of the ability to replace that deck with a terrace. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commiasionr reports by City staffs comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of t e applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoniry Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to allow the proposed 6 high renc where only a 3 1/2 ’ high fence is normally allowed, and grants variances to Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a terrace partially located in the 0-75* zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowe , and to allow hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone at a level of 41%, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone shall be limited to 425 square feet (2.6%) per the site plan attached as Exhibit B. Any future proposed revisions to that plan which result in a greater encroachment of the laJces or setback or increase hardcover above the approved limits, will not be approved. 2. In the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback zone, applicant shall liw^t hardcover to 6833 square feet or 41.0%. Applicant is adviseo that the only increase above this amount in the ^5-250 zone would be by an equivalent reduction of the 425 s. f. of hardcove allowed in the 0-75' zone. Page 4 of 7 * * A. OFRINO City of 0R.01N0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2824_________ 3. Any modifications to the "open" character of the 6' high approved fence along the street lot line, will require furth Council review. 4. Prior to construction of the fence, sidewalks, and terrace, applicant shall provide for staff review and approval a hardcover plan indicating the final dimensions and location terrace, driveway, and fence, indicating any proposed hardco removals to maintain hardcover at the allowed percentages. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year or the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 9, 1991). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of July, I I ATTEST : Halliir, City Clerk Property Owner(s) ^ ii-u Jam^s R. Grabek,M4ayor Page 5 of 7 r IV f /SjCSoiLt<.-r70Aj ik /\eefit>\}e:^ ^{re: ^5 >U07^ti»^ 1 03-06-16 01:53 FAi 6124761720 City of Orono ?OBox66 Ciystil Bay, Mn 55323 Atm; MikeGafft-on lO-lS-97 DearNfike, j This data U tupptied to ausment the data pack coaceraicg plaonios commissioo actioQ item <^2301 be diacusaed on 10-20>97. tl alia to 1) During the demolition process the following hardcover areas were removed from the property at Femdale Road West; a) 24.3 X 24.3 house 590 sq. ft. b) 4.7 X 22.0 porch 103 “ “ e) 10 X 12 storage shed 120 “ “ d) 12 X 25 driveway 300 “ “ e) 1.5x30 retaining waD 45 - •* f) 3 X 26 concrete sidewalk 78 “ “ g) 5 X 5 concrete steps 25 “ “ h) 8x14 concrete garage floor 112 “ " total hardcover removed 1373 sq. ft. 2) Demolition permit for 1045 Femdale Rd. issued on 7-14-97 (#009170) Work completed and approved on 8-20-97 (B. Vang) 3) Tree removal permit for 1045 Ferodale Rd. issued on 7-16-97 (#009179) Work completed and approved on 9'26-97 (B. Vang) t 4) Permit issued for removal of 36 ” cottonwood located at 1055 Ferodale Rd. issued on 8-14-97 (# Work completed and approved On 9-27-97 (B. Yaog) @11112 1045 K)9298) ^ i 03-06-16 01:53 FAX 6124761720 C'rty ofOrono POBox66 Crystal Biy. Mo. 55323 ATTN: BiuceVang 7-16-97 Re: Request to remove trees/removal pannit Dear Bruce, The following is as we discussed during our on fite meeting at 1045 WestFemdak Road. I am re^ lesmg approval to remove or rdocate most of tl>e trees currently on the propeny. These removab are a R oction of razing the existing house, foundatioD removal, locaring and removing a septic tank and removal of a concrete/block retaining wall and conaete steps. Severd other trees arc dead, wind/norm damagw . o and overgrown or affected by prior years’ ice damage. A couple of the healthy trees wdl be rdocatt|l on the property. The property wifl be replanted with 20-30 arborvitae T-9’ tall; 3-4 clump river birch 2"-4" diaineU r, in the low area close to »he lake shore; 3-6 ash, nuiple or oak 2-4” diameter and a selection of evergreens. The demolition process will necessarily include some levdiog and moving of dirtjiowever tins will I e niiiiiiaized and a ^ fence will be in place. Upon eompledon of this first phase a more complete landscaping plan will be submiited. Thaok you for your assistance. Gerry McCourtney 1055 W Ferodaie Road Orono, Mn 55391 476-1720 @0U3 !; i r I f ? TO: FROM: DATE; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 9, 1997 SUBJECT: #2303-Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Shore Drive Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A Lot Area:92,060 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) square feet (2.11 acres) Application: The 2q)plicant is requesting the renewal of an expired variance allowing additions to the existing residence including an entry structure and bay window, as well as additional steps and pavement. Variances are required for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements i^2303 Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Short Drive Variarces October 20. 1997 Page\ t ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-1A District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 2.11 acres 261 ft. at 75' setback 272 ft. at OHW 192.2 ft.55 ft. • 21ft. The existing residence does not meet the required 75 ’ lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 92,060 s.f.3.007.6 s.f. (existing) 3.141.6 s.f (proposed) 3.3% 3.4% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application miQl Angela Woodhouse 2625 North Short Drive Variances October 20, 1997 Pag^2 r I \ Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0’-75’ Total Area in Setback 19,800 s.f. 75 ’-250' 250'-500' 42,800 s.f. 29,460 s.f. Existing Hardcover 4,021.9 s.f. (20.3%) 9,687.9 s.f. (22.64%) 650 s.f. (2.21%) Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover none 10,700 s.f. (25%) 8,838 s.f. (30%) 4,180.9 s.f (21.1%) 9,687.9 s.f (22.64%) 650 s.f (2.21%) Variance Requested 4,180.9 s.f (21.1%) none none A hardcover variance is required in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. rriteria 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 could continue to be used in its current state without the proposed additions. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The residence was constructed almost entirely within the O' to 75' lakeshore setback prior to current zoning regulations regarding lakeshore setbacks. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover will not change the character of the area. §2303 Angela IVoodhouse 2625 Sorth Short Drive Variances October 20, 1997 Page 3 r 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors arc 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 single family residence 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 of the residences within the area are located within the O' to 75' lakeshore setback as they were likely constructed prior to current zoning requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The location of the residence on the subject property is typical of the general vicinity. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Without granting variances, it would not be possible to make improvements or additions to the existing residence. 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. U2503 Angela Woodhouse 262S North Shore Drive Variances October 20. 1997 Page 4 r The vjiriance 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 Planning Commission and City Council previously determined a demonstrable hardship exists for the applicant. Issues I The existing residence is located almost entirely within the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, necessitating variances for any additions. 2. 3. Much of the proposed hardcover will be located over existing hardcover. Existing trees and vegetation would screen the proposed additions, creating no adverse impact on lake views. 4.A resolution had been approved in July 1996 granting variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. These variances elapsed as the arr- failed to acquire a building permit within one year of the variances being granted. 5.The amount of existing and proposed hardcover for the subject property has increased according to the latest revision of hardcover worksheets (Attachment I) versus the amounts on the previous hardcover worksheets submitted (Attachment J). 6.Hardcover reductions which were to be undertaken as a provision of the previous resolution are not addressed in the latest hardcover calculations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of renewal for the necessary variances to construct an addition to the existing residence, a bay window addition, entry structure, as well as steps and additional pavement. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance 33' and 35.4' for the proposed west addition and bay addition, respectively to allow setbacks of 42' and 39.6' where 75' is required. §230 J Angela Woodhouse 2625 Norih Shore Drive Variances October 20, 1997 Page 5 r Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance allowing encroachment of 32 and 21' for the bay addition and west addition, respectively. Staff recommends eq)proval of a hardcover variance of 20.1%, the amount that was approved by the previous resolution. Staff recommends the boathouse with deck, now shown as 89.9 s.f be removed prior to any new construction. The removal of the boathouse was a specific provision of the previous resolution. Staff recommends t^)proval of the {^plication for the renewal of variances subject to compliance with hardcover requirements set forth in the previous resolution. Attachments A B C D E F G H 1 J Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Previous Survey-Showing Average Lakeshore Setback Survey-Current Proposal Previous Resolution Hardcover Worksheets-Current Revision Hardcover Worksheets-Previous Application U2303 Angela Woodhouse 2625 Sorth Shore Drive Variances October 20. 1997 Page 6 Application if 3 Date Received 7 Amount Paid * f/XO,co O o A, Q CITY OF ORO.vo - VARIANCE APPLICATION it- Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address, 2625 North Shor^^ _________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Section 9-117-23. L<>,!T~U & S Attach legal description to application if not included on requited survey I^Property Acquired----------g^fl6_______________________________(monlh/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___pother (specify*) Zoning District: Orono _________________ ____________ \j O APPLICANT Name Angela Woodhouse Address: 2625 Horth Shore Drive OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same Phone (home ) (6l2) i»75-1307 Phone (woric)_____ City: Wayzata Zip: 55m Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ..Erpand kitchen vlthln TS’ nf i^,. -iva. ____ for new fnn-hpT-lwf, (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area Lot Width Setback:X__Front (Lakeshore ) Side X_Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing cornphance with Zoning Code requirements: Almost the entire house la iHt.hrn honifnTPr and get, mchan litspMslon --------po (very little) hardcover Increase (159 SF). See >iaT^- ■?!?! worksheet. This hardcover amount Is nronosad in Ho.. -----^under previously approved Variance Application Winnh^r piliO, (attach additional sheets if necessary) wmm c L /KL r / ^ S <• Ufi X r LoCaVi'Ov/' 0^ I road ttojsi _____JL ____ ^^' 39:^09 W * : ' o <'r^ <- - :v J5s> •» n 4 J --«-• Ui /." r - •.•= ■ I . '''AS'- ' r \.' fUyW^ta *i \ ^ 4 • ♦, * J r>> ?v -• -* I • '4* 'ttt ^oc>.;----- J1-.’ o'-'^!ifSi ^yy//y//A a) ?nfc»n7v •. /'-yit C3JD4CJ2L<C MINNETONIOi «>> h i0tbock from Loks P AOOtTION SHOWN HATCH60 AtR CONOtTIONINO UNITS IReLOCATBOl (see MCCH) AOOtTION SHOWN HATCHCO eXISTING WALK New CONCRCTe STOOP 4 STEPS New WALK SHOWN HATCHCO •MATCH BXISITNO WALK RBMOVe WAt ' SHOWN OASHCO see MecH por ncw CLCCTRIC MeTBR LOCATION luAi f MPa ^II- ®U6-C0NTRACT0RSSHALL PieLO MCASURC ANO VCRIPY 0lPLn CONDITIONS ^0 SHALL oSiePULLY COMERS SUCH PIBLO ^®^®URCMeNT8 ANO CONOITIONS *wr* nru^» INP0IIU4Ytn>i Ci; ..‘.L*®™* CP • 1 ui CPo CPcn. 0 0 ■ ''4 II 11^ CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 7 4 0 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (A & B) AND 2 FILE NO. 2142 WHEREAS, Kirtland C. Woodhouse and Angela Woodhouse (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (A & B) and Subdivision 2 to permit construction of a 6* X 18' two story addition with a single story entry addition to be located 42 from the shoreline and a single story bay addition at the lakeside of the residence to be located 39.6* from the shoreline where a 75' setback is required, the west addition will encroach 21' to the lakeside of the average lakeshore setback line and the bay addition will encroach 23' where the Code would allow no encroachment, and a hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback area for new hardcover improvements resulting in 3,983.3 s.f or 20.1% total hardcover where 4,010 s.f. or 20.25% exists and where none is allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2142. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 92,060 s.f. or 2.11 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 1996 and recommended unanimous approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 5 f n WWi CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. s y 4 G 4. 5. A. The entire house is located within the 0-75’ setback area. B. The proposed improvements will result in a hardcover reduction of 26.7 s.f. or 0.10%. C. D. The house is located within the mid-point of a 280+' width property, the proposed improvements will have no impact on the lake view ’s of the adjacent residences. The location of mature vegetation and the topography also mininuzes the impact of the proposed improvement on the lake views of the adjacent residences. E. • .« F. G. Major portions of the new improvements will be located over existing hardcover improvements. Total hardcover on the 2.11 acres property is 14,347.9 s.f or 15.5% and is proposed at 14,321.2 s.f or 15.5%. The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent property owners. 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 subs^tial 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. 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 variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 r II CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 7 4 0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of July, 1996. ATTEST: • Linda S. Vee, Deputy Clerk Edward J. Callahjui, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day ^ July, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Linda S. Vee Mayor and Deputy Clerk of the City ot Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was execute on City. ’ CAR01EA.HASEMAN l‘rX4i4M-i NOUflYPUBUC-MNNESOIA fi HENNEPIN COUNTY g. t) My Conuniuiofl Expires Jjn. 31.2'KIO M ^ X /a Notary Public Page 4 of 5 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE'^ ^. *1•Vt ■T\rv^*^ !■:ANGELA WOODHOUSE 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE1PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE DESCRIPTION LENGTH WIDTH AREA DF^SCRIPTION AREA A.HOUSE _A._HOUSE - Existinc House 2,848.0 - Existing House 2,848.0 - Delete Existing Entry Str.0.0 - Existing Entry Str.52.2 - Delete Existing Bay 0.0 - Existing Bay Window 17.5 - Proposed Addition 17.83 6.25 II 1.4 - Proposed Entry Structure 5.75 7.(K)40.3 - Proposed Bay Window 52.0 - Group Totals 3,051.7 - Group Totals 2.917.7 B.BOAT HOUSE & DECK STRUCTURE 12.40 7.25 89.9 B.IBOAT HOUSE & DECK STRUCTURE 89.9 C.DRIVEWAY 170.0 C.DRIVEWAY 170.0 D.SIDEWALK & STEPS D.SIDEWALK & STEPS - Entry Steps & Paving 0.0 - Entry Steps & Paving 50.0 - Other Steps & Paving 116.0 • Other Steps & Paving 116.0 - Proposed Entr>’ Front Steps 6.00 3.00 18.0 - Proposed Entry Rear Steps 6,(H)3.00 18 0 - Proposed Entry Paving .-HJl ... - Group Totals - Group Totals 166.0 E.PATIO/DECK E.PATIO/DECK -Deck 65.0 - Deck 65.0 - Patio 453.0 • Patio 453.0 - Group Totals 5180 - Group Totals 518.0 F.OTHER F.OTHER • AC Units 20.6 - AC Units 13.7 - Curbs, Retaining Walls 146.6 • Curbs, Retaining Walls 146.6 - Group Totals 167.2 1i - Group Totals 160.3 T01PAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 4.180.9TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 4.021.9 NET INCREASE IN HARDCOVER IN ZONE 1.590 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE I9.8(K)0 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 19,800.0 PERCENTAGE 21. t PERCENTAGE 20.3 PREPARED »Y: CBA, LTD. IJOO NICOLLET MALL .SUITE 3002 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 5.S40J SEPTEMBER 24,1997 r - SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250* 250-500*500-1000* Length c a-v-'S / ' S— -r. _ w____ W * ^ ~ ^\ *r X B. iCtfage C. Driveway V -Or' - X X X X X Width X X D. SidewaUc X X E. Patio/Dcck T-X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE^ - B ^01^X 100 = 7?/7-7 SJf. ' /5.7 /4^ . S.F. S.F. S.F.• • •. • • ■. S.F.1 ---- -N S.F. S.F. /6 S.F. 4 ■ • • • S.F.U J wJ S.F.A' ■' • 1) it • A jf S.F. S.F. wS.F. S.F. S.F. -OIO S.F.A S.F.B ZO.Z 5" % A House X f •2 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.f. r* T* Length 'T?A-V X Width A A^'xr-riO:V.X =r i'T?.. <r /a j) ^i LC^») ^1 (j • (c ■/\l.. .i. C t« NT'S n-'y X *=yi'O S.F. P nrivewav X S3 170.0 S.F. X =S.F. ,-rC^i - 17 Sidewalk 't ^S.F. X =S.F. P Patio/Deck ■!; f^CIC X —S.F. 10 X a HTi . 0 S.F. P I andsCROe X 3S S.F. Underlain X a S.F. Rv Pla.'^tic X a S.F. G. Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE j 9 kOO - B S.F. A X 100 = /^^OO S.F. , B •zo.t:s % ^ 'JxJ' / •’ • I i r I I ; TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant October 17,1997 #2304-Deborah Sholl 4100 Watertown Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Aren: RR-IA One Family Rural Residential District (5 Acres) 1,326,837 square feet (30.46 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of an attached garage and living space ^^^i^i£^^££^|£J|^g£_2fthe_existing residence. A front setback variance is required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd, 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.27, Subd. 5(B): RR-IA Lot Requirements »2304 Deborah SMoil 4100 Watertoym Road Varumce October 20, 1997 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IA District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard RR-IA 300 ft.100 ft.50 ft.100 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 30.46 acres dry 1,170 ft.55 ft.190 ft.177 ft. The zoning lot does not meet front setback requirements. Structural Coverage Stnictural coverage is not an issue with this application as the lot exceeds 2 acres in area. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the subject property is not located within 1000' of a protected body of water. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants statement of hardship is included on the attached application (Attachment A). The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. H2S04 Deborah Shall 4100 Watertown Variance October 20, 1997 Page 2 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 can continue to be used in its current state. While there are several farm structures on the property, there is currently no garage. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence was constructed prior to the current requirements of the zoning district. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality 4. 5. The variance for front setback will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under die 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. A single family home with an attached garage is permitted in this zoning district. 