Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1995 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 16,1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Stephen Peterson, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, Charles Schroeder, who arrived after Items #I and 3 were discussed and Item #6 was tabled. Candace Rowlette and Sandra Smith were absent. The following represented the City Staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaftron and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan and Council Member Goetten were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. (#1) #2076 ROBERT ROBERTSON AND WELDON H. DUNN, 3535/3565 WATERTOWN ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CLASS I - PUBLIC HEARING 7:01-7:04 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for a division of a sir.ailer parcel. The parcel to the east is less than the required 2 acres with the wetland with a slight encroachment into parcel B. Parcel A will be 2 acres and parcel B will remain at 3 acres. There would be no encroachment of the septic site areas. The division line follows a fence and along a natural division created by higher elevations. A dedication of right-of-way via quit-claim deed for Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road is required. Peterson asked the Applicants if they were familiar with the Staff recommendations, in particular, the right-of-way dedication and survey, and received confirmation of this. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2076 with conditions 1 -4 as noted. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2078 JENSEN HOMES, INC, 405 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-8:11 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Contractor, Mr. Jensen, was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is for a 2-lot subdivision of a 10 acre parcel. The north lot is 7+ acres and Lot 2 is 3.5 acres. The property is located within two zoning districts, LRl A to the north at 2 acres, and LRIB to the south at 1 acre lots The lot lines encroach both districts and setbacks are subject to the respective zoning. The driveway serves a parcel to the west, the Knight property, which is located in the LRIB zoning district and is 3.5 acres in size, and could be further subdivided. Mabusth located the MUSA line. The property located to the west is within the MUSA, and the subject property is located out of the MUSA. The existing septic is non-conforming and will need to be replaced. Staff has asked for two septic sites for the northern lot. All four sites would be a mound-type septic system. The issue of the driveway is a concern for this application according to Mabusth. Traditionally, Staff would ask for an 30' outlot for the shared driveway, but this is not a back lot/lfont lot configuration. Another application under sketch plan review on this agenda involves a property to the southwest of this property and proposes the vacation of Oak Street and Clyde Place roadways with Linden Avenue to remain. This vacation may have an impact on this particular application. If the two rights of way are to be vacated, how is the City to maintain public access to property to west of subject property. Existing driveway easement would not meet access standards for development of 3 lots. Mabusth reviewed various options for achieving access to western property, all involving the subject property. Staff has been notified that Bennett would not be in favor of any changes nor of the granting of any more right-of-way for Linden Avenue. Jensen said the applicant would also be opposed to the driveway outlot. The owner would have a problem dedicating land from her property where the subject property would not receive a benefit and only a negative impact on a future building site. Peterson asked how it would be viable to gain access to the property. Jensen said the applicant would propose access without a cul-de-sac encroaching the Bennett property. He does not wish to create a plat and give up any portion of the property. Jensen said connecting Linden with the existing easement would only serve the Knight property. No future subdivision is proposed and the applicant would like to do private plantings on the south property line. Barry Knight said he does not understand the terms used and asked for clarification on what was an outlot and what platting suggested. Mabusth replied that an outlot would enable the shared access drive to be seen on a plat map where easements are not designated. Both areas of driveway outlots and easement driveway are deducted from lot area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (ft2 - #2078 Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth asked Jensen how wide is the easement shown on the deed. Jensen said the width of the easement was not described to his recollection, only the width of the road. Knight said it was his impression that a dimension was listed, but not the 30' spoken of Jensen clarified that with an outlot Bennett would retain ownership and and Knight's easement would be within that outlot. The easement would also be excluded from the buildable area. Knight inquired about setbacks from the outlot. Mabusth said the setback would probably be 10' and noted that 35' would be the setback if it was a private or public road. Jensen noted that there are only two viable drainfield options and was concerned with any alternate site. Hawn commented if the vacation was to the benefit of the three applicants of #2077, why not have any access on the properties of that application instead