92304 Deborah Sholl 4too Watertown Road Variance October 20, 1997 Page 3 r 7. 8 9. 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 su h property or immediately adjoining property. The existing residence was constructed prior to current 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 conform to zoning district setback requirements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Due to the location of the existing residence entirely within the required front setback, any addition to the residence would require a variance. 11 . The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The entire existing residence is located within the required front setback. It is impossible to expand the residence without the granting of a variance. Issues 1.The existing residence is located 55' from the edge of the street as the property line is located in the center of Watertown Road, which is unplatted. The residence is also located entirely within the required front setback. U2^04 Deborah Sholi 4100 Watertown Road Variance October 20. 1997 Page 4 r 2.The addition of the proposed attached garage and additional living space would not further encroach on the required front setback. 3.Variances were requested in 1996 to allow more horses than pcnnissible on the property than allowed and variances for a riding academy with a new accessory structure was requested in 1995. These applications were withdrawn and denied, respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff reconunends iqjproval of a front setback variance of 5' to allow the addition of a garage and living space to the rear of the existing structure to be located 95' from the edge of the street where 100* is required and 55' is existing. Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Miq) Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Front View of Proposed Addition »2304 Dtborah Shall 4100 U'aiertotm Road yariance October 20.1997 Pages Application # */ Date ReceiTed S 1’^ Amount Paid ^j2o •I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address___HiVV u)/lT»<^nQ^/>/ o i-j !> }'4 A ■3-/ - t/JP - q j t H OOb%Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included o.. required survey. Date Pro perty Acquired__________^\Jfip' / ^ ________________ I (dq)^5o n^also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: residential Zoning District:_____ - / A~~ other (specify). APPLICANT Name ^MOtL Phone fiiome ) HO^ - lfX9 Phone (vvoric) C5* I - 9 ^ y ^ Address: MlOD U)f)Tf>kroii]/( MAli City: OfjONO Zip: CSir*! OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: TP AfihiDrtAJIftt ^cul\/>c 1V -HttXg ArJh ^____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) variances required Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: LtJ/K OAiJ^l*iA{{u Aitt If'---- )r^ 1^07) T ^ ---- y7H_______ , ■^]Pg Op! 37 Ar:<gk ) /uJ<g tAJh-k td Ad^ifluiiufl An/bi AqMa^ 6/ixd OP-' --------------------- ^fatta^h % a \P^ADu Of\II % Attach additional sheets if necessary) r i?^':Srd:Z=Si' ^ 'r- 4) • ««a*«a*««««*ft««*««**a*a«*««A«««««l f a a « •_• «aaa«*a«««a«aa«aaa«a««a4**a«a^• aa««atf««aa«a««aaaa»aa««a««^fl*atf««1«#€##•••■«•• • aav«a«a aaaaaaaaa^a _jr a • •!aaaaa^aaatfWal » • a • « a • * •••••aa«aaaaaa^«a*aa%aaaa« • a a a • #*a « a*a • • a^«*a *#'a*a ’a*• a t*a « a*% a «'a*^ **a a 4 ^a«a«a««a a a aaaaaa aaBaatfaaaaatfaaasaal ;a a a a a a • a a >i aaa«aaa*aaatfa«aa«« at v a a a 4 |aaaaaa«aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa«aa • a a • a al• a • a a a a a^« aaaa««aaaa«aa«a*a«*a«aaaa^ • aaa*a*a*aaaa*aaaaa««aa*aaaaa*aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa«aaaaaaaaaaaaa<«aa^aa**| • •a«««aaaaa*«aaaaaaaaaaaa a««jta a a 4 a a a*a a*a^a a a* • *a*#*. *a*a*a*« *•*«*•*#*#*•*•*•*■*•* a*^*a^*<*a*a* 4• aaaaaaaa«aa«.#a«tt«.^»a«a«aaaaaaaa. ^aaa«a^aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaatfaa aj^a a a a 4 • •-'a*a*a*a\*aV.*.-.%*-*.*a\*a'aaaaaaa^aa «a«aaaa•*a a'a*a*a*a*»*a*a*«*.*«*a*B*«*a “a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*P*a*a*a*#*^P • •aaa •aaaaaa# • • #a«aVa« aaaaaaaaaaaa. •i: AV!lJ«__T“At"S'll-asa I . ;:L • •aatfaa«a«a a*a*a aaaaaa a a a*« aaaaaa • • aaa«a«*aaaaaaaa«a4aaaaaaa«««aaa*«I laaaaaa a «aaa#aaa« a«a«a a aaaai taaifa • ffaiaaaaaaaflaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa»aaaaaaaaa*aa*a*aaaaaaaa«aa«a«a • •!a a a a a a ^ « a a • a a ^ a ^ a a. aaVaaaa«aaaa mJw A • \ ■ « a a a a » a • aaa tf • a a a i. a a a a 2 • ^•aaa.aa aaa* aaaaaaaa a aaaaaaiaaaaa# ali«aaaa8aa*aaaaaa*«aaa«aaaaaaaaaa a ^«aa«aaaaaaaaaaaa<aaaaaaaa«aaca«aa*« [aaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafaaaaaaa ^aa#aaaaaaaaaaa«aaaaa«aaa*aaaaaaaaa [••4aataaa«taaa ■ « # a a % aa««aa«aaaa* «a k aaaaaa*aa*aaa a a a a ^a aaa«*aaaaa«aaa ^•aaaaaaaa«a**aa«aaa • aaaaaaaaaa^a ::’x ‘x ‘:-x-:':-x ‘;‘x-;‘:-xV:':-:*x-:-:-^^ >*aaa«aaaaaa**aa«aa*aaaaaaaa^aaaaa afa %•«•«««•»••«•<• • a a a a a a ' • •*<a«««aaaa.a.a«aa a< «aaa»a«a a a a a ■ a * a, a —a»aaaa«aataaaaaaaaaa%aaaaaaaa«'»atf»a a “^^ ^ lllfffT¥4.aa a_a a i * • • ^ ^ ^ ___M------- X */ 33 l-|S-3 i3- jS*«« ±iJ # i flLT if / \ • ts-i?-—rtrrj /1 e < 1 j t ci;4i??E SJA * c'/i / , SlCO’i JUl.la • Mt) Lj^ «v 91 - - a 3HlfSW f----------------- aa i I 3a-1 ite 6 (4) \ \ \ oet■ a o A laa* ■ *U< * Jl»t * ttain 1»«*’••••aliata* !• fvlic« C«b«MI • «<■** (01IMI • -PII |*M« €•■••«• •irtfttitB •ttCUMft ir«i ui*»^‘** !••••••I* he 1/< sec 31 T118N. R23W HENNEPIN COUNTY • 0* Ofon«. D««* •• P»*«*f***»* horizoms. VMM « .>.»»»>« * »*>** * *>»•» — NO«ifo«s* nu /' r Permit No. PERMIT RECORD Date /;-7-p^ % Tvoe of Permit LoyrJ ^ - ^/yuni ^hruu^ isno /i^iyun ----- JOI p6‘i //-^J>-7//OrPrLh . 3/^0 :5'/3?^>'7«P _.TLbq^. 3o‘/9 5'- 7t>"/ixA>n ^JrdjS^ c^/J//&Lyun 3T73 (e-?-7r 9-/-77 6,-/0 -S'!- - 3V52'lo-l-'S'9 X/?2wy^2£/._ ^nn G' i'Z'S S d^yyy^L.^rr'. _ ^Hh 0-&-'2S>tSai\A\nov __ 'S"7«'o lO-S-^^"5lu\Au^ ._. 5-6-Sil Lo/nJ /lUnn^------- _____IXJyil ■ _ /Ci/I 1 '^1 .'^'^ 1 MSjdir\^------ r I6 s ev^a !»•£ 33t 42\• ml m 5 agr4^ 44-c , 5J: 4? •i- * « ».i* ••*■ ^ I If •••*' n* 11.69 ACRES c5-: I r> V, ’•» , ^m\l >. *0 *m k • *•. •• • S • s • ♦ % * 0^ • ♦ il O Vn. >» •♦ik ••iiit 11 b 4 ' i- B 10.36 AC'-ES ~n;rr:r.*r" « t*r*l«* »__ j: It I: V . I i v:y. U « } . I » I !• « J 1= ‘5 i. • / 1 - -.T^ If -.1 :i- ^ " 66i —"Y' «Hfik !••• •( tfc* » I «/| •• Ik* i •>• •* fk* « • •■« •• !•«•••• i* S 1745 44 ‘E 661 13 I m • , #••• \ 9,91 TOTAL ACRES 6} r-~i! \ 1 I5!4CKSI-' ' I .i' ?5.j 7<-v* s I ( ____...!-. “1 H« !•••% !.•• •* **|,• •• J <r i|o frioKT/r^fc-ft^/V r -f\ S!!!!: ;o \ r-- > T—r-^ ¥ -r^4—l-X ^-±.'—T' -LJrrffl- Siiilll ----------- ^'®*iHS5’2S5ii® ui«J ftiiii »^'' »i-*2Stt'i?S;2i‘^i:u«:i ib I riiiiiiiiiiiiB ■ siji;!!j!;;!;;;!;;!i 4AI*>4lfV « rirnrc %L:J;i!...'t~^t'*t;;aJlcAl. ;:ii.:il i.ilg:;i!i’]nji>M.??^ ni^iiiiiiiiiiiiii IliJIlllllllllllll % □ □□□nnnn□□□a □□□ □□□ i□□OD□nag□□an □OODaaaa 1 □□□d □□□□ FI20I4T EL^VM’ioN O’^'T ^t?PT aopi TiokI ------^‘^'^=2- ^FT eo-K^P<3on UliP -StpFTTOTAi. It UAP^lOtKl&t wejtiFt «nATaf EVlVTiKlO, \ \ CX r iV; •[/ •s> TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 9,1997 #2305-Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB 44.225 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I Acre) square feet (1.02 acres) ADPlicarton: The applicants are proposing the remodeling and expansion of an existing residence whkh incudes an attached four stall garage and respective loop driveway^ A lakeshore setb is required, as well as variances for hardcover in the 0 ’ to 75 and 75 to 250 lakeshorvanance setbacks. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations . Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements . Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements It2305 Roger and Elizabeth Otun 815 Partenwood Road yariances October 20, 1997 Page I 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 1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75' setback 357 ft. at OHW 35 ft.46 ft. (existing) 10 ft. (proposed) 34 ft. The zoning lot does not meet the lakeshore setback requirement of 75'. A variance is required for remodeling and expanding an existing structure vvrithin the 75' lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 44,225 s.f.2,870 s.f. (existing) 4,590 s.f (proposed) 6.5% 10.4% Structural coverage is not an issue ^\'ith this application. Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Fatten wood Road Variances October 20. 1997 Page! »• r? d for Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0’-75’ 75’-250’ Total Area in Setback 28,810 s.f. 15,419 s.f. Existing Hardcover 5,045 s.f. (20%) 2,925 s.f. (19%) Allowed Hardcover none 3,854.75 s.f. (25%) Proposed Hardcover 4,660 s.f. (16%) 4,955 s.f. (32%) Variance Requested 4,660 s.f (16%) 1,100.25 s.f (7%) Hardcover variances are required in the 0’ to 75’ and 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See die att^hed application (attachment A) for the applicant ’s statement of hardship The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Clitcria for Determinin g Undue Har<(<^bir 1. T^e property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. oure^mstate attached three car garage could continue to be used in their ^ by the*l^dowier*^^°''^ circumstances unique to his property not created The property is located on an isthmus, severely restricting the allowable building pad. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover will not change the character of the 3. area. 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. U2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances October 20. 1997 Page 3 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. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Several other properties in the area are also located on the isthmus, limiting their allowable building pads. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The existing residence is located almost entirely within the O' to 75' lakeshore setback as the allowable building pad is severely restricted due to the configuration of the lot. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of variances is necessary for expanding the existing structure. 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. U2S05 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partemvood Road Variances October 20, 1997 Page 4 f 1 1 1 t, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The size of the garage and expansion of the residence and driveway serve as a convenience. Issues The existing residence is encroaching on the requireed lakeshore setback. The lot configuration, proximity to the street and lakeshore severely restrict the allowable building pad. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the expansion of the existing residence with an attached garage and driveway expansion subject to several amendments and condition. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 41' to allow the residence to remain 34' from the designated ordinary high water level where 75' is required. Enroachment upon the lakeshore would not be further increased. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 14.49% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed and none is allowed. 14.49% is the amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic. Staff recommends denirj of the hardcover variance of 7% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 32% hardcover where 19% is existing and 25% is allowed. By eliminating the proposed loop driveway, this requirement can be easily met. Staff recommends that all landscape underlain by plastic in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback be removed prior to the commencement of new construction. The applicant has already agreed to this provision. Staff recommends no further hardcover variances are granted to this property in the future. Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments §2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances October 20. 1997 Page 5 UVTijiWMfrt] [•rtiiKW i: 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) Application # 3 Date Received Amount Paid JQJlO, Ji' rA PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress Por'tsiA^oca Kotr^ ^ ^^ ^ — Property Identification Number (P.I.D.I 0& ** \ 1"1 — -------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProEdlY Acquired S'/3o/f^_____________!_____________^(month/year) I (do) Wo non also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresenruSrrJf property: % residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ^ ________ APPLICANT Name Rc^et^ J<> OJs6ti Address: Phone (home) 4^/** "77 J 3 _____ Phone (v^ork) ^ U O City: __________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ttlC'^AU*fk Oisc*^ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ AOOpcQ Describe request in detail: gaPa. i^yT" * (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear yC Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing QgMonca. iL pi Rag. L^g^gKl 0?2-CP€ia -fO OO AlJV i f I 5 ior|env<CQct n I •PERMIT RECORD • Permit No.Date Tvpe of Permit ^3 is ‘/ot ^euet^ H <-f3U V-7A <AC ■3^10 /St^ATtC /D-73 A£S ~it(.t J-~>V 3t?3 _________3'7Y Ci;eL«- xiZiJZ ___Ip' /'7)Ui-/~^ . JJ/JIXTTTQV ‘ J f. \.l/ * {\ :’,; i OLSENRESIDENCE mmm. SI •; PLAN L-1 coirtncATC of suRwct «)RSwr ? kSoFz. PWTEIWfOOD icnncpm coumtx mmaoTh 1'1 U«AI, pf»:tjg\fl:» t«t >• •loch i* o D1 t •ortlfv tk\f iKirv«t *i,*s*2 1» •“2*? rL‘.^I «* a My «Mur sm ^ of th§ Mf of «»' •mrv#i«vo* flooo* * . I UtK'i. ^ Oato • It-il-M tOAlOl l* • *•* • I triM oorli^f O TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 17,1997 #2307-Ellen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 /2 Acre) 5,190 square feet (.12 acre) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 282 s.f. carport with a deck above attached to the front of the existing residence. The carport would primarily be located over the existing driveway. Variances are required for side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0’ to 75’ and 75' to 250’ lakeshore setbacks. ______________________ Pertinent Ordinances: V. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR*1C Lot Requirements H2307 Ellen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances October 20, 1997 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Rear Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .5 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Rear Yard Side Yard Lakeside .12 acre 47 ft. at 75 ft. setback 30 ft. at OHW 9.5 ft.6.2' (existing) 3.8 ft. (proposed) 86.2 ft. (existing) 65 ft. (proposed) The zoning lot does not meet the zoning district requirements for lot area, lot \\idth, rear setback and side setback. As proposed, the lakeside setback would also not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 5,190 s.f.815 s.f. (existing) 1,097 s.f. (proposed) 15.7% 21.1% The subject property is at 15.7% for structural coverage. The proposed carport with deck above would increase structural coverage to 21.1%. A variance is not required, however, because Section 10.03, Subd. 14. allows 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coverage per zoning lot. It should be noted there is another 18 s.f. of structure that is not shown on the sur\ ey for the portion of the deck connecting it to the front door. »2307 EHen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances October 20. 1997 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75 ’2,880 s.f 1,242 s.f. (43.13%) 630 s.f (21.9%) excluding street none 1,274 s.f (44.24%) 662 s.f (23%) excluding street 1,274 s.f (44.24%) 662 s.f (23%) excluding street 75'-250'2,310 s.f.1,294 s.f (56%) 577.5 s.f (25%) 1,333 s.f {57.7%) 755.5 s.f (32.7%) Hardcover variances are needed in the 0'-75' setback and 75' -250' setback. The carport/deck would be primarily located over existing non structural hardcover. Variances are required to add new hardcover and replace non-structural hardcover with structural hardcover. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See the application (Attachment A) for the applicant’s statement of hardship. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. 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 currently lacks a carport or garage to shelter a vehicle from the elements. 2.The plighi of the landowTier is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning district requirements. The substandard lot area and width also limit where the proposed addition may be located. U2307 Ellen Peterson 3355 Cry stal Bay Road Variances Cctobef 1997 Page 3 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover will reduce the setback between the residence and new deck and the lakeshore. This will have a visual impact. 4. d 5. 6. 8 Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for th'i property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. (Jiidue 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 carport is allowed in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many properties in the area are also limited in area and width, necessitating garages or carports in front of the principal structure, encroaching on the required lakeshore setback and exceeding hardcover 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 a carport or garage. The narrow* lot and alignment of the residence necessitate a side yard variance. A carport of sufficient depth cannot be constructed on the lot without encroaching on the lakeshore setback requirement. i^2307 Elien Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances October 20. 1997 Page 4 •V. r 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Without the required variances, the applicant will be unable to locate a carport on the property as possible locations are limited. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant currently has no means of sheltering a vehicle from the elements. Issuss 1. 3. The lot area is .12 acre where .5 acre is required. The lot width is 47' at the required setback and 30' at the lakeshore where 100' is required. The location of the residence on the yard leaves the front (lakeside) yard as the only viable area for a carport. It appears, however that at one time there was a one car tuck under garage space that has been converted to living space. Granting the side setback variance would not increase encroachment on the residence to the north as there is currently a 13' separation between the structures. As proposed, this would be approximately the minimum distance between proposed addition and the neighboring residence. Excluding the unplatted Crystal Bay Road, which crosses the lake side of the property, hardcover is existing at 21.9% and proposed at 23% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed 282 s.f carport addition with a deck on top located on the front side of the existing residence subject to a condition. Staff recommends approval of side setback variance 6.2' to allow the addition to be located 3.8' from the side lot line where 10' is required and 6.2' is existing. U2S07 Ellen Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road yariances October 20, 1997 Page 5 -'T-jf t. Staff recommends approval of lakeshore setback variance of 10' to allow the addition to be located 65' from the shoreline where 75' is required. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 40.6% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback to allow 40.6% hardcover where none is allowed and 43.13% is existing. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 26.2% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 51.2% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 56% is existing. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of this application that all plastic under landscaping be removed from the property prior to construction. The 255 s.f reduction in total hardcover roughly offsets the 282 s.f increase in structural hardcover. Staff recommends approval of the application as proposed subject to the condition. lop Attachments Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Views of Proposed Carport Hardcover Worksheets i .1 U2307 Elien Peterson 3355 Crystal Bay Road Variances October 20, 1997 Pagf6 r Application # Date Received -^P? 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) • f t I »- 1^ 1 ry s PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ____________* Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) H/ 11 ^ 3 ^/tso ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. DatePropertyA cquired >smo. & je s DatePropertyA cqxnre d /yv /_________ I (do) <fdo n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: other (specify). APPLICANT Name Phone (home ’) Phone fwoik ^ Address: OlO ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ City: (i) —■ Zip: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST 4^Estimated Construction Cost $ w-- uesenoe request m aeiau; dccfe. - f Qji 1 ty 4js.c^ ■— ^ .^^rPxJt~-€xA5H*‘V --------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width X I Setback:Front X.Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDJHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: doGb /?c f' ~0/^l V ( ocyrtfe/J A5 to 6V.&Z £^/^7V/V^— MAy% . u)->gccn tv/)iJi t> Pur-__gjLLL____________^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) r.► VAC 12-4-69 NOTE 1 = REAr.RAMGEK’EMT OF LOTS 42 , 43 , 57 . 58 , 59 . 69 , 70 & 71 WALLACE'S ADDITION' TO THE^ VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH. \ y A- X y-^/y \ •■f?46 /4\ '<iCW ‘ /X/ / yyy I IQ/) 47 • • ^ .x.yxo // , /;27v^6.t' •"'' \ / /l:> \ /X' <.v , /N ' /( QO 4 / '■-/ 4'V'X^' .yX4 .y<,^><: S^ss' '■ PERMIT RECORD Peralt No Date m. iZ^ 9it ?9M. Ss6}<f y^o2> \ I Type of Permit <r -9S-11 /? -In-T^ -nS3 3 -J9-2t PeAhvaJ^ V'«- 95 I i i #2307 PfU'JWl*/ ^eof^ ns 929.4 CONTOUR l imf. • • V « V • pt<Ki«.^rtA«^ fr»g tW’CtcfJM* 1PtM. 4.VWJJ v!> rcrrr .*:.:; :/rvi.: ;*«: f.• ;r TMrrrinv^LUirrcrjr^ ..v;sr. -.•.‘...•r.-Tjnt:: •j.T.j^jSSsT^^-yz ^3L-y ys?^.-=:s:: ; iVlUiH mn n?!TTn;!!ii i|(]i JIT] !H!niiiiiii jiiii lj!!i !!K mil! fc iniiil nilHi iij **y I r •M Li -■*! t>y6<r.p& 5.,g/A7;igH ncg S',avA~. v4‘•: -o /f- • /X. ■ 1 ■■ i. » ^ HAIIDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET tRCLE ONE) (0^^ 75-250* 250-500* V' The. V«U_A3^t Of. /AT<A, BEACH • • • EXISTING HARDCOVER IN yrtistp A. House 500-t000' yyc>oo WALLS B. Garage Lcnfch H-2.S l.p:X X X Widlh PS \A/iCif D. Sidewalk "C^MCRETg £. PatioADeck F. Landscape Underlain By Piasiic 3. Other X X X X X X X X X < -/ total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - -- - - - -B PRQPQSFD tlARDCOVFR IN y^^T A. House • •* Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E- Patio/Deck F- Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X I X X X X X X X rz TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B X too * •S.F.« , «21 S.F. • < =•S.F.• sat S.F. s:S.F.a. •* »^3<+S.F. % 1 s h\2.S.F..H • - >\ 7n S.F. ♦ ^ ' V. ••• •• *S.If 1 «»1 S.F. *•S.F. 105 i.F. ts S.F. ' S.F.1 ss • • 1 S.F.’ .1 f '■.X' -Il4'2 + • 1 S.F.A -Z08O ±S.F.B 1+3.13 % • • • £2 •• • «4 • • • * S.F. • • • • 1 • • 1 «S.F. • • S.F.*• t •$ •S.F. • • ss If.• • • S.F. a t S.F. • r: 1 . S.F..: S8 S.F. i • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B 13 • • • • Ck. r tlL-LL_i^ ti/.. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET /HUU. UJ T hi V/l Of 0f/x.; SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE Qf^E) 0-75* FOISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House 36 .“Z.____ X 75.250’250-500*500-1000'* • 22.. S B/ S LcntOt Width WO£?0 W4I-L‘5 B. Garage H-S % X X O.S>A/> C s s s C. Driveway ~C0UCR.ET£ D. Sidewalk -couewfi. 12 Hr E. Patio/peck COHC,/coh C s Sua B F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X m. 5.i>‘ S37 l5o S.F. S.F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I • S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. V'nIm. • ^ L .. • if TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -!■ B .X 100 = 12 ?H- t S.F. ^310 t S.F. ^4C.ai % L' -} * V'. 7 A ^ • % A B PROPOSF.n HARDCOVER ZONE • • • • • %» House •I ■ • • Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Laxulscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • • • I S.F. S.F*..1 I. . ** TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 _ S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ^ S.F. • • S.F. S.F.. S.F. m S.F. S.F. S.F. % B • • t I. i1 ro TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 7,1997 SUBJECT: #2309-Paul Larson having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR> 1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:15,193 square feet (.35 acres) Application: The sqiplicant is proposing the construction of a 1,962.2 s.f. house and corresponding driveway on a lot of record not meeting current zoning requirements. Variances are required for lot area, lot width and hardcover in the 75' to 250* lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, Definition 43: Lot Width Definition Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements H2309 Paul Larson having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive Variances 10/20/97 Page 1 ANALYSIS T ot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .5 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .35 acre 61.5'at 75' setback 34’ at OHW 41.5 ft. (proposed) 11.5 ft. (proposed) 75 ft. (proposed) The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover A hardcover variance is required in the 75' to 250’ lakeshore setback. d^2i09 Paul Larson having an biiirtst In 3865 Shoreline Drive Variances 10/20/97 Page! Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 15,193 s.f.1,975.2 s.f. (proposed)13% Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75’3,743 s.f. \none none none none 75’-250'11,450 s.f.none 2,862.5 s.f (25%) 3,360 s.f (29.34%) 497.5 s.f (4.34%) STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the attached 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 lot would be considered unbuildable without granting a lot area and width variances. With minor alterations to the house and decks, the hardcover variance can be eliminated. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The substandard lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements which now make the lot non-conforming as to zoning requirements. It is a lot of record.. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover will improve the character of the area which is currently undeveloped.. 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. A single family residence is a permitted use in this zoning district. if2309 Paul Larson having an interest in 3863 Shoreline Drive Variances 10/20/97 Page 3 r p , 7. 8. 9. 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. Most lots in this area were platted prior to current zoning requirements and do not meet current lot area and lot width requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most lots of similar size in the area are developed. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The lot cannot be built on without lot a.;d lot width variances. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The substandard lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. Lot area and lot width variances are necessary for the zoning lot to be deemed buildable. Staff has demonstrated on Attachment F that hardcover requirements can be met. 1. The lot area is .35 acre where .5 acre is required. The lot width is 61.5 ’ at the 75' lakeshore setback and 34 ’ at the OHW where 100' is required. The lot progressively widens to 146' at the 30' front setback. 1^2509 Paul Larson having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive Variances 10/20/97 Page 4 I I ; I r 2.There is an existing curb cut on Shoreline Drive that can serve this lot. Staff has sent the proposal to Hennepin County for review. 3. 4. A sewer line easement has been granted on the lake side of the property for 10' on both sides of the line. A lot line rearrangement was approved in 1996 for reducing the lots at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue and 3865 and 3877 Shoreline Drive into 2 lots which were more compliant with current zoning requirements. However, the owner decided to sell the three lots as originally platted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a 1,969.2 s.f residence with an attached garage and driveway on the .35 acre lot. Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance of. 15 acres to allow the .35 acre lot to be considered buildable where .5 acre is required. Staff recommends approval of a lot width variance of 38.5' to allow the lot width of 61.5' at the 75' lakeshore setback and 34' at the OHW. Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variance of 4.65% to allow 29.65% hardcover where 25% is allowed as staff has demonstrated this requirement can be met. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with hardcover requirements. §2^09 Paul Larson having an interest in 3863 Shoreline Drive Variances immi Page 5 k.4«« • 4.M »• !■»»»» - Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey-Staff Proposal Survey-Applicant Proposal Legal Description of Easement Views of Proposed Residence Hardcover Calculation Worksheets I i i M2309 Paul Larson having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive Variances 10/20/97 Page 6 Application # Date Received ‘7 t3.fe»-97 Amount Paid .<=>g 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 $220.0 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SileAddress rjB b^l V£l Property Identification Number (P.I.D)_________//7 5 S (month/year) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_______________________________________ I(tdo^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^ Present use of property: ___presidential ___other (specify) VfiCAUT~ L/i/jQ Zoning District:________Z- /P -- /CL___________ Phone (home) V 7/ ^ ^ _________________Phone (w'ork ) 7 /~ ^ Z/S Address: ^771 >e City: MOjJcP Zip: ^5'3^/Z APPLICANT Name OWNER (if different than applicant) Name /pU Address: r^t £. U/AYl/?7?^ DL0 Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City: \A/AH2m/9^_ Zip: C<n‘t/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /QOf 0(PC^ Describe request in detail: iJ/cb A/B Vi/ Mf) VSB.__________________ 1 \ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coyerage Ayerage Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preyenting compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Lerr OP- ______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) sJ r r Pernit Wo. PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit HCOiroP ^10 (o'/9- IfS (juf^refz /rt^-TvA^u imt.• • • •<2 ' J ? - >7 U • •••• • • • « • •«* . » • fs < .• • f tC^JOiv! ^ s.f "f'^Uor\ i * t t,r /?<Tav4P : - , t liti^ w>HavAC-.'2,ys*^ ff. * K N COFFIN ft GRONBERG, INC. SUitVSYINQ. BMOlHmilNO AND LAND PUJimHfk AAf.A TAMAAACIC AVSNUV LONG LAKE. MINN. ••3AA 473-4141 October 3,1997 Sanitary Sewer Easement Description for Paul Larson in Lots 1 & 2, Block 8. Townsite of Langdon Park Hennepin County, Minnesota A 20 foot easement for sanitary sewer purposes over, under and across that part of the following described property: That part of Lots 1 & 2, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2 distant 5.00 feet southeasterly from the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence northwesterly 5.00 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the North line of said Lot 2 a distance of 163.00 feet; thence south 37 degrees 04 minutes West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence southeasterly along said shore to an intersection with a line running southwesterly from the point of beginning and parallel with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence northeasterly along said parallel line to the point of beginning. which lies virithin 10 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of the above described property distant 246 feet southwesterly from the most easterly comer of the above described property; thence northwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of the above described property distant 139 feet southwesterly from the northwesterly comer of the above described property. J FRONT 6LEVATION ^ Holiday HQIC ELEVATIONS lAf HOMIS - W1& CAQC NMff Homes M mm IS r SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCONTR IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length liAlCULUVtK LALCLLAiiO. . .. vyivivoiii:.!:. i ///^ w B. Garaee X X X 75-250*250-500’ 500-1000’ ' S.F. WidOi S.F. S.F. S.F. I I S.F. C. Drivewav X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. iF. C. Other S.F. h''. . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Lenftl) B. Garage C. Drivewav D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O____ - B . X 100 Width J*7VS X 100 S.F. S.F. crto 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. O S.F. 3 7^7 S.F O___ A B A B r nAivU«-UVL.K I • *_Li; SETBACK ZONE: \CmCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pati^fPe^ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONl^^ '7 A. House Lenfth ZJL B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ZO 1£) io(De^E. Pati F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • 7?// - B. (75-2Jp^250-500’ ». w ' - 500-1000’ Width X 100 Width Z6 V //, V5 o X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I I. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iF. S.F. • S.F. S.F. fo A B S.F. - i S.F. S.F. jgy S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; . S.F. • I* _______^S.F. 2. // ■ S.F. * /4 *tSO S.F. % A B -TLl .^Sr r/. . HARDCOVtK CALLLLAllU.N vvOKK^ntiii 75-250* (^-50JP' 500-1000*SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTCsG H a RDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lcncth B. Garage C. Drive wav D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length B. Garage • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______O B ^ Width X 100 Width S20 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. • I. S.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. % S.F. .• • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; . S.F. • •• S.F. O S.F. __ S.F. % A B A B TO; DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 10,1997 SUBJECT: #2299-Mike Hilbelink Having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Sketch Plan Review, Class III Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Lot Area:347,173.2 One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) square feet (7.97 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing ‘he subdivision of the subject 7.97 acre parcel into three lots. The two new resulting lots are proposed at 2 acres each, while the existing building site would consist of 3.97 acres. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): RR-IB Lot Requirements Section 11.03, Definition 66 (c): Class III Subdivision Definition Section 11.10, Subd. 6: Sketch Plan, Purpose and Requirements Section 11.10, Subd. 7: Sketch Plan Application Section 11.10, Subd. 8: Sketch Plan Review and Recommendations »2299-SUke Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden T/pw Drive Sketch Plan Review, Class III Subdivision October 20. 1997 Page I r Lot Configurations: RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. Proposed Lot Configurations Lot Lot Area Lot Width 1 3.97 acres 360 ft. 2 2 acres 252 ft. 3 2 acres 252 ft. The proposed lots meet the zoning district requirements. Septic: Testing for septic system sites on the proposed lots is being done at this time. Based on information in application #805 when the current parcel was subdivided from the property at 2460 Watertown Road, locating primary and alternate septic sites on each of the proposed lots should not be a problem. Drainage: Drainage does not appear to be an issue with this application. Both of the proposed new lots are relatively level with slight downhill slope away from the approximate center of each property. There are no wetlands on the subject property. Park Dedication: The sketch plan of the proposed subdivision has been sent to the City Assessor to determine the appropriate park dedication fee. 02299-Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Sketch Plan Revleiv, Class III Subdivision October 20. 1997 Page! r i t i Access: Access will be provided by the existing Golden View Drive. Lot 3 has approximately 20 feet of frontage on Golden View Drive, providing direct access to the street. Outlot A, containing a driveway for the property at 175 Golden View Drive could also be shared by the future residents of Lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no formal action required by the Planning Commission. Members are asked to provide direction to the applicant. Other issues of concern to the Planning Commission should be discussed. Attachments: A B C D E F Application Plat Map Location Meq) Topographic Map Aerial Photo/Wetland Delineation Map Survey of Proposed Lots m99-Mike HtlMink having an intertst In 120 Golden yiew Drive Sketch Plan Review, Class tH Subdivision October 20.1997 Page 3 #2 -t s,;n % v«.„ . * } f CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 12-0 Application # Date Received ^ - /<> '<5?7 I Amount Paid <,?! S’c, Property Identification Number (PID) 3 3 I Please check one - Property abstract or torrens*? Attach legal description to application. Bloc-k ^ LoT Z APPLICANT Name Address __^ fV'A\fc.<= City O iticvij'i Hfl lis (/y-v fs-prres t 7iy..j C V Phone 7 iTW OWNER (if different fiian applicant). Zips^jjUiPhone (work) Address City (-U (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL _________IcflXw ^ _____ Zip (_L-S(y\, Phone (home) V7s~~ p . Phone (work) 5~2>o «r- 7.y?Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / 3? Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites T Existing Units ^ New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) J___Units per Acres A'C- Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land XI Residential ________Other (specify)______ r 5 • (8) 5 \ (I'e§ ■.} ^ >- .1 -----------------------^o Vri \Z0 GcWen SZt 76 O r mm ^7 ”mm * • JS¥5^T* i- •a*.; , V.*tr \> ~~^iT • fi-#f ri" !■■■:• • - ^ z: ____________* i T- - - - ~ ^1*] i V ^vilifeS^i;.• . - ■4000 .'i :» > -"i .- ■ •I :<' i JiT r%^: l^V^ ' IV f - •' * ^\v .- • -.<. i . v;- ^ , 1 2 “ .i'- ' • ' Nji -fi. S. *T.V> t ; ' •rroa UltR :> i '•-r'J.a s X' c .:-ir'‘>-.-.^-:' -% -* •'. • ! k .j »*».- Vy* •• I*.*. iw<‘‘Hi ;• V i Km • - -* .V — --'—'r. V . ‘ .N- -- - ------------■-^»i, - ^ ___: ■ I /•'.i* V.: > •’!• »■■ - —■"■ Mr ,~.»»• •*. ‘ ■ V mM •*-■4•. i •.. • '.* I > ••T 1 L<;\-: ' ^4 .'r*A > /;r.* *.; * '■ r-r 1:^ .fi‘ r" #• C'V . t; ‘ !tv. '? - m QOi^Lllli •a'I V'V J^' , * •. ^1 ACkEhGE * • /V '-* /'* . .TKf5S SITE COPY »v» in* f !JI Jf' f»( l«l Ill*** L r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date vvith 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 Gaflfron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour and Council Members Goetten and Flint were present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2286 STEVE WHITE, 4355 BAYSIDE ROAD, CLASS I METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:02-7:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gafffon reported that the application is for a Class I subdivision of 55 acres. The northern portion is in the RR-1 A, 5 acre, Zoning District. The southern portion is in the RRIB, 2 acre, and LR-IA, 2 acre lakeshore. Zoning Districts. This existing single tax parcel has property located on both sides of Bayside Road and is proposed to be subdivided into two lots, each including area on both side of the road. Lot A would have 18.8 acres of dry buildable. Lot B, which is 29.1 acres, contains the existing house, and will have 23.5 acres of dry buildable. Gaffron indicated that the attorneys for the city and applicant have agreed that the subdivision is a Class I, metes and bounds division, and therefore, the property is not required to be platted and is not subject to park dedication. Gaffron recommended the property line be moved easterly for Lot A as the portion north of Bayside Road as proposed is less than 5 acres. There is a small wetland located to the east, north of Bayside Road, which will require a Conservation and Flowage easement, as well as wetlands on the south side abutting Lake Minnetonka via the channel. A concern was voiced that depending on where the 929.4 lake elevation is located, the property could be considered a lakeshore lot. If so, parcels A and B would not meet a 500' width measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Due to this, the Staff and City Attorney have concluded that this split is not exempt from subdivision regulations but must be at least considered a Class I Subdivision. The 2 acre minimum is met by the portion of Parcels A and B south of Bayside, and Gaffron noted that the property could be further subdivided in the future. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#1 - #2286 Steve White - Continued) Gaffiron requested the applicant show the 929.4 contour on the survey. Parcel A includes a bam and out buildings that will have to be removed. Gaffron recommended the removals occur within six months of the subdivision approval. Septic system testing has taken place. The existing house meets all setback requirements. Gaf&on reviewed the issues for discussion as noted in the packet. The applicant had no further conunents to add at this time. Lindquist asked White if he was willing to move the lot line to accommodate parcel A having at least 5 acres of dry buildable. White said he would as it was his intent to have equal sized parcels. He informed Smith that this was the primary reason for how the property was being split. There were no public comments. White informed Lindquist that he understood and accepted the Staff recommendations 1-8 as noted in the packet. Smith was told that it was White's intention to construct a home on the second parcel with no further subdivision. McMillan questioned the amount of roadway. Gaffron said Staff is recomi> iding 66' instead of 80' as needed according to the Comprehensive Plan as no County trail is planned. He noted the County's standards are different than those in Orono's Comprehensive Plan. Schroeder rwrv<d. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2286 with Recommendations #1-8 as listed on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Agenda item #2 follows Action Item #5.) (#5) #2279 AND #2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE, SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:13-8:00 P.M. The Applicant was represented by Attorney, John Winston, and Surveyor, Walter Gregory. Mr. Whitehead arrived during the application discussion. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application had been tabled at the August 18 meeting for revision from 4 lots to 3 lots. A revised proposal has been submitted. Lyman Avenue is partially maintained by the City with the easterly gravel driveway portion privately maintained. The 2/3rds cul-de-sac has not been constructed. The three lots include an existing house on one of the lots. Gaffion reported that the plan reviewed in August was problematic as Lot 4 had only one septic site. The Planning Commission had then recommended a 3-lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac to the driveway outlot with Lot 1 as the driveway outlot. The new plan includes a cul-de-sac located near the neighboring lot line, which would have a negative impact on that property. Staff suggested an outlot for buffering as well as a second outlot for the driveway to serve Lot 1. The private driveway outlot makes Lot 1 a "back lot", which must be able to meet the 150% area and setback requirements. The front lot line of the back lot requires a 75' setback. There is 50' currently proposed for that setback, which will require a variance. Gaffron said it was important to note that the 150% requirement has to do with the impacts to the front lot, and he recommends approval of that variance. Gaffron indicated the packet includes information for discussion on how the lot meets the standards. Buffering for Outlot A needs to be determined. Gaffron said he is not recommending combining the two outlots because keeping them separate will help limit encroachments of the buffer. A design for the driveway for Outlot B is necessary. Due to the slope east of Outlot B, a retaining wall will be required. Screening of the southeast comer of Lot 1 will aid in restricting headlight glare from the roadway. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission had requested screening and a tree inventory for the Lot 3 driveway corridor. A list of plant varieties is included for Lot A for review. Driveway relocation within the boundary of Lot 1 would result in impacting trees. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider whether this should or should not occur. The easement would otherwise continue to be used. Gaffron reviewed the lot dimensions and area. The 200' lot width requirement would be met by Lots 1 and 2. There would be only a 180' width at the front setback line on Lot 3, requiring a variance but still better than prior plans. Septic site locations have been established and have been approved by Steve Weckman. Gaffron noted the applicant had suggested that with only two homes, no ponding was necessary since no cul-de-sac would be built. Gaffron indicated this would have to be reviewed by the City Engineer and MCWD, who will make the final determination, before final approval of the subdivision. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gaffron said the lane to the north of Lot 1 is a dedicated public right-of-way but has never been opened. The DNR is not in need of this right-of-way, and Gaffron recommended vacating the right- of-way for inclusion to the property. Access to the neighborhood is another issue for the Planning Commission to consider according to Gaffron. The City Engineer has suggested Lyman Avenue, which is only 15-20' wide at most should be upgraded by the developer. Gaffron said the applicant proposes to dedicate public right-of-way for the road but has asked Commission to consider whether the cul-de-sac is needed. The ^Ity Engineer has suggested the applicant be responsible for the upgrade including costs. The applicant had indicated the road likely would be tom up when sewer was installed. Gaffron indicated the adjacent area is one of the ten hot spots but not scheduled for sewering at this time. The property itself is not part of the delineated sewer area and is not within the MUSA. Gaffron asked whether the two additional lots served by the driveway should trigger the upgrade of the road and what the upgrades should include. He noted items A-H in the packet were for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Winston said the proposal is to add two new lots for two new homes. The lots would be large at 3.8 acres and 3 acres plus the existing homestead. He felt the additional traffic on Lyman would be minimal and should be the concern of the City, not the applicant. Winston does not believe the Whitehead’s should be obligated to solve the road needs for the neighborhood. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman Avenue, said he was not aware of the number of variances required on the current plan. He questioned how many variances the Planning Commission would grant for the new subdivision and whether or not they should be granted. Lindquist informed him that the l^t3 are plotted as buildable and will require some variances. Lindquist said he thought the number of variances was minimal. Brano Stankovsky, 1290 Lyman Avenue, said he has met with the Whiteheads and discussed the purchase of Outlot A. Plans are not known for the retaining wall or driveway as yet, and he asked if they were required, .'affron indicated that they were. Stankovsky inquired about screening Gaffron said it needs to be discussed. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 igto ould way City arge ould ethe dthe isked tiing. (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Stankovsky noted the driveway enters Lyman Avenue and would increase the traffic to Smith Avenue. He asked when it would be decided whether it would need widening. He is concerned that guidance be given by the Commission for when the roadway needs to be widened as the property will most likely be in the ownership of others at that future time. Smith questioned whether the money for the future upgrade could be escrowed. Gaffron said this method has not been used in similar situations in the past. He questioned what would be a good trigger for when the upgrade is required. Schroeder indicated that the application has been reviewed on several occasions by the Comnussion and the applicant has complied with the requests made by the Commission. He noted the number of lots was reduced to three. He asked if the width variance for Lot 3 was a function of the lot geography. Gaffron said it was, and was also related to the septic site. He indicated the intent of the back lot requirements needs to be reviewed. An administrative variance to the septic setback for the wetlands is being granted as thts is not a zoning code matter. Schroeder said his view is that the applicant should be responsible fo- 4 amount of the upgrade. Smith agreed. Lindquist also indicated there is some responsibility on the part of the applicant. Stoddard asked that Staff review the maintenance needs of the road prior to ^plication going before the Council. Hawn said she would like the driveway to be relocated onto the property within Lot 1 inrtead of to the east by use of an easement. Winston reported on the number of trees impacted. He did not feel this suggestion was good for the neighborhood. Gregory- noted the driveway easement is shown on the plat. Lindquist asked .1 lawn her reasoning behind the suggestion. Hawn said she felt it would be easier to deal with the driveway on the property instead of through an easement when the road is straightened out. She is concerned with the curve of the roaJ. Gaffron concurred that the road d.oes not meet design standards but noted the close proximity to the septic site for Lot 2. Lindquist said he was satisfied with ;he use of a driveway easement. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 •1 (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Smith questioned how future property owners could be advised of the potential if sewering were to occur. McMillan said she would prefer a decision be made at this time. She indicated the neighbors are not in favor of a change in road alignment due to the loss of trees that would occur. McMillan said she is concerned with the number of accidents at that location noting the lack of sight line. Gaffron suggested an option of dedicating the portion of road to meet the curve radius standard and granting an easement to the property owner to have the septic system placed over it. McMillan said if Lyman Avenue was upgraded, it would occur where the public road is located now and become a nuisance on the private roadway. She asked that a decision be made now. Schroeder suggested the septic site could be eliminated in the future with the straightening of the road once sewer is available. Gaffron acknowledged that the option he suggested would allow for use of the primary site and straightening of the road. Hawn and Lindquist felt the suggestion was satisfactory. Hawn indicated the problem was the road correction would not occur until sewering was accomplished. Gaffron said the property to the south is in the MUSA but he cannot predict when sewer will be extended to this property. McMillan said she would like to see the one segment of the road improved. Lindquist said it would not be accomplished until the property owners agree to make the improvement as it is a private road. To straighten the road out at this time would eliminate the septic site, which cannot be done, unless the septic site is not necessary in the future. Schroeder also noted that the property value would not be affected as the septic system site would take precedence over it. Winston said he was concerned with the speed of traffic if the road was moved too far over into Lot 2. Schroeder indicated the upgrade cannot be imposed on this developer as there are no new homes being served by this segment of road. He asked if the reasoning was due to safety. Gaffron said it would be but noted it would also most likely increase the speed of traffic. Mr. Whitehead arrived at this time. He was updated as to the discussions and suggestions thus far. Whitehead said he was not in agreement with straightening out the road for the future. Gregory asked if the option could be conditioned on providing sewer to the property. Schroeder informed him that is what is being envisioned but sewer would require a change to the MUSA boundaries. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 ! to ar. (#5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) McMillan said her concern was only for improving the sight line itself Gregory suggested providing the City with an easement that would enable the City to cut down the necessary trees to improve the sight line. McMillan suggested the City Engineer review it. W^tehead suggested brining the roadway out and sweeping it. Gaffron indicated the area was too steep for that scenario. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Applications #2279/2280 for a 3-lot subdivision as outlined including recommendations A, B, C, D, E, and F. Recommendation D will require screening acceptable to the City. Tree cutting, driveway and drainage encroachments will not occur unless neighbors make that determination. Any improvements to Lyman Avenue should be subject to further study by Mr. Whitehead and Staff. Based on past precedent, the cost would be incurred by Mr. Whitehead and the other property owners on a pro-rated base. Wliitehead is to work with the City regarding the curve of the road. Trees can be cut down and the shoulder graded to where the septic site encroachment is located to improve the sight lines but not impact the septic site. The toad can be widened once the septic system is no longer necessary. The financial responsibility of such improvements is that of the property owners. MCWD and City will review the ponding. Winston questioned the financial bearing by the WTiiteheads on an improvement used by others. McMillan asked that the motion include the mapping out of the driveways prior to final Council action. Gaffron noted where this should be completed. Gregory said he has a sketch of what is being envisioned. He indicated the driveway will be decided by where the house is located. Winston said he feels the outlot will provide what the City is looking for. Schroeder asked that Staff make that decision. Smith suggested the driveway be from the outlot. Berg agreed. Schroeder and Smith indicated one curb cut only. Lindquist clarified that both driveways will come off of the outlot and not Lyman Avenue. Hawn withdrew her request that the driveway easement be eliminated. McMillan asked that the motion include the City Engineer review of the curve of the roadway and make a recommendation. Motion was amended as noted. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 ding sthe stoo ers. uncil lat is Staff rand ►f the y and (Agenda item #6 follows item #4) (#2) #2293 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, JIM WATERS, 1003 WILDHURST TRAIL - PUBLIC HEARING 8:00-8:49 P.M. A. CLASS III 12 LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION B. REZONING C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT D. STREET VACATION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffi-on reported that the application is for subdivision of a number of individual parcels located at the end of Wildhurst Trail and consisting of the 10 acre Morgart property, the Sollner property, the Van Sloun property, and the eastern Morgart property, which has an existing house and accessory building. The sketch plan was reviewed by both the Planning Commission and Council. The proposal includes a request for rezoning. The Van Sloun and 10-acre Morgart properties are located in the RR-IB Zoning District, which is outside the MUSA boundary. The Sollner ^d eastern Morgart properties are within the MUSA boundary and in the 1 acre LR-IB Zoning District. Applicant requests that the 10 acre parcel be rezoned from 2-acre zoning to I acre zoning. This would also require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a revision of the MUSA line. “Die applicant is requesting a vacation of the platted right-of-way in the eastern Morgart property, which has not been opened for public travel. This would involve replatting for building sites. The 14 lot plat consists of 26.4 acres. The proposed right-of-way for vacation is 2.05 acres. Gaffron reviewed the proposed layout. Gaf&on noted the requests for subdivision, comprehensive plan amendment and zoning ^endment, while intertwined, should be reviewed separately. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to come to a conclusion first regarding the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments without looking at the specific plan itself. The 10 acre Morgart property, which probably could be developed to a limited extend under the 2- acre standards, consists of steep slopes. The rezoning to an urban density would allow for sewei^g and for efficient development of the property. It would also limit the length of Wildhurst Trail. The proposal limits the cul-de-sac extension as well. 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 t. 2- (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) During the sketch plan review, the Council suggested the rezoning be considered in the context of yielding no more lots than there would be under present zoning. The applicant would need to show how the development would occur in the current zoning without sewer. Gafifron indicated this would be difficult to do. Gaffron said he has concluded that the Van Sloun property under the current zoning would be limited to two lots. The Sollner property, in the MUSA, could be sewered and would be limited to six lots, but more likely five lots due to the topography. The Morgart 10-acre parcel would be limited to five lots but realistically, it would result in no more than three lots wiA septic. The east Morgart parcel, which is 4.7 acres, is likely to be divided into three lots. This results in the current zoning allowing for a maximum of 17 lots without rezoning, but realistically, no more than 13 lots would be feasible. Gaffron said the intent for Outlot A and B, the Van Sloun property to the west, if dedicated as open space, might result in justification for transferring the density to allow 13 lots. Gaffron indicated that the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendment for MUSA boundary change and sewering to include the Morgart property, would be required for rezoning. Gaffron said the property is only marginally developable without sewer. He indicated that this proposal conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and read the stipulations in the Comp Plan as indicated on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. Gaffron reported that the Council reinforced the opinion that the City should follow the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron offered two optional methods for granting the proposed amendments. They include (A) changing the policy to allow such a change, or (B) determine 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 those characteristics the City is intent on preserving by its current policy. Gaffron said Staff recommends that Alternative A is a more appropriate method than B as it establishes parameters for change. Alternate B would be a quicker method; however, it may set a precedent of reacting to developer requests for change on an individual basis. Gaffron said it is rare for Orono to accommodate development through MUSA and Comp Plan amendments. Sugar Woods was cited as an example where this did occur. However, Gaffron indicated that that development had a unique set of circumstances. - r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Gafiron mformed the Plaiming Commission that they and the Council must first conclude that the Comprehensive Plan and MUSA boundary amendment is appropriate, along with rezoning in order for the developer to proceed with this subdivision. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wanted to discuss the issue of rezoning at this time. Lindquist asked Waters to comment. Waters reported there are compelling reasons and characteristics for the MUSA and rezoning request. He said he has tried to avoid the use of the platted access from the south. Garden Lane, to eliminate impact on the park and the upper area of the site with its significant slopes and trees. He suggested the MUSA boundaries would not be expanded but zoning would be traded. The Sollner property would go from within the MUSA to outside the MUSA and the Morgan property from outside to within. Waters indicated that the number of lots developed from the property would correspond if he used Garden Lane for access. He indicated that the proposal is a more sensible development plan allowing for clustering of homes, which Waters feels is more appropriate for the neighboring. He felt the rea.sons for rezoning were no less compelling than that of Sugar Woods, only different. The public were asked to comment. Steve Bell, a resident of West Branch Road, noted the significant changes that would occur to the environment. He asked what testing and assessment has been done, and if any, whether it has been shared with the Planning Commission. Waters informed him that a wetland delineation has been done as well as perc tests for the two sites on the west side. Lindquist said an EIS has not been done and would not be done. Berg reported that a development for 20-25 lots would require a Phase I EAW. Charles Boehm, Wildhurst Trail, said he resents the increases in property taxes. He felt the way the MUSA boundary is delineated within these properties is ridiculous. Boehm said he is opposed to over building and asked that common sense prevail. Helen Overboe, Forest Road, reported that the property is very heavily wooded and steep. She felt the development would lead to further erosion in the area. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Mike Schulte, 4640 West Branch Road, said the proposal is in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He felt the runoff would enter the lake from the steep topography, and the urban development would be that of a rural area. Lindquist asked the Planning Commission whether they would like to review the Comprehensive Plan. Hawn acknowledged that the property is surrounded by the MUSA and the proposal would not increase the number of allowed residences, but she would like to see it accomplished in a different fashion, by allowing for fewer roads. She felt more roads would increase drainage problems and result in tree removal. If a development was encouraged to have fewer roads and sewer instead of septic, it would be preferred by Hawn. Hawn said it was not a question of no development but rather this development. She felt the Commission needs to determine whether this is the best development for the property. Hawn commented regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan or looking at proposals case by case. She agreed that there is a need to change the Comprehensive Plan, but questioned whether it could be done in a timely manner for this application. Schroeder inquired how many buildable lots can be developed as the property is currently zoned. Gaffron said it was 13 lots with no change in zoning, and the application proposed 14 lots. Stoddard noted that the zoning would allow for 17 lots but due to the septic site conditions and roads, it would be 13 lots. McMillan elaborated that the 13 sites would include 5 in the 2-acre zoning and 8 in the 1-acre zoning. The plan is for 12 lots in the 1-acre zoning and 2 lots in the 2-acre zoning. Stoddard inquired how the MUSA boundary has historically been changed. Gaffron said it normally has changed to accommodate provisions of sewering existing higher density neighborhoods. It has rarely been changed for new development, only in areas around Highway 12 and the Sugar Woods Development. Schroeder noted a better plan would be possible if the zoning was changed, but asked what could occur with no change. Gaffron said more roads would be required with the same number of residences. Schroeder said more trees would have to be eliminated for the septic sites. He acknowledged the difficulty in amending the Comprehensive Plan. r i • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Gary Welch, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, said he was on the City Council when the sew^ering was established. He said the Council at that time was not comfortable with extending the MUSA line. He feels it would be a problem to make that change now, Welch was of the opinion that there may not be enough land for 13 lots. He voiced concern with runoff and the poor soils that exist. Bob Wolff, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, noted that the road was narrow and the subdivision development would double the use. He suggested another access be determined instead of by Wildhurst Trail with the condition of the road presently and the use of heavy equipment dimng construction. He cited an example. Jim Waters said 13 or 14 homes are not excessive for the property and would not significantly impact traffic. Many members of the public voiced disagreement with Waters. He noted Garden Lane could be used for access or Wildhurst Trail could be extended to the west. Homes would then be unclustered. Waters said more homes would be necessary to justify building the road. He feels it makes sense to cluster homes in order to minimize the impact and provide buffering. Waters confirmed that he would have to review the options if the Comprehensive Plan was not amended. McMillan asked Gaffron whether the park land within the MUSA and being undeveloped would change the character of the neighborhood. Gaffron said the park parcels adjacent to Garden Lane have restrictions placed on their use. The tax forfeit park parcel could include some development. He cited other areas within the MUSA, namely, Noerenberg Park, noting the City is not suggesting MUSA boundary changes. McMillan notes that this would tend to landlock the parcels within the MUSA boundary. Gaffron said it would have a negative impact on the potential for the Sollner property being an island of 1 acre lots. Bob Berklund, a resident of Wildhurst Trail, noted the drainage flow problems and recommended an environmental impact study be conducted of the area. Waters said an engineer is preparmg plans and specifications for drainage, grading, and erosion control to allow for ponding away from the area. He feels the plan will not change the present situation and may even improve it. Berklund said he thought it would add more drainage problems to the area. Lindquist polled the Planning Commissi'n regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Stoddard while noting what building is allowed making sense to minimize the number of lots, he does not see enough to substantiate changing the Comprehensive Plan or MUSA boundary. Hawn agreed with Stoddard. She indicating changing the MUSA boundary is against the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Smith agreed. She noted, however, that if the property is developed, drainage and runoff will have to be reviewed. McMillan also agreed. Berg indicated if the property was developed within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, 13 lots could be considered but may not be prudent. She suggested the design be such as to not impact the area. Schroeder agreed. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to deny the Comprehensive Plan revision/MUSA expansion aspect of Application #2293 based on the fact it does not meet the guidelines laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron indicated there were two phases of the application. By making the above motion, pother proposal may be submitted. Smith questioned whether it would be best to table the application. Gaffron disagreed unless there is a plan that would convince the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended. Schroeder noted the problem with setting a precedent. Gaffron suggested taking action on the motion and tabling the subdivision portion of the request. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to deny rezoning the property. Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0. Lindquist moved, McMil’an seconded, to table Application #2294 for street vacation and subdivision. Vote;. Ayes 7, Nays 0. Lindquist noted there will be a request for an EIS in the future. Waters said an engineering study would be conducted and not an EIS for drainage. Berg suggested Waters speak with the neighbors. .he >ses lave Sion 1 the and study ibors. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#3) #2294 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, JIM WATERS, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL - PUBLIC HEARING 8:50-9:32 P.M. A. CLASS III 7 LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION B. STREET VACATION The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a 7-lot subdivision southeast of the park land area. It includes the Soskin and Sollner properties. The City park is located to the north. The property abuts Wildhurst Trail on the east and Garden Lane on the west. The property is in the LR-IB Zoning District, which is sewered, within the MUSA boundary, and requires 1 acre minimum lots with 140’ width. The application was previously reviewed as a sketch plan. The access to the development will be on a road from Tonkaview Lane with a cul-de-sac at the north end and a second cul-de-sac to the east. The Planning Commission had previously shown support for that access. Changes for consideration include access to the park from Garden Lane, a temporary cul-de-sac, and protection of the ravine. The current proposal is for a total of seven lots. The current plan calls for a vacation of a portion of Garden Lane and rededication of a public roadway to the east allowing the western lot (Sollner lot) to be split into two parcels. The public road with cul-de-sac to the east will provide access for three or four lots. Utilities present no problem. The Hennessy property to the north will require access, and Staff suggested one way to accommodate this is via a private driveway in the dedicated right-of-way. The Garden Lane right-of- way was dedicated in 1921. It was an open field up until the 1950's but is currently wooded. The seven proposed lots average one-plus acres. Gaffron said it appears that they wll meet the 140' width requirement. Lots 1 and 4 of Block 2 will require drainage easements in excess of the perimeter easement over the ravine and to the north. The one acre requirement needs to be met in addition to the drainage easement. Gaffron said the applicant has defined the orientation of the homes and lot types. Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 are on a cul-de-sac with walkouts to the east. Lots 1 and 5 of Block 2 will have walkouts to the side and rear. Lots 2, Block 1, and Block 2, will have look-out lots on flat terrain. Lot 1, Block 1.' ■’! be a walkout but require building up of the grade to create the walkout. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ’ lEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 1 j, 1997 (#3 - #2^94 LGA Investment Group - Continued) The Staff made 6 recommendations which are included in the memo. Jim Waters noted that the City needs access to the park as well as runoff control. He suggested this be shared with the City. Waters said the cul-de-sac could be dead-ended, but it was his attempt to meet the turnaround requirement for maintenance and provide park access. Waters felt these issues could be solved and benefit both the development and the City. Waters informed Stoddard that he understood the Staff recommendations and agreed with them. Bob Berklund said there would be the same negative impact on drainage noting the high amount of algae found in Forest Lake. Gary Welch said the ravine to Wildhurst goes through his property and reported drainage problems he has had. He suggested a soil study be conducted. He is also concerned with disturbing the vegetation on the slopes. Welch questioned the elevation of the proposed road on the east and west portions. Gaffron said all of the drainage from the road is proposed to be directed to flow to the north. Much of it now flows down tlnough the south ravine. Gaffron acknowledged the problem and indicated that the flow rate cannot increase from pre-development conditions and requires MCWD review. Welch smd there were two homes proposed in the 10-16% range of elevation. Gaffron said the attempt is to get the drainage from the driveway and house to flow to the front with gutters and continue flowing to the north. He was informed that there is about 150'+ from the rear of the homes to Wildhurst Trail. Welch added that this is not a typical situation noting the uniqueness of the area. Katl.iyn Kasprick questioned the developer providing access to the park property. She does not feel the trade off is appropriate. Shirley Bowlen, 4690 Tonkaview Lane, reported that the intersection of Wildhurst Trail, CoRd 19, and Tonkaview is dangerous. She indicated that another problem would be created with three driveways at the top of the hill at Garacn Lane and Tonkaview. Lindquist informed her that the Planning Commission is aware of the problems. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 ;dthis [npt tc issues blems ig the lid all flows kvrate id the ‘s and lomes ;are£L )tfeel ^dl9, three ! f4 (#3 - #2294 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Steven Valek, 4720 Tonkaview, lives south of the pond and is concerned with the issue of water drainage. He reported that over 10 acres drain into the pond and outlets through two lots into the ravine. He asked that the primary concern is to addisss drainage there. He is concerned with the retention of drainage on Lot 1. Valek acknowledged the advantages of a development. Scott Hennessy, 1261 Wildhurst, also voiced concern widi water drainage. He reported that a water fall is created over his retaining wall when it rains. He said he loses half of his driveway each year. Lindquist acknowledge d this problem. Lindquist said there are concerns with the pond and cul-de-sac. He informed Waters that any impact on the ravine is not acceptable. He suggested anodier pond area be determined and reviewed by the City Engineer. Smith concurred with Staffs recommendations. Hawn questioned whether a parking lot could be established in the area of the park property adjacent to the ravine. Gaffron responded that the first goal is to obtain and retain access to the Hennessy property to keep the corridor open. The property is restricted in its development by the DNR. A driveway can only be located across the propertyj more active uses can occur on the tax forfeit parcel to the west. Lindquist read into the record a lettei from Brian and Sandra Rasmussen, 1186 Wildhurst Trail, related to appropriate development and land management surrounding Forest Lake Bay. Waters said he will do what is required to ensure safety of the neighborhood. He noted it was not the responsibility of the developer to correct existing problems. Helen Overboe was informed that LGA Development is located in Plymouth. Gaffron noted the recommendations made by Staff and suggested the application be tabled based on the changes required. He recommended the P'l.inning Commission review the application at their October meeting before review by Council. Schroeder agreed with Gaffron noting the drainage to be a major issue of concern. He indicated that the drainage is not a function of this property but is a problematic parcel. Schroeder was of the opinion that the development would most likely be a 6-lot subdivision. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 not (#3 - #2294 LGA Investment Group - Continued) Smith and Lindquist agreed there is concern vvith the runoff problem. Lindquist suggested the applicant work with the City Engineer. While noting the developer is not responsible for the current problems, they do, however, need to be corrected. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2294. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for 7 minutes.) (#4) #2298 CONLEY BROOKS, JR. AND JOHN BROOKS, 905/980 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:39- 10:21 P.M. The .Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is a request to detach Lot 13, North Shore Cottage Acres from 905 West Femdale, and legally combine it with the Conley Brooks properties located across the lagoon. Parcels A, E, H, and F. This is designated as a Class I subdivision as no plat is required as it was previously platted. Gaffron indicated that the reattachment of the property to property across the lagoon from it would be necessary. It is the desire of the applicant to preserve his views across the lagoon. There is no structure located in the 0-75’ setback. Some smaller trees on the peninsula may impact the views in Lhe future. Gaffron said Hennepin County would most likely not allow the legal combination with property across the lagoon. This would then be subject to a special lot combination resolution to be filed on the chain of title stipulating Lot 13 cannot be separated from the homestead parcel in the future without City approval. This would eliminate the possibility of creating an unbuildable lot that could be sold off. Gaffron reviewed the three issues for consideration included in the packet on page 2 of the memo. % Smith was informed that the Shoreland District regulations control what occurs in the 0-75' setback. I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 i the rrent )AD ):39- from IS the edas cross cated perty ed on \iture could (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) Attorney, Bob Mitchell, referred to the definition of hardcover and the lay of the land. He noted the peculiar parcel at 905 West Femdale was approved for home reconstruction within the last 20 years. Schroeder noted the percentage of hardcover at 905 West Femdale is increasing because the amount of land is decreasing. Conley Brooks, Jr., said he is attempt to create a more sensible arrangement and improving ^ews. lie says a scenic easement could be obtained that allows for maintenance of vegetation for the future. He would like to have that responsibility in lieu of the adjacent neighbor having it. Brooks reported that the area in the lagoon between the peninsula and the shore is mucky, and acquiring this piece of property would allow for a swimming area. Brooks said it would be superfluous for 905 West Femdale to own it and would make logical sense. He has no plans to improve the peninsula and would not object to combining the parcels. He has a scenic easement with John Brooks. This will also improve the views for Mr. Floyd and other neighbors. During public comments, Robert Floyd, 960 West Femdale, reviewed the nine basic points and issues of concern that he noted in a letter received by the Planning Commission at the meeting. Floyd said a problem with the plan is the instability of the property lines and setting a precedent within Orono regarding redrawing of the area. He is concerned with what happens in the futoe. Floyd said the City should inform its citizens of what is occ-arring allowing for others to have considered this option. Floyd said he did not think it was possible for this scenano to occur. Floyd is concerned that this arrangement would present a feeling that property lines are tempo^ in nature. He indicated the code stipulates that adjacent property owners have to be considered. He noted the goal of the code is to preserve the valuation of the land. He noted the care of the waterway needs utmost consideration. Floyd reviewed problems. He noted the view from over the maple t^s is a concern when the trees mature. The channel was noted to be difficult in its habit of filling with sand. A point on Lot 13 was removed to enable navigation of the channel. He questioned what would occur in the future. Floyd questioned whether all of the issues have been reviewed. He referenced the future of the parcel and other subdivisible parcels. He asked what criteria is used. He noted he would be interested in acquiring some of the land in the future and fears that information he would need would not be available. He asked that consideration be given for how such matters would be handled and who would be able to purchase the properties. His concern is with preservation of the land. Floy was concerned that the Planning Commission has not been given the time to review the issues he addressed in his letter. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 ount ews. iture. sited siece ense. ehas other s and eting. edent uture. have Floyd Euy in d. He erway 5 trees 3 was of the aid be would ed and Floyd sues he (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) Jerry McCourtney, 1055 West Femdale, noted that this piece of parcel is the only beach area for use by the area. He indicated that Mr. Floyd has use of the area for beach but has never maintained it. McCourtney said Brooks has maintained it since purchasing it and would like to add it to his property rather than see it revert to its prior condition. Brooks said he would be willing to relocate the maple trees onto the shoreland on the other side of the peninsula. He reiterated that the parcels would be combined. Lindquist said he saw the detachment and reattachment as inconsistejit Lindquist voiced his opinion that the peninsula should stay as part of the adjoining land. Hawn said she was not against the application. Lindquist noted that there would be little pieces of land but would be in support if the ownership was contiguous. Stoddard was informed by Gaffron that he was unaware of any similar cases. Hawn noted a property on Stubbs Bay that has shoreland with an adjoining island. Gaffron acknowledged this but noted both are owned by the same person inland from it but separate tax parcels. Schroeder indicated that the property would no longer be contiguous but noted the property could not be developed anyways. Gaffron asked if the Commissioners would allow the property to be sold separately from the 980 West Femdale parcel. The Commissioners said they would not recommend that and only support the proposal with a combination of the lots. Schroeder noted that the process of special lot combination with covenant requiring City approval for any changes would also require a public hearing before any transfer could occur. He indicated by following this process, nothing could just happen as feared by Floyd without the public being notified. Floyd asked what rationalization or criteria is being used to allow this to occur. Schroeder informed him that the applicant could sell the parcel to Floyd in the future. Floyd noted there was no way for him to make future plans. Berg informed him of the right of people to sell their property. mi3T wriTf] FOtltJaKp.llfij RWtBlTlWt ww«i l•u•T? rtT«.Tir^4F.i ■ m kii ■ n •WMlil Mill rtirifii rtiMit niw WnifTiTiWniK rtriTiTii rSl^rsniTiTiTniFTiTiEgilTirilg^^1 i«i I i.«r« v>k^r« I ORONO PLANPONG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 sing ;ical fLot id is a for s for over itely. (#4 - #2298 Conley Brooks, Jr., and John Brooks - Continued) Schrocder asked if *e motion should include a scenic easemen, which will beneti. ti.e property owner of 980 West Femdale and Robert Floyd. Se-rsrrrrerrs'an^^^^^^^^ noted that no easement would be required if he owns the property. The special lot arrangement was explained. f • j • t CmJth and Bere Berg said she is concerned with setting a pr^enruSsaid tie pm^o'sel is inconsistent w ith the Comprehensive Plan and the prop«ty is not contiguous. ACTION ITEMS i»6) GARY AND BONNIE BIRNBAUM, 2695 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:21-10:31 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a The**1.14 acre width and lot area variances are required to allow * Zomeren reported the applicant had property is located in the LR-IB, one acre, submitted showed indicated via a phone conversation earlier in the day ^e.^ ^^^ved. Van !r“s^tXio" P-ious variances s.rbject to conditions noted Zomeren sai on page 5 of the memo ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 JC (#6 - 2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Mr. Bimbaum asked for consideration regarding the stipulation of removing the fence. It is located on the edge of the property at the edge of the access road for the public beach. The area is uneven and receives heavy traffic. The fence would provide for safety as there is no shoulder on the road. There is also alot of snowmobile traffic during the winter months. Without the fence, the snowmobilers would travel across the property onto Kelly Avenue instead of using the access road. There were no public comments. Smith asked the applicant if he has reviewed the Staff recommendations. Bimbaum said he supports the recommendation with the exception for hardcover being reduced on Lot 2 and request the fence remain. Lindquist asked whether there was any reason why the fence cannot be moved onto Bimbaum's property. Bimbaum said there was not much land left as the land has eroded. Berg noted that a person can no longer walk out to the point. McMillan said it appears that what land is there is different from that shown on the survey. Stoddard inquired how old the survey was. Van Zomeren said the survey was inaccurate regarding hardcover and total acreage based on the applicant's phone call. Lindquist suggested approval be subject to an updated survey. Schroeder moved to approve Application #2283 subject to Staff recommendations with the exception that the fence be allowed to remain on City property and an updated survey be provided prior to application review by Council. Stoddard responded that he felt the updated survey would show circumstances different than that shown on the submitted survey. Bimbaum acknowl'^dged that erosion has occurred. Stoddard indicated that the water is hitting the fence area. Schroeder received confirmation that the application is to enable the property to be one buildable lot. Stoddard noted that the property is in the one acre zoning district and consists of .52 acre and .6 acres with the additional strip of land. This falls short of the requirement. Stoddard said he would like to see what land exists. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 tion >r to that lard able icres like (#6 - 2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Schroeder indicated he stands behind his motion due to the erosion occurring. McMillan indicated that the water is 2' higher. There was no second to the motion. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2283 subject to an updated survey. Vote. Ayes 6, Nays 1, Schroeder, who indicated he felt the results would be the same. (#7) #2284 JAMES SLECHTA, 3700 NORTHERN AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:31-10:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed photographs of the property. The 127,968.3 s.f. property, consisting of 3.97 acres total and .6 acres wetland, is located in the LR-IC, 1/2 acre Zoning District. The proposal is to construct a 42'x96' storage structure, which is in excess of the maximum for an oversized accessory structure. The structure is proposed at a location 23' from the property line and 26.2 from the weUand. The structure is proposed at a height of 23' with 16' side walls. The principal resiaence is approximately 16' in height. With the size of the lot, the property is limiicd to an accessory structure of 1,421.4 s.f. James Slechta said his intention is to move to his parents property' to provide them assistance and requires the space to store his possessions. He has a building of similar size now at a different location. There were no public comments. Schroeder was informed by Slechta that the building would be used to store his 35 boat, requiring the height of the building, his vehicles and other equipment. Lindquist informed Slechta that the building size was too large. He noted there were already four outbuildings on the property now in addition to the residence. A variance from both the street and side setbacks are also required. He asked what structure Slechta could obtain with meetin , the setbacks. Slechta said he could adjust the location bu^ cannot reduce the size to 1400 s.f. Slechta informed Schroeder that he did not intend to work in the building. 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 >te: (#7 - #2284 James Slechta - Continued) Berg said the applicant needs to reduce the building size to around 1400 s.f. Slechta disagreed with this size. It is his opinion that there is adequate room for such a building as he proposes. Slechta responded to the issue of height noting the land is lower than the land where the other buildings are located. He indicated the new building would not appear to be higher than the other buildings. Berg asked what Slechta's hardship is for the proposed structure. Slechta said he needs it for storage. If he is unable to obtain the building, he would be unable to reside there and assist his parents. Slechta said he would not be able to afford the expense of storing his possessions elsewhere. Lindquist suggested the setbacks be eliminated and the building size reduced to 1400 s.f. He noted there are three parcels under one ownership but could be subdivided in the future and must be conforming and meet setbacks. He also noted the requirement for a 26' separation from the wetland. The building must also be reduced to meet the 30' front setback along with the setback from the wetland. Slechta was asked whether the application should be tabled or voted on. Slechta said he is unable to decrease the size of the building. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to deny Application #2284. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2285 JOHN LATTERELLE, 3505 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-10:56 P.M. rmg The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is to construct a 12’x26' dick on the north side of the existing residence. It would be located off the second story to provide a second exit for fire escape. The deck would be located 18.2' from Livingston Avenue. The stairs and landing are not considered an encroachment. Due to the proximity to the street. Staff recommended a 3'x3' landing with stairs denying a 12' front setback variance. The 3' wide deck landing would decrease that setback variance to 2.8'. i I URONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#8 - #2284 John Latterelle - Continued) Latterelle said the sole purpose of the deck is not only for a fire escape but to enjoy the outdoors. He noted he also has an old refrigerator that he is unable to remove without the deck being built. There were no public comments. Lindquist noted no previous variance had been granted. The current owner was unaware of past occurrences. Lindquist noted there is only one eu.itmce with a garage underneath. He noted approvals have been received for such additions and asked how much of a reduction the applicant could provide. Hawn noted structural coverage variance is also required. The applicant said he could reduce the 26'xl2' deck to 20 ’xl0'. A front setback variance would still be required and side setback would be met at 10 ’. Berg asked the applicant whether he would like the Commission to table the application, approve with Staff recommendation, or possibly deny as proposed. Stoddard said he would like to see the applicant have the opportunity to have a deck. Van Zomeren noted with the 200 s.f. deck, structural coverage would be at 25%, where 15% is allowed. The . 15 acre lot is in the 1/2 acre zoning. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2285 approving a 200 s.f. deck granting front variance and structural coverage of 25%. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 2, McMillan, Hawn, due to the amount of structural coverage. (#9) #2287 BRADLEY AND TRACI PETERSON, 1770 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:56-11:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w ere noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is a request to replace a deck on tiie lakeside of the existing residence that is in progress. The building inspector tagged the work due to the need for a variance. The deck replacement requires hardcover, side setback, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback variances. Structural coverage is at 15.9%. The t'eck is less than 6' high and does not increase the structural coverage. g ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#9 - #2287 Bradley and Traci Peterson - Continued) Peterson said he attempted to rebuild the deck that was there. Once he begun fixing it, he found he needed to totally rebuild it. Peterson said he was unaware of the need to acquire variances. The deck will be the same size as what existed. Smith was informed that the hardcover calculations differ as the deck had already been removed. There were no public comments. Lindquist reviewed the situation leading up to the application. Stoddard questioned whether some plastic could be removed from underneath landscaping. Van Zomeren said it is unknown how much of that plastic is necessary to aid drainage. Smith suggested the {qiplicant work with Staff to detemiine if any could be removed. Lindquist said he would like to see all of it removed, but Smith recommended maintaining that portion by the lakeshore per Staff reconunendation. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2287 per Staff recommendation including removal of plastic as noted. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Smith left the meeting.) (#10) #2288 JASON TKEIS, 4108 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:02-11:22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w'ere noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier provided photographs for the Commission to review. The proposal is to construct an attached 697 s.f. tuck-under garage with living space above. Variances are required for hardcover, front setback, and side setback. An updated survey with grading plan is required. The 53' lot width requires 50 ’. There is insufficient room in which to turn a car, and the applicant is attempting to acquire property from the neighbor. Grading has been revised. 'The 12% original grading is to be revised at an acceptable 8%. It currently does not meet that grade but applicant is of the opinion it can be met. 27 ir ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#10 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Bressler suggested an alternate plan by narrowing the driveway to 10 ’ for a 8.1' side setback which would meet the 10' requirement. A letter was sent by a neighboring property owner. It was noted that the overhang is on the lot line, and the neighbor is concerned if a fire should occur. Bressler said Staff recommends approval of a 30' front setback as the entire residence is in front of the it. Bressler suggested the garage be revised 3’ to the northwest. Theis said his neighbor's (the Sauer’s) home intruded over his property line. He suggested his 1 ’ variance request would not be an endangerment. He believes the y' variance is not actual as the closest comer is set at 10'6" with an 18" cantilevered overhang. Bressler said it did appear from the survey that there was an encroachment but it does meet the requirement. Theis indicated that the scale was inaccurate. Beverly Sauer reported that the property floods and will get water in the basement. Theis said he was aware of the problem and hoped it could be corrected. He indicated there is a 3' culvert extending to the Sauer property leading to a manhole and onto a 10" pipe into Lake Minnetonka. Theis said he has not seen his house flood but water has come within 35'-40' of his house. He indicated what would affect the proposed garage would also affect the house. Theis said he has 372 s.f. above grade and 300 s.f. below grade. With the proposed addition, he would have 1100 s.f. above grade. Theis said not much could be done if the garage floods. Lindquist questioned whether the property was in the flood plain. Bressler noted there is a wetland area to the rear of the property. Berg explained the flood plain location and indicated she feels there is a natural drainageway. McMillan said she would like to see both the driveway and grading as planned. She questioned whether there was a problem with the driveway being located up to the lot line and was informed that this was not an issue. It has been indicated that the neighbor is willing to sell an amount of land necessary for the garage and driveway. Phil Otto, the neighbor on the garage side, reported that he is willing to sell Theis the amount of space needed to provide for a turnaround. i i I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#10 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfied with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correcting the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Bressler indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. Theis reported there is a 5' drop from the top of the existing drivew ay to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30' area. McMillan indicated there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said the problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed. With the grade of the driveway and flooding possibilities, Lindquist recommended a 8% slope instead of 10%. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2288 for an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above for bedcover and front setback variances subject to Staff recommendation. The 10' side setback is to be met and a revised plan submitted showing a 10' driveway meeting the hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The grading plan is to be provided prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there was only 372 s.f. above grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6'x9', and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:22-11:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. r «*» ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#1 1 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Silus said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75 down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5’. Silus said he was unaware of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system. Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located. Lindquist noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given. Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#11- #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gapp indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5 ’ from the property line. Silus was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, who lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to wrater runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and is concerned with a change in drainage. She felt the side setback variance was a problem. Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to turn the garage. She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars. She noted the prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of what was occurring. Schroeder noted it w'as not the job of the Planning Commission to inform the neighbors. He asked if there was a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor Jabbour answered on behalf of the City. He asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls. The wall was not part of the calculations. I J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#12) #2291 STEVEN SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:57 P.M.-12:11 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler indicated ihat the proposal is to remove an existing two car garage and replace it with a detached 760 s.f. garage in approximately the same location. Hardcover and side yard variances are required. There are some topographical limitations to the property but should not negatively impact the property. The survey has shown a wood walkway to the garage. Staff recommended removal and replacement with a 4' concrete sidewalk. The garage is proposed at 32'x24'. There is an issue with preservation of a large oak tree resulting in the need for the side yard setback variance. Bressler reported that the property meets the hardcover calculations with a 22'x31' garage and realigned driveway but would require removal of the tree and relocation of cables. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance in the 75-250* setback for 27% hardcover. This would be accomplished by narrowing the driveway to meet the hardcover in the 250-500 ’ setback in order to preserve the tree and meet the side setback. Bressler said Staff has demonstrated that the side yard and hardcover in the 250-500* setback could be met. Sigel said the side setback variance is necessary due to the slope of the lot. Moving it closer makes the sidewalk located into the slope of the lot. The 3* slope setback by the driveway and neighboring property allows the garage to be located on the same foundation with the addition of a third stall. Sigel reported that the increased hardcover is due to erosion control as the elevation is higher at the neighboring property than the house. He would like a retaining wall the width of the garage to restore the elevation and keep erosion under control. Sigel said he would remove the decking if necessary to comply. It is landscaped and lit, however. The current garage is located 7’ from the property line and Sigel would like to maintain 10*. The 4* walkway as opposed to a 3* walkway for 90* would aid in eliminating 9* from the walkway. There were no public comments. Hawn, while understanding the need for compliance, was of the opinion that the existing sidewalk should remain. She was informed by Sigel when questioned that the retaining wall would be 22*xl* and 250* away from the lakeshore at that distance. He also stated the deck would be elevated 9*. fI i r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#12 - #2291 Steven Sigel - Continued) McMillan agreed that the wood walkway should remain. She is in favor of the retaining wall to correct the erosion problem. She asked that attention to paid to drainage. Silus asked if drain tile was necessary. McMillan asked that he work with Staff. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2291 for replacement of existing garage with a 3-car garage for hardcover and side yard variances, approval of a retaining wall and retention of the slatted wood walkway. If wood walkway is in need of replacement, it will be replaced with 4' walkway. Silus said the hardcover in the 250-500' setback exists at 37% and is being reduced to 35.9%. The 3-car garage will be flared to a 10' width. He asked to maintain the distance to enable turning around the tree. Gappa suggested a 12' width. Hawn amended the motion, McMillan seconded, to approve a driveway width of i 2'. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2292 TOM OKERSTROM, 770 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:11-12:27 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for construction of a 684 s.f. 2-story detached garage and additional driveway requiring hardcover, structural coverage, and front setback variances. The hardcover is less than 30% in the 75-250' setback and proposed at 34% in the 250-500' setback. A 3-1/2' sidewalk will continue to 24' wide at the garage. The driveway is 24' to Tonkawa. Bressler said Staff recommends the sidewalk be reduced to 3' with 10' width at the garage. He noted the sight line is poor. Staff recommends a garage reduction to 22'x34' and eliminate the portion of sidewalk accordingly. The approval would be subject to a 428 s.f. garage, 3' sidewalk with turnaround area. Hardcover would be 32% in the 75-250' setback, currently proposed at 34.66%. The 250-500' hardcover would be at 38% where 30% is allowed. Staff recommended removal of the 64 s.f. shed to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Bressler said Staff is of the opinion that 15% lot coverage can be met. Staff recommends approval of a 20' front setback variance but recommends no further hardcover be allowed on the property in the future. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#13 - #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Okerstrom acknowledged the hardcover issues. He said he revised his plan from recommendations made and decreased structural coverage to 14.98%. He said the garage could be reduced and moved forward reducing the amount of sidewalk and removing the shed. There were no public comments. Lindquist noted that the applicant had moved into the home this spring and questioned why the garage was not built at the same time as the house. Okerstrom indicated that no variances were required at that time and noted the lot is only 51' width. Lindquist voiced concern that the wait on the garage was to enable the applicant to gain more structure on the property. McMillan indicated that residents will reduce the size of the home in order to obtain a garage. Hawn noted that the walkway to the lake was not included in the calculations. Stone steps are included. Bressler said the survey only showed the existence of the shed, and he had been unaware of the steps. Hawn asked that accurate information be presented. Van Zomeren said steps are allowed to the lake and need to be reflected in the hardcover calculations. The survey had previously been done and reused for this application. Schroeder voiced concern with the inability to rely on the information provided by the applicant. Berg said the information should all be available at time of application. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2292 for a revised survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:27-12:56 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is two-fold, involving replacement of a garage and construction of a new fence. The triangular piece of property contains an existing garage. As part of the recent subdivision approval, the applicant was given 60-90 days in which to remove the garage. The replacement garage will be located in about the same footprint in the 75-250' setback. Hardcover exists at 14% and would increase to slightly over 15%. J u ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) The existing garage is located 2.8 ’ into the right-of-way. The new garage would be I' into the property and meet the 10 ’ side setback. A variance is required for setback from the wetland for a 20 ’ separation instead of the required 26 ’. The garage will also be located in front of tl .e front Ime of the residence. It will be 24 ’x24 ’ and have one garage door and used for storage of lake equipment. The door will be to the side. Gaffron reported that parcels H, E, and A could be legally combined. Gaffron asked for a statement why replacement will be in the particular location. He asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to see a larger setback from the street, whether they would accept a lesser wetland separation, or if the garage should be located on this parcel at all. Another issue is the replacement of the fence, which is located on the lake side of the road along the portion of land acquired by Brooks. The ro ad has 60 ’ right-of-way width. The edge of the road is actually 30’ away from the property boundary but the existing fence in the right-of-way is at the perceived boundary. Gaffron indicated that the poor condition of the fence is likely due to its proximity to the road. He reported that Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code requires a permit to allow this encroachment. A portion of the fence is located within the 0-75 setback. Gaffron said Staff recommends the fence not be allowed within the right-of-way and should be located at the property boundary. If it is located less than at the property boundary, it should be at least 15 ’ from the paved roadway with screening between the fence and the road. Gaffron said the applicant would be asked to sign a hold-harmless agreement for damage to and maintenance of the fence. He asked the Planning Commission to review the hardship statement. Mr. Brooks said the garage is part of the old Skarp property, and its replacement is a step in the clean-up process of the property. He intends to replace it with a storage garage with no driveway. He indicated there is no other location on the property on which to place the garage. It will service the house and lakeshore. Brooks said the fence is necessary for privacy and to eliminate trespassing. He noted the property is narrow in its width. The fence is currently located on the road side of the tree line and could located 6-8 ’ back as opposed to 4-6 ’. If it was located behind the tree line at about 10-12 ’, it would leave room for vegetation to grow and for snow plowing. He reported that most of the homes in the area have some sort of visible barrier within 6 ’ of the road with fences or trees, and he feels this fence would be consistent with the neighborhood. r I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) Robert Floyd, 960 West Femdale Road, agreed with the removal of the garage, noting it to be an eyesore and hazardous. He felt the problems with parking and trespassing were good reasons to allow the fence to be located closer to the road. Floyd said the road has a blind curve in that area. He felt the distance of the fence from the road as proposed is a good idea, and the existing fence should be removed. Floyd questioned the relationship between this property and the 20' strip of land. He indicated that it was his feeling the subdivision and improvements should not be addressed until this relationship has been solved. He does not feel permits should be issued without the determination. Jjrry McCourtney said his property is in sight of the proposed garage, and he supports the improvements proposed. Hawn said if the fence and garage received approval, both w ould be subject to the le^al approval of the subdivision with respect to the two lots. If pending legal action goes against it, she felt the app--riuM should be prepared to remove them. The combination with Brooks property must be solved. Brooks responded that the property to the north is not in dispute. He said he has no doubt about the ownership. The question is with the 20' strip of land. Brooks said he would remove the fence if he had to in the future. Lindquist was informed by Gaffron that no garage would be allowed in this location if proposed today. Lindquist noted the garage is hazardous but questioned approving it. Schroeder inquired about the proximity to the water. Gaffron said the garage had an issue with wetland separation. The lake is more than 75' away. Stoddard questioned if the garage could be built without the 10' front setback from the building to enable the 26' wetland separation. Gaffron noted the distances and said it could not be done. McMillan asked if the accessory structure was grandfathered in. The garage would be less than 26' from the wetland, subject to the same ordinances and would be non-conforming. Lindquist noted the problem with wetland on one side of the garage and the road on the other. Brooks said his hardship is the house located on an island wdth no additional room to place the garage. There is a main garage. He indicated a lakeside structure is important for storage. Lindquist informed him that the buildings as proposed could not be built new today. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) Floyd said he was conceptually in support of the plan. Schroeder indicated that the only compelling reason for approval of the fence is the existence of the fence today. He felt the fence should be moved back. Brooks said he would amend the plan to place it 10-12' behind the tree line. Gaffron said that distance would be better as it gives screening and a 10’ clear zone for plowing and parking. Stoddard inquired about the 6’ height. Gaffron said it would not normally be allowed. A county road is the only location where a fence of that height would be allowed. He questioned whether that height is appropriate. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the reconstruction of the fence at a minimum of 10' from the edge of the pavement behind the tree line. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. McMillan questioned whether the garage could be reduce to 18' to meet the 26' wetland separation with a street setback variance. Hawn noted it would be used for storage only. Brooks said he could reduce the size somewhat. Gaffron reported that the wetland edge has been delineated by the surveyor per the City map. The distance from the existing garage to the edge of the wetland has not been measured. The measurement may change where the garage should be located. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve a street setback variance and variance for an accessory structure nearer to the front of the street lot line than the existing residence. The garage is to be a maximum of 18'x24' and located 26' from the wetland boundary as per City map. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Lindquist, who felt the garage should not be built at that location at all. (#15) #2297 DARYL HANSEN FOR MRS. ROBERT KEITH, 1045 EDGEWOOD HILLS ROAD - VARIANCE • PUBLIC HEARING 12:56-12:59 A.M. % The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was represented by Daryl Hansen. Van Zomeren reported that the proposal is for an addition to the garage. Code requires that an accessory structure cannot be located closer than 1 O' from the principal structure. The reason for the location is to eliminate having an open area in which a person could fall into the pool. The approval of the variance would continue the existing encroachment. Van Zomeren said she supported the application as it makes the residence more accessible and is the least intrusive addition. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#15 - #2297 Daryl Hansen for Mrs. Robert Keith - Continued) Hansen said it was the attempt to keep the structure as far away from the pool as the current structure. The pool is required for handicap uses. The space requirement meets what is required to address the handicap issues. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Berg seconded, ;o approve Application #2297. Vole: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren noted that the application should be presented to Council at their September 22 meeting. (#16) PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SHORELAND AND ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT ORDINANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 12:59-1:20 A.M. Gaffron reported that the Council directed Staff to draft an amendment to the time period for upgrading a non-conforming septic system due to the lack of a 3' separation in the Shoreland District (within 1000 ’ from lakeshore). The current time frame is 2 years. Staff was also asked to revise ordinances so that a building permit or variance application will no longer trigger an immediate system upgrade in the Shoreland District for non-conforming systems solely due to the lack of 3' separation. Gaffron reviewed the shoreland code and septic system code. He noted the rationale for this proposed amendment changes is the Council's intention to review the policies on sewer in the rural area. The current cost for septic system replacement is nearing the cost of municipal sewer and sewering is a possible outcome of the policy review. The areas outside the Shoreland are allowed 10 years in which to comply when the 3' separation is the only reason for being non-compliant. The time frame was chosen based on the sheer number of systems needing replacement, and the City's long-standing program of requiring immediate replacement of failing systems as a higher priority. TTie two-year time frame had been suggested by the DNR. Gaffron reported that the legislature has changed its direction regarding ordinances on existing systems and are continually making more changes. Gaffron indicated that these amendments make logical sense and would allow a study to be done regarding where the City is heading on sewering. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#16 Proposed Amendment of Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance - Continued) Schroeder asked and received an explanation of what "separation" means. Schroeder was informed of the numbers needing replacement at this time and the percentage within the Shoreland. McMillan was informed that it is unknown how many properties have an alternate septic site at this time. Gaffron said due to this, the ten hot spots were developed. Mike Schulte reported that the neighbor of his on Wildhurst Trail that initiated discussion of diis proposal had purchased additional land to allow an addition to be built within the code requirements for setback. The purchase of the additional land triggered the use of it for a new system to meet the 3' separation. He questioned how reasonable the request was when the preferred location for the septic was the only site available prior to the purchase of the additional land. Schulte also questioned when the testing was done with recent rains increasing the problem with meeting the 3' separation. Gaffron informed him that the soil characteristics are what is cht.