of on the Bennett property. Mabusth said the Planning Commission could ask for the exact dimensions of easement, and if the Planning Commission felt it would be unfair to take an easement from Bennett that should be stated in your recommendation. Peterson asked why Bennett would be opposed to the outlot configuration if it serves no hardship to either setbacks or drainfield and is two independently owned parcels and serves the Knight property. Mabusth said it would affect the property as the side setback would be measured from the north lot line if the outlot as opposed to the south lot of proposed lot 2. There is no setback from an easement drive. Mark Gronberg said the re^stered survey shows two tracts. The outlot would just trigger the driveway serving two properties. He noted that it was always designated a driveway and would not result in any change. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they would allow the area in question for outlot designation to remain as a driveway easement. Mabusth said Knight wants to keep the driveway easement, but this easement could never serve a future division of the Kmght property. Lindquist commented that the solution does not aid the Bennett property. Lindquist said the applicant is asking whether the property can be subdivided. He asked if the City can force an outlot or leave as an easement. Mabusth said the area can be left as an easement, but the area of the easement must be excluded from lot area. Lindquist suggested leaving the area as an easement. There were no public comments. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#2 - U201% Jensen Homes - Continued) Mabusth commented that Staff would want the easement defined on the plat. It was again noted it was unclear how much area was designated on the abstract. Gronberg suggested looking at the traveled road. Lindquist said designation of the number of feet for the easement would be required. Knight suggested the application be tabled until all parties involved in the two applications can meet and discuss a solution satisfaCi. ry to all parties. Schroeder suggested tabling the application until the facts of the later application were made known. Jensen asked if the original deed does not specify an easement width, if it could be approved subject to the survey by Gronberg of the roadway. It was noted that the easement and roadway need to be designated as the numbers may differ. There was also concern if the septic site was in the easement. Jensen noted the easement would only benefit Knight and not the general public. He also asked if the approval could be based on what the deed shows as the easement. Peterson said without knowing the size of the easement, the Planning Commission would need to table the application. Lindquist said the Commission also needed to gain information on the other properties in question. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2078 subject to determining the size of the easement and the knowledge of the other affected application. Knight commented that he would also like to hear the facts of the other application and suggested that application be tabled also. Mabusth replied that Application #2077 is a sketch plan review only and no motion would be needed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2031 BRUCE R. KELLY, 2340 FOX STREET - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:04-7:09 P.M. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a division of two lots of a 6 acre homestead parcel. The preliminary survey has been completed. Principal and alternate septic sites have also been determined for each lot. The future owner of the 4 acre lot will need to understand the impact of an easement on lot area. The existing driveway location can be shared by the east lot. No variances would be required. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#3 - #2031 Bruce Kelly - Continued) Peterson asked Kelly if he understood the Staff recommendation and the need for Park Dedication fee on the new lot and a drainage easement. Kelly said he was not familiar with these requirements and was concerned with the process. He asked that the application be approved and moved forward. He did not wish to discuss the application further. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recomntend approval of Application #2031 with conditions 1-4 as noted. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Schroeder, who was not present for the entire discussion. (#4) #2041 PHIL AND DARCY OTTO« 4116 UIGHWOOD ROAD • AFTER-THE- FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:11-8:19 P.M. The ap^iiicants were present. Mabusth reported that the application was an afler-the-fact application for excavation of street yard which followed a recent variance application. The current application involves the creation of an additional curb cut, two tiers of retaining walls, and placement of approximately 150 to 200 cubic yards of fill in east side yard and rear. Mr. Sauer, a neighbor to the east, voiced concern with the filling and any impact runoff would have on his property where the drainage flows into. The application was tabled to gain the City Engineer's input on the drainage issue. Mabusth said Cook reported that there was no perceivable impact from die filling. Mr. Sauer was notified and asked to attend this meeting if he had any further concern. Sauer was not in attendance. Mabusth said a 3; I slope was impossible to obtain for the east side yard. The yard has been graded at a 2; 1 slope and planted with crown vetch. A special seeding and erosion blanket will be