-cked and timing is incidental, that recent rains won't influence the test results. Jabbour noted the City's desire to assist the homeowner, but the result of the Council and Staff review is the changing information regarding separation. Jabbour noted that there are 250 systems identified as non-conforming, and the number will increase. He said the City is trying to understand the formula used by agencies in relationship to standards. Septic systems have been one method whereby low density has been maintained. Jabbour said he has changed his perspective regarding sewer as residents are becoming more willing to pay for sewer. The policy change would allow time for a study of possible changes in regards to septic systems and sewering in the City for long range planning. Schroeder questioned the liberal guidelines with the vast majority of systems with less than a 1' separation. Jabbour said the solution is unknown at this time but did not want to see 600 new septic systems. He felt time is necessary to review the issues. Stoddard inquired of the time frame and whether the Shoreland District should be considered a higher priority than other properties. Hawn was informed that the 10 year time period was to be consistent with non-shoreland properties. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#16 Proposed Amendment of Shoreland and On-Site Sewage Treatment Ordinance - Continued) Hawn thought the time frame was too long considering the public hazards. Jabbour said the time frame could be revisited. Stoddard suggested a 5 year time limit. He felt swimming water should be considered differently from water in aquifers, which takes years to affect. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the proposed amendments Vote: Ayes 4, N^s 2 Hawn, Stoddard, who agreed with the rationale but felt 10 years was too long a time ® felt it should be considered differently based on surface water quality. Schroeder noted that the septic systems that are failing are repaired. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#17) REPORT BY PLANNIVG COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 25 AND SEPTEMBER 8,1997 No report was given. (#18) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No other issues were discussed. (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18,1997 MEETING Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetmg ofAugustlS, 1997. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 22,1997 September 22 - Stoddard ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:23 a.m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person r City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE TO: FROM: October 6, 1997 Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: For Your Information—Articles Following this memo are two articles for your information. The first is a faxed memo from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding plat approval authority. The Land Slide piece is a pro/con editorial on property rights. October 1.1997 4:00 PM From: AMM AMM FAX NEWS 4fff! fix Kewf h fixtifffMlaty ti a/Wt dtf Hmsm mi iiainimm. Iht iofimititaisiiitaMttkdurdwitliiaif- m, (mdlindstiffia ilia (9 keptffdih iiitiit iffafiimt ntm dtyhm. (ipfwtitnijiijAhM UfMmdtyAmitftot U PM miffio^-2044 fdtflmtnsiooo fKiSingg ladl Mi(HaHm(S>Mcm Fax #:Page 2 of 2 L\ Aiiociation of Metropolitan Municipalities September 29-October 3, 1997 Counties, cities butt heads over plat approval authority /^^ounties, through the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), may seek legislation which gives them plat approval autho^i^y' over any subdivision plat within cities that abuts a county road. They believe this is necessorv becouse there are some in stances where they allege that city officials ignore county suggestions for issues such as right-of-way acquisition for future county road exponslon and improper or dangerous multiple access to the road. They concede that in most cases, the current review and comment provision is working well, but they assert that future road costs may be significantly higher to acquire right-of-way and overcome the dangers of improper access in cases where cities either dorVt forword the preliminary plat for the 30-day county review as required by law, or completely ignore county comments. A list of county problems encountered Include: inad equate right-of-way. multiple access, nonconforming access, late Of no review requests and development with no access permits. These will lead to higher future cost to overcome environ- mental ond right-of-v/oy prob lems. Dal Ota County was given this authority in 1*>72 and at least three AMM member cities have expressed dissotisfaction with the interaction and arbitrariness of the county. AMM and LMC committees have adopted policy opposing any legislation to defer city final authority for plot approval to the county tor any reason. The AMM and LMC have ottered to establish a small joint committee to work with the counties to resolve the issue non-tegislotively. At this point, we can only suggest that all cities follow the letter of the current low in M3 505.03, subdivision 2 to give the county its 30-day review period and to seriously consider county comments. Especially, since all metro counties have adopted cost sharing arid oriy future increased costs due to lack of proper fight-ot-woy or access will be at least poitiy borne by the city. Please provide comments to Roger Peterson at the AMM office (2IS--1000). I ! ^ r City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: October 6, 1997 Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECn*: For Your Information—Articles Following this memo are two articles for your information. The first is a faxed memo from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding plat approval authority. The Land Slide piece is a pro/con editorial on property rights. i [)\< reach ; wrong )dy who buys ink I Afer some bal- When you don ’t, worse than they >pt 17 column, ion listens to its nnesota ’s public |rere dismayed by nd their students It was our mem- 1 re-evaluate our • • t initially opposed — from open itewlde testing." and didn't even .cts. The MEA long before the to explain it at early childhood larten; extend- school-to-work tools of edu- p. We also sup- I at 'least attempt issues. Polarized rify issues.... UOY SCHAUBACH ST. PAUL 'olumn was accu- ions arc throwing 1. Legislature's ('ation tax credits II. He was badly inalysts saw (the on." cal analysts" Mr. bumal called the : a tax credit or t any public, pri nt’s) clraice," “a '■'orbes magazine Land Slirf Somuuiii6S p ublit wutudii Miui pitiaid Uiuircsts, deflating property values. State Sen. Dan Stevens has been holding meetings around Minnesota to promote Ms ^CONill PlflNiVh. f^’fLES? / 72- bflto ate property owners for government actions ike rezonii^ Birt not everyone agr^ with his prioriti ..:it PRO: Excessive intrusion violates constitutional property rights 11 happens every day: well-intentioned people doing dee^ D an SteVENS I in the name of "good public policy." The trouble is, guest columnist these good intentions are subverting the U.S. Constitution, —————— and the court system is letting it happen. I’m referring to private property rights vs. excessive government regulation. The practice of taking private property in the name of the public good, without due compensation, is beaming every landowner's nightmare. As more and more regulations arc passed at the federal, state and local government levels, proper ty owners are finding themselves under siege. The premise and definitions of private prpp^y rights are constantly being rein terpreted and redrafted by planning commissions, zoning boards, and local, ^te and federal government agencies. Many regulations confiscate not only the rights of landowners, but the value of the property, with no thought of compensation. Th^ practices are strictly against the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, who held the most precious right of American citizenship to be the ownership of private property. The right of eminent domain has been upheld since the beginning of our national government, but “just compensation" for the taking of pri vate property has always been a fundamental component of that process under the Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause." For the past 70 years, the Takings Clause has bewn reinterpreted in the courts to imply that one must lose nearly the total value of one ’s property in order to seek compensation. Most regulations that attach unreasonable or dispropor tionate conditions on the property ’s use do not reduce the value of the propert' to zero. In the vast majori ty of rircumstanccs, the regulations reduce the value by 25 or 50 per cent, and in these situations the owner gets no compensation. When a thief takes 75 percent of a person ’s property, no one has difficulty calling that a “taking.” But when the government does the same thing, the court has ben ODwOl- ing to call it a "taking" unless the individual loses the entire value of the property. We must make it clear that “property ” includes all the uses that can be made of a holding — the very uses that give property its value. When regulaUons take away Uiose uses, the owner loses rights and is due compensatimi. This does not imply that property owners may use their holdings in ways that will injure their neighbors, but we must take care when defining the nuisance exception to the Takings Clause. Uses that injure a neighbor through various forms of pollution — including noise, odors or vibrations or through exposure to excessive risk — mu.st bo prohibited. However, u.ses that injure one thr^h eco nomic competition, or by blocking his “view," or by offending his aesthetic sensi bilities, are not nuisances because they violate no rights a neighbor can claim.-' The principle is this: People may use their property in any way they wish pri>- vided that in the process they do not take what belongs free and clear to others. Regulatioas prohibiting such uses arc wrongful to begin with. To rectify that, 1 have drafted and introduced legislation calM the Private Property Protection Act, which ensures that a property owner will be compensated when a state or local regulation reduces the market value of pri vate property in Minnesota. Compensation would not be required if the regulation was intenjled to prevent harm to the health and safety of the public and would not affect any constitutional ly required remedy. If the state or any of its political suixfiyi- sions imposes or changes ai^ land-use plan ning, zoning or other regulatory pro^am tliat reduces the previous fair maricet value, the county auditor would be required to adjust the taxpayer ’s valuatioo downward by an amount equal to the lost value. I ;)*an to request hearings on this legislation when the Senate convenes in January. It is my hope that Uw state of Minnesota becomes a leader in the redefinition of private prop erty in this country. We must restore the dream of private pro|>erty ownership as a funda mental right of American citi zenship. ■MMm i^caders may write to state Sen. Stevens. R Mora. at 105 Slate Office Bldg., St. Paul, Minn. 55155. • • CON: All for one and one lor ... KSjptol? it will make the juicy subsidiM proposed „u^S» uTrl<i««» II.. -.i.Kr*; S that What a truly amazing con- r‘d.'^7S2JtS,'S.«iJ2ri3‘S.i‘4s?rt ^‘wit^rmw*'7iM^ scenarios "“!£L1 £SdKutif?« because the local government one SO goes movement ’s credo Ihus decreasing the value of my property. g 3:Ksr,ijrii£3 =-SS=iiH.wi~^ "?m^~\iteresting what about overzoning? suSSi ri. ilrip man .1»« U« ^s s!i,« to Lid him get his land rezoned fromSa'r.i.EMrR'WSiS UJOK a wwac °'.r» iJtiUnrw.'y «■"">“•» I" "111U, J J wr dVddies of WW mall »«».« ” •'"of'lS' Kip side 01 the taaiogs tote is tteSSSmSkt ‘sirjrp««l. .hat s.™ urn. «.s^ STiShilSrS to m<;re tin ^latid in «»l •«. ““/rite««r« What a return on investment — lor me ^ to provide witoi- and sewer servl^. ««r«. todedde on the permitted (commercial) ipcs. • iSSislatoTKMiS ‘'that laipayers rccoitre compat- “K ™ly'K^. Itoiaiiie UK W^lta StiirsTo ftroo “;^wS‘'i SfoSx pn«ic back into public policy. N«a.y is a (ocmer DFL stale legtslolor hot^on ^ a staff, member of the Institute for Self ReU^. 1313 Fifth St. S.E.. Suite 306, Minneapolis, Minn. 55414. ; • •1997 WMlaoed Pra«M*ien«l SwvleM kw..... '‘'''J ViniNtTY MAP Construction Plans for Sanitar Storm for Sewer, Water Main, ewer and Streets LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS Orene, Mn. prepared by;w Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 104 Ma ty Drive, Suite 3 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Contad : Fran Hagen, II Phone 682-2587 project NO. 97571 #2008 I MMX MO DfSCftiPTlON 1 COWTR 2 BOUNDARY SURVEY 3 EXISTING CONDITK3NS AND TREE REMOVAL 4 PNEUkMNARY PLAT s PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 6 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 7 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ■A ■SIS mmmm prepored for: Eaglecrest Northwest, INC 3030 Harbor Lone North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Contact; John Gleason Phone: 553-2726 ^ DATE e/as/«r SHEET 1 OF T 7729CVPV0WC ‘99 7 Weslwaod Sf^ryices. l^c. LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRAF ’HIC SCALE Lots 2 and J, Block 9, Townsite of Langdon Park. Hennepin County, Minnesota and WfesF 6.3 feet Lot 4. Block 9, Townsite of Langdon Park. Hennepin County, Minnesota. REVISIONS Inc 104 Mortr Dr.v* WU ^ f»uHo<o. WN r DRABN RRW cMoax)SAG -J PUfPAWD Fun BROOK PARK REALTY, LLP •fM lOMMOOK CROStMQ BROOKLYN RANK, MBMIBOTA S8443 I I ..j’ 1 3 1 LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS ORONO, MN. CERTIFICATE OF SUIIVEY r. We«twoo4 Pre<e*skMtd! Services, trve. ..O''";?' iniMT* SITE AREA - GROSS EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING LANDUSE PLAH PROPOSED TOlANHOME UNITS PROPOSED DENSITY - CROSS PROPOSED DENSITY - NET MTI mUM SITE AREA - GROSS RETLANDS SITE AREA - NET LOT «MAS OUTLOT A OUTLOT B LIVINGSTON A« ROR AVERAGE LOT AREA AVERAGE BLDG AREA / UNIT FRONT BLDG SB. / REAR BLDG SB. SIDE YARD SIDE YARD BETREEN BUILDINGS LIVING AREAS GARAGES PARKING - REOUIRED/PROVIDED PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) 432.666 1SF (9.9AC.±) LR-1C-1 LR-IC^-I LA-2 (RESIDENTIAL) 30 3.0 UNITS / AC (3.0 ALLOWABLE 3.9 UNITS / AC. (4.0 ALLOWABLE 432.666 1SE (99AC.4) 98.970.0SF (2.2AC ±) 333,696.1SF (7.7AC.±) 79.597SF (1 BAC.t) 267.703SE (6 1AC.±) 34.537V (O.BAC.t) 1,695V 9972V (0.3AC.*) • WTMCRt * REQUIRED 3VT PROVIDED 30ET 4 0 PER UNIT 10FT 20ET TOTAL MINIMUM 20ET TOTAL MINIMUM 2.5 PER UNIT 17-117-23-34-0005 17-117-23-34-0006 17-117-23-34-0007 17-117-23-34-0008 17-117-23-34-0009 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 2. 3 AND THE REST 6.29 FEET OE LOT 4. BLOCK 9. TOWNSITE OF LANGOON HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD THERE OF. HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA. THESE PLANS RERE PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF. FRAN HAGEN II. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 17716 SCOTT GYUEN. REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 23002 ED HAVK. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 16454 ROB BOUTA, ENVIRONMENTAL VEOALIST (WEaANOS) PROPERTY OANER: TONKA VENTURE. L.L.C. 200 COON RAPIDS BLVD. SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55433-5894 DEVELOPER: BROOK PARK REALTY. LLP 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING BROOKLYN PARK. MN. 55443 REAR BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE BLOCK NUMBER LOT LINE LOT NUMBER LOT DIMENSION SIDEWALK FRONT BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE DRI'/EWAY ♦ NOTE; MINIMUM 30FT BLDG. SETBACK TO PUBLIC ROW TYPICAL LOT NOT PON CONiTlluenON REVISIONS >1mm Wotiwood dK4Ct ond »Not 1 orr NfClSTCNfO iPftifiMlD EON MIMMC PAM MALTY LLP r ■' LAKE yiNNCTOliKA PfoP»t«io^ Nh 104 Of<4 $urt* ) LARW W* 5liit4 ©f liinn«©ofo. CMCCrto SC vnwM viBMb ■ ■ 1 kwr MM ■DWMOOK CMMMQ WOODS PLATW W SuNolo. MN 55313 , ^ 5 » 502-2597 j ^DATF <^REG NO 2'W2 ,MOOiaVII PMR, MNMMTA M4M OROWO, MN. k. V SmT no. 4>«T^ >72tWO«6 . •1M7 MMtveod Profesatonol Sarvica*. Inc. REVISIONS w W#ttwood SantM. me 104 Mvty Onm Sun* 3 tkfff#*. MM 05313 •12 m-2S»7 I heraOy c«Ufy (hot pion areporM Or me or ynOV mf OOKt wiawvMiow »>4 mat I am o dmr '•0«1»a4 LANDSCAOf ' ' I yotaAMChHICT taiMv »a nATF 9/25/97 RFC NO. ’6*54 tmsm oaerto EH <o TYPICAL LOT REAR BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE BLOCK NUMBER lot number LOT DIMENSION LOT LINE sidewalk FRONT BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE DRIVEWAY \ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PftPtMS roM ■ROOK PARK REALTY. LLR MM naanooK caoaaaM aMOW-vN rAM(, MaasaoTA mms LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS OaONO, MML 1Y •ITE PLAN DATEa/atMT SMT. NO. •1997 Mdaood Pro(«S8iofirt Servicaa, Inc. \ NC1LANO UNITS AS ^ \OCUHEATED BY v„ <"•- % _____\„ , \ l'msnn^ B/97 '■■ i'3, f>„ \ \. I \ \ ;\ Y' \,I \ \ ■••, n :; f:-' ^ i-- -; 1 r !j! .X ■/■ • &5* .‘ 11^ ll P§1 1^- /" /^i I uv' A\l \\-^J4 :;; STA. 0*00 ASSUNBb Et UyWjosiqrt Vh^. STA. o*se • eLEv.«9oaM r* r: N - .**<' * -J. IW :i ^ t::i ■X:,; r, *i- ■.•> . \ '___1 ?1;1' '■■ il-i^' ' ‘ ■i I lU iiU! > i “ti-1»»V.i930.oa=^ "■rj£."X Sv.'SJ.rr ■" /■ i' \ -NW. - 930.0 HW. - 941.0 -SH.T FENCf (TY9.)^' V APPOOX U9MTS or EXIST. TRUS (TrV.) ■a'>x.. ill1Y-....i% i'isSS- 9CTLAN0 UNITS AS DELINEATED BY V*ESTWOOD 8/97 _. / / / /■ HENN. CO. HWY. ------^ ^fiS& ^^AC1NC #TM mm SL-«»o«r riNCt « rr ma « spa C ’N':; ioTHCwt #»t 9AjPPOHr sTNCt PU*4Q«N0 KLTf^ r*B»iC attach VO.»tL» TO uP<iT«»fA%» SliC Ot POST T? VOm x: 9* MA « pfc,riMMrNoro STORAGt HT. i COMPACTfD BAC*»'U k : STAMDAWD PgTAIL fW.N,- * u.\“ NOTf ’ NSPtcr A»oo »iP*« »tNCr Arri* (acm sTo^ ^and VD'MfTi* rn^rn N'CtSSAlT TO AN A«* THAT #L^ NOT CCJf.T ifL'IAINT Wr-SlTf ANL ClN HT ♦H^VANENn^ STA»iluT.D ALTEWMATE DETAIL 9LT FENCE LEGEND BBMons MjasTmo cmnoms atmnws ^iiawaegp cotawm BKMOTKs gBsmm smut sswm sumotss puoposss smut sswjm BSMOTSS sxtsmtc nsM uta Dsttons ptnsosMS ms uta Bsmrss SOT mtcs NOT PON CONtTNUCnON REVISIONS Wootwood •oolMod Pro«Mi9on« Sorv*e«*. R*c 104 mrnXt OrrM 9n H« 3 iufr^ MN S53T3 •12 «a2>2M7 DATE ^FP._REG NO__I~^T16 OPAtfi NH CKCWO) foh. II PMfPAACO roir MOOK PARK REALTY, LLP AIM M—HOOK CnOAAMO MWOiaTN AANR. MMMAOTA 68443 LAKE MNINETONKA WOODS ORONO, MN. PRELEMNAV ORAOEM PLAN REVISIONS W««twoo<i JOB NO. UAP -m. cctK • - f ■■;. - -v .J ,,,,, - ■■.>SGC'o7r • 1 .' T . .. •> '■M'- ■ft ■ V ■ .' :n> i ."■■ V ’ ' ■ ■■■■^.. '■'• P/Cfininj Ocnmtvb'f*^ ■ ' ■ •.. > ^-.'s (jfrr^\H w| Z)t BeHMO ROOF VOJT5» IF«r. iooi>OF^a»fS ’ 507. £■ ^Em I - 1 3 ■ f I . I ».«wi I I HU s; ^ I •'■•: i ->>•. I SSS. I i Is I s ■ —»■ ««MMM>«JilMllM«»ji l»|.l'l i i^E watiH* iai»isi-^l5IS|!?!|2uiinMniHi■nmiiiviii l■i9l■]■lPJ■l■H ,1^. 1^' if« 1?^i?s* iss _:_;l.ji -la'ia liMiiPliliiiii ^Bg^iiiniwiniBi liPiHHTiiiiPM ^fflai BipiMiiiiriMiB lilMHMiIMMm aaBggaiwufiifWig i £'*>»OU3WSrS C0XJWitA 'ITpm^cp Ml- fP*m^ eAf^At^-|==R^S>M?=-Q=&\^^ + ^••s.nE vcnarv^. Nv^M&eF.oFrv;MrTS re^ lujac, p ■A 5 '^4 NEW Home •• ^^LE. <5R, M.W. PV-N4 b401 pate; .<^7 ;i4&*f -p3nrP»^^>«iFT VIM'LL. / ■ -^ -pfl K i*-o' -T- ■-jVrJ 'HT^ ^ PBp™ WAU-^Rpf^ Pine ^«MP Gfy»oe pQM-cnr ^Qg eV-EV 66>:'/>k»»i^FfgQtJT EUgsy^: Vsi^g*■^tOE- £1_EV VWOUS S.H<X>Jk» ciLA«y?> ^uxy^ FLA^ q-I06»5 ■ C' • . f ‘ CFT FLAvT no(p>-b V I* ^7o«>3 / * . ■;;'-'i'?-t;S;'.,v.' - t .■-?'*Jf&* ■’»'F'.•“ ■fci' ^ ^.■.: - i/. v-i'-iir -Srf*■ f ■ . 'r.. ^ '' '' *'* .4^ f V V 1* R^\/r Sc^ev^Ltr : C7y! 6/*r I y>* <rry j_>? . /P ^ L//Jt)£AJ 5 , A1 az 5^m. >4sm y 5' ZtufM, B/eu* 7 . S’-fc' CcaCDfc./tI>0 StMT 5*i8uc^ /C ' 5-4.' ^ /Vitfci S/%i4tr 6 I'A# e.n> Sptcicfclfc. C#Ae 7 .........1 *( . SMll^420Ba*T _Cn.4va i f Jl .H 30 . j_lft" ^ tCP Twitj Ur _.30 . >8^ 6usvj B cacx . CHPte8«ia| Lsi_.%30 ; M5’ Cr. ItiHtra ^tJt€A> .30 . /S* .iSodoTxiWHt. . V V ♦* U a /JT ^/AMjfnuitA UftaoS . ' « u ' ’^'; !v;. 'sr ;4T A^.k^. Xax. 5/.’ 6rK*t^ La /uc>'Sca (*^ Trc, STC 652Z *7^ Bf^t^tlApJ J iMMjfj.’ iiz^irr ^ ‘ ^. ‘ ^r< u* * • . ■ •‘* -, ■ >.^- >>!■ »’■ 00 bo TypiCAu Uiutr . .V ^2^ IS dD 1./ ■‘{*1 ■• r* ^.^2 . #1 V •* ' ' 14!* »'V j * •-H- 7 V ' ' f ■ i •f ' ■•> /-V t .* Jt**