laid to hold the dirt in place until the plantings take hold. Mabusth said a catch basin was originally discussed. There is now drain tile in place which will collect the runoff from road into a trench, then flows underground and directed out to the rear yard. Staff recommends approval with the City Engineer to reinspect when 1) final grading is completed before stormwater improvements are installed and 2) after seeding. The Applicant noted that alot of detail has been reviewed with the Engineer. Mabusth informed the applicant that it was important that the Engineer is called in to reinspect at these critical times MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#4 - #2041 Phil and Darcy Otto - Continued) Schroeder inquired and received confirmation that Sauer had no further objections. Otto said he has not spoken with Sauer since the last meeting. The owner to the east, according to Otto, has given his approval of the plan as he has not responded to Staffs letter. Lindquist asked if the applicant was still parking his boat on the curb cut. The applicant said he stores the boat off site. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2041 for an after-the-fact conditional use permit with Staff recommendations 1-4 and final grading approved by the City Engineer. The owner is to arrange for inspections by the City Engineer before seeding and after seeding. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2056 MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY, 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - VAIUANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:19-8:28 P.M. The applicants were represented by landscaper. Matt Laue. Gaffron reported that the proposal has been revised. The initial proposal was for a retaining wall located at the base of the slope with fill behind it. Another boulder wall was to be constructed at the top of the hill with grading and fill to flatten out the area. The property has a steep bank to the lakeshore. The house on the property is fairly new. There are presently 3:1 and 2:1 slopes. The applicants are concerned with poison ivy on the slopes. Gaflfon reported that the Planning Commission has previously rejected the idea of grading to eliminate the poison ivy. Planning Commission suggested elimination of the lower boulder wall. Gaffron asked Laue about the drain tile found on the property. Laue said it begins on the upper stair to the front and exits by a tree. He sees no function for the tile and feels grading above the slope will do a better job in eliminating erosion. Another issue of concern was with the portion of the 0-75* area lined with fabric covered by mulch. Gaffron said this was hardcover but there may be a good reason for the material to exist. There are no hardcover calculations for the property. If approval is recommended, hardcover calculations will be needed for the existing and proposed walls and fabric. The only other existing hardcover in the 0-75* is the stairs and tops of boulders. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 #5 - #2056 Michael and Barbara Wigley - Continued) GaDron said if the Planning Commission was in favor of the revision, clarification should be provided on what walls could be erected and what fill or grading could be done. The applicant was notified that it was not the intent of the Commission to recommend any grading in the slope area containing poison ivy. Lindquist said he was concerned with hardcover in the 0-75' but was in favor of the walls near the house. Peterson said he did not recommend any retaining wall at the bottom of the hill and was undecided on recommending the boulder wall at the top of the hill. He understood the applicant's attempt in addressing concerns of the property. Although he was not in favor of the retaining walls, he would give his approval for their construction. Laue commented that the fabric was only in the area behind the retaining wall. It is his intent to remove the fabric as the mulch will accomplish the same purpose. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval limited to the boulder wall at the top of the hill only due to erosion problems. The approval is subject to the removal of the fabric throughout the property. No grading is allowed down to the shore line. Hawn inquired if all of the plantings as originally described would still occur. Laue said the plantings as designed will be planted. He was unsure of what plantings would be done on the slopes. Peterson emphasized that while planting on the slope was okay, no grading could be done. Laue suggested, when asked, that the poison ivy be removed by leather gloved hands during cold weather. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 14SS SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 20TH MEETING) Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2059 per the request of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE > VARIANCE RENEWAL > CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:28-8:31 P.M. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#7 - #2061 Ame Wasberg - Continued) Mabusth reported that the new owners of the property have filed to renew the original variance application. Peterson asked Mr. Wa^rg why he would wish to do so. Wasberg said he purchased the house in February of 1995 and wants to refurbish the house. In order to do so, it would require a variance. This renewal would allow him time to develop apian. Mabusth noted that the applicant has removed all of underhner hardcover on the property. It was noted that the 2-story improvement was not to encroach the lagoon any further than existing structures. The approval included a deck. The applicant has advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive and relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. They would plant evergreens along North Shore Drive to provide a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. Mabusth further added that the applicant’s plan was improvements to the home would not be as ambitious as that of the previous owner. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2061 because it had been approved in the past. Even if changes were made, Schroeder noted the changes would be to the better. There were no public comments. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2065 MR. & MRS. SAMUEL MARFIELD, 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE/MR. & MRS. H. DOUGLAS HILL, 2425 DOUGLAS PINE LANE/WILLIAM TOLES, 2435 SCOTCH PIN^* LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:31-8:58 P.M. The Applicants were present. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Gaffron reported that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was discussed and tabled awaiting review by the Long Lake Fire Department regarding how the vacation of Scotch Pine would affect the ability of the fire department in fighting a fire on these properties. New exhibits as part of this package include a review of the City's policy and philosophy regarding public roads, the BRW Fire Protection review of the traffic and environmental conditions, and a revised preliminary plat. The Marfields and Hills would share a driveway from the existing cul-de-sac with each party increasing the size of their parcels with the vacation of the road. The vacation and replat would enable the Hills to have a continuous piece of property to the lake. Mr. Toles would access his residence through a new driveway from CoRd 51. There would occur some narrowing of the driveway serving the Marfieids and Hills. Mike Brown of the Long Lake Fire Department was in attendance and reported on the concerns of the fire department. Brown said the department requires a certain road width to allow for staging for trucks to get past each other. The roadway also needs to be able to handle 40,000 lbs. of equipment. Brown said with the street as it is, there is room for the fire department to operate. The trucks would not be able to access the portion of the driveway to the Toles residence. The Hill property with driveway as proposed will allow the street to remain the same with the entry area narrower. The Marfields, while asking to narrow their driveway entrance, have been asked by the fire department to maintain the road at a wider width, which will enable fire trucks and their RV to gain access to the house. The fire department would like the driveway to the Toles residence to be wide enough to enable personnel to walk around the area. Brown said he would need a road width of 16' able to support a weight of40,000-50,000 lbs. This would be asking more than required by the City, and he would accept the same as a City street. The City code requires a road to handle 46,000 lbs. Brown noted that this is the first time the fire department has been asked what needs they have for a private driveway. Peterson asked Brown, if he had a choice, would he keep the road as it now exists. Brown said he is not in favor of cul-de-sacs as the residence becomes cut off once the equipment is set up. The fire department would benefit from gaining a wider road, and he is in approval of eliminating the cul-de-sac and the proposal as revised. Hill noted that the revision involves maintaining some of the driveway blacktop. Gaffron reported that besides the fire issue, there is the issue of subdivision performance standards. The properties contain three building sites and access to the lake. By today’s standards, three lots in a rural zone require a private road. Gaffron said he is concerned with moving standards backwards with approval of this application. The applicants have provided a response on why they feel the proposal is appropriate and unique to the surroundings. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#8 - #2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Marfield read these findings into the minutes and are part of this package. He noted that Scotch Pine is the one 3-lot cul-de-sac that drains into the lakeshore, and it has been a 20- year effort to gain the grass and trees back to the property. Marfield said this was the only 3-lot cul-de-sac with one lot in two parts divided by a road. Due to its location, the public is attracted to the road in order to gain access to the lake, yet there is none. Marfield said all three applicants are supportive of the proposal. He also noted that other properties in the area have more than one driveway access, where these properties have only the one access. Gafiron said another standard issue is with 3 lots currently abuting a public road and now Marfield's property will abut only an outlet. GafTfon said this creates a back lot configuration. He also noted the lot size being substandard with 1 acre lots in 2 acre zoning. Easements are also an issue. The existing utility easements would need rededication if changed. A letter from Minnegasco asks if Scotch Pine is vacated, an easement for their facilities should be granted over the existing roadway. NSP is not in favor of the proposal, but Gaffron is of the opinion that the easement could be worked out with NSP. Gaffroiv ui. 'fd that a drainage plan has been provided, but it has not been reviewed as of yet by the City Engineer. A catch basin would be eliminated and runoff would flow over land as area is reverted back to grass. Engineer's review would be required prior to presentation to the Council. Gaffron said the neighbors to the east, the Levy's, ask for a 15* setback for the new driveway to the Toles property. Gaffron said this was not a code requirement except that no grading is normally allowed within 5' of the lot line. Toles said he would honor this request. Gaffron voiced concern over the possibility of setting a precedent by approving a proposal which is in contrast to what is being currently asked of other subdivisions. Gaffron noted that CoRd 51 is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a parkway, which functions as a collector. The code for collector roads does not require new lots to use an internal access, but the comprehensive plan suggests that this be done when it is possible. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission should make specific findings of uniqueness if they approved the proposal. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16. 1995 (#8 - #/2065 Scotch Pine Lane - Continued) Peterson said he was in favor of retaining a road and utility easement for possible future needs of the City. He asked what opinion others had if approval for the proposal was ^ven while maintaining the easement for the cul-de-sac. Toles said the parties of the application would need to discuss the matter, but he was of the opinion that if the cul-de- sac was turned back to grass, no one would care to change it again to blacktop in the future. Marfield said he was worried that another governmental body would make the change once again to blacktop in the future, and he would be uncomfortable with maintaining the easement after working so hard to eliminate it. Schroeder asked Staff if these properties were a possible candidate for a loop road but was told by Gaffron no. Schroeder acknowledged the uniqueness of these properties and noted the undesirability of a cul-de-sac except for fire department use, which is disputable. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2065 as revised for the removal of the cul-de-sac and addition of a driveway from the Toles residence to CoRd 51 with a 15' side setback for reasons stated in the memos, specifically, reduction in hardcover, result of fire department review which showed no increased risk, with approval by Mn/DOT for additional curb cut, approval for vacation of Scotch Pine with conditions as noted, approval of replat, and rededication of utility easements. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, for reasons of setting a precedent and desire for maintaining the cul-de-sac easement for future access if needed. (#9) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WAADE, 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE - VAWANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:58-9:11 P.M. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application was before the Commission at the last meeting for a number of variances to remodel and build an addition to the residence on Shoreline Drive. The lot is small and does not lend itself for rebuilding. The house and garage currently has a carport and is covered with a flat roof The original proposal was for a second story with a 10:12 pitch roof From the lake side, the house was proposed at a ground-to-peak height of 46' but technically did meet the code height limit. The Planning Comnussion's earlier review concluded that the proposal was too ambitious for the lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#9 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Gafiron said the revised proposal calls for hardcover removal with cutting back the driveway area. The revision would alter the foot print area with the addition of a garage stall and an entry way area. The sharp comers would be cut off and an area would be bumped out. There would be no second story. Some additional height would be gained from a 10:12 pitch roof over the entire stnicture. The residence would encroach past the average lakeshore setback. A side setback variance would be required as the garage would be located within the 30' setback. The new setback is proposed at 16* where it now exists at 8'. The bump out is located at 19' from the side lot line. The entry is within the 0-75' zone. The house wotdd encroach 13' past the average setback with the new roof Gaffron noted that the house -r.cated to the north of this property is on low topography and would not be affected by this proposal. The house to the south has minimum view over applicant's house now and would no longer have any view of the lake with this proposal. Gaffron reported that the lot coverage with this proposal would be at 15.37% where 15% is allowed. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 39.1 8% and is proposed at 36.14%. 25% hardcover is allowed in the 75-250' zone and exists at 15.96% and would be decreased to 9.25%. The hardcover for the driveway portion serving the neighbor is not included in the calculations. No height variance would be required with the new roof proposed at a ground-to-peak height of 35.8'. The applicant said it was his desire to minimize the impact of the huust^ on the property and neighborhood v. hile still gaining a house up to today's standards. Hawn inquired what would become of the broken asphalt on the property near the shoreline. Waade said it will be removed and replaced with pea rock, which he understands to be non-hardcover. Lindquist asked about the open area between the house and garage. This would be expanded for the master bedroom. When inquiring about the size of the garage, Lindquist was told the garage would be increased to a 3 -stall from its present 2-stall configuration. Schroeder was concerned with reduction of rock/plastichardcover in the 0-75'. Gaffron said the entryway area included rock and plastic which was not noted in the calculations. It was noted that the 4' overhang would be eliminated and replaced with 1-1/2' overhang, which has not been figured into the calculations as eaves are not defined in the code as whether they are actual hardcover. Hawn gave her support of the proposal noting the applicant's diligence in keeping additional hardcover to a minimum while gaining the desired space. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (W - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Schroeder noted that the proposal was an improvement, but asked what it would take to reduce the lot coverage down to 15%, or a 100 s.f. reduction The applicant responded that it would be difficult to condense the plan any further and still maintain a decent floor plan. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2066 subject to Staff recommendations with removal of the excess bituminous material in the yard, protection of the septic system, removal of hardcover as noted, and an inspection of hardcover removals prior to pouring of the footings. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, who acknowledge the applicant ’s attempt to reduce hardcover but was of the feeling it was still too ambitious a proposal for the lot. (#10) #2074 JOHN AND KRISTEN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET • VARIANCES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:10-7:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. The application consists of two parts. Mabusth reported tlui; the first part involves a conditional use permit and variance to install 2' timber wall along the lakeshore bank. Ice movement in early spring has created problems along this shoreline. The wall is similar to the wall on the Palm property to the north. The Engineer has reviewed the application. Staff is of the opinion that the wall is not a permanent solution to the erosion problem and has encouraged the applicants to consider rip rap. The applicants do not wish to lose their sandy beach, which w ould occur if rip rap was installed. There is no room to alter the bank itself with only 41* to the residence from the lakeshore. Staff said the wall will work but not permanently. Mabusth reported that the second part of the application is for the installation of a 25'x30' detached garage located in the street yard of the property. The garage would meet the 10* side setback. The doors of the garage would open to the street. The garage would be placed 51' from Concordia, where 30' is required. Mabusth said thatthere is concern with the flood plain being encroached by the structure. The majority of drainage in the Concordia neighborhood drains to this area and includes the Palm property. Runoff flows eventually to West Ami. I'he applicant confirmed with a new survey that the flood plain is encroached by at least half of the structure. The Palm's garage would be flooded if compensatory or matching excavations ar? not completed. If this is true, permits would be required from both the Corp of Engineers and the Watershed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) It has been suggested by Staff that a retention area be created to hold runnoff to eliminate the possibility of flooding. Spot elevations will be provided by Gehring. The portion of the garage area which is in the flood plain will require a matching excavation at the same area to offset the encroachment. Mabusth said that the setback requirements for the garage will be met. There is an excess of hardcover in the 0-75' zone of 24+%. The hardcover limit will be met in the 75-250’ zone. No removal of hardcover is proposed within th. 0-75’ setback zone. A shed on the property will be removed. Lindquist asked what the elevations were, and where the pond would be built. Mabusth said the flood plain is at 931.5*, and the garage would be located between 931.5 and 931'. The pond would be located on the shared lot line between the Gehring and Palm properties. Schroeder asked if both parties were in agreement on the building of the pond. Gehring said he met with Palm and another neighbor, Mrs. Traynor, who has concerns with drainage in the neighborhood. A make-shift pond was built this summer by installing a pipe from under the Gehring and Palm property. It was tested and found to be a workable solution. The grading proposal suggests using a pipe for drainage to flow into and lead to a neighborhood swale. The pipe tested was 4-6’’ wide. Mabusth commented that the engineering plan would need to be reviewed by the City Engineer and the MCWD. Schroeder asked what the normal size is of a 2-car garage. Mabusth said it is usually 24’x24*. Lindquist noted that the proposal is for a 3 -car garage. Schroeder asked the applicants if they had considered building a smaller garage with the amount of hardcover that is located in the 0-75’ zone. Gehring responded that the size of the garage enables him to keep all equipment inside, such as a trailer, instead of sitting out on the property. It is also his opinion that a 3-car garage is standard today. Gehring said the driveway has been minimized. He noted that the shed is to be removed, and no hardcover will exist between the garage and the house. Peterson informed the applicant that approval of the garage would affect any future changes to the property. He noted that many older homes are being removed and new homes built. If this were the case on this property with the larger garage and the hardcover issue, the applicant would have difticuhy in gaining approval for a larger house. The applicant responded that if a new house were to be built, it would be the same size and the 15% lot coverage limitation would be considered. He noted that there is no variance required at this time for lot coverage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder noted that the lot coverage is at 15% now. He is concerned with intensification of the structures on the property. Schroeder said the applicant may wish to consider moving the structures back on the lot and noted that the 3-car garage is limiting the applicant for any future building. Schroeder commented that many people feel a 2-car garage is a right in Minnesota but was not convinced that a 3-car garage was the standard. Berg commented that a 3-car garage was becoming the normal size for a garage. The applicant responded that the size difference between a 2-car and a 3-car garage is minimal. Hawn noted that keeping utility vehicles within a garage is a good idea. Peterson asked for the Commission to look at the application in two parts with the first issue being the retaining wall. Tom Palm, owner of the property to the north of the applicant, commented that the temporary pipe used to alleviate pooling of water was 4’* in size. A ditch was dug which moved the water toward the larger swale. It was determined that there were no problems with this solution as the pipe was found to handle a 6” rain with no standing water. Palm saw no problem with recreating the pipe as a permanent solution. He noted it was to his benefit to see that the water has a place to go. Lindquist said he had no problem with the retaining wall. He did note that ice will eventually take the wall out, which would not occur if rip rap was used. Peterson noted that the Engineer did say it was only a temporary solution. The applicant commented that a neighboring property has a similar wall, which has lasted for the past 5 years with no problem. He noted maintenance may be required and is all right with that. Lindquist asked how far bacK the wall would be built. Mabusth said there is a natural sand beach, and the wall would be 6' from the normal shoreline. Schroeder asked if it should be a concern with the Planning Commissioners if the solution was not permanent if the applicant was in favor of the proposal. Peterson said the area could be left natural. He understood that while the wall works for the neighbor, the Planning Commission needs to rely on the expertise of the City Engineer. He commented that the wall could cause further problems but was not tioubled with the installation of the wall. Schroeder noted that the applicant has an incentive to keep the wall in good repair to save the beach area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #’’074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of the retaining wall with Staff recommendations Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. As for the garage, Lindquist asked if the Commission was able to approve a garage without understanding where the pond would be located. Peterson said he had the same concern. Mabusth said this was a recent issue. Staffis unable to issue a permit without seeing an approved grading plan by the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD. The applicant said he was told by the MCWD that preliminary approval would be required from the City before the MCWD would look at the issue. Gehring asked if the City would approve the application for the garage with the condition that the required permits were received from the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD. Mabusth said she was not comfortable with bringing the application before the Council with questions unanswered. The applicant said it was his plan to build the garage this fall. Schroeder commented that the City Engineer would need to approve the drainage plans Peterson said the Council would not approve the garage without the permits in hand from the Corp of Engineers and the MCWD. The applicant noted that the meeting of the MCWD was scheduled for October 9, and the Council meeting was scheduled for October 13. Mabusth questioned whether Palm would need to be jointly involved with the creation of the pond. Palm said it was his understanding that his part would be only where the pipe is located. Mabusth said the retaining pond would possibly be located on the Palm property too. Palm said he was unsure of this and thought the pipe would carry the drainage to the swale on his property. Peterson noted that the solution may be a swale, but it was ptossible that a swale may not be enough, and a pond would be required. Lindquist was of the opinion that the pond should be a joint proposal by both Gehring and Palm. Mabusth noted that Staff will be working with both parties on storm water management. Lindquist asked if conceptual approval could be granted. Mabusth said matching retention areas on the property would be required to compensate for the flood plain. Schroeder said if Staff could cominue to work with the application, was the Commission and Staff comfortable with turning the proposal over to the City Engineer in this form. Peterson voiced some concern with the size of the structure. Mabusth clarified that it was not an oversized structure and did meet the required setbacks. The excess hardcover is in the 0-75’ zone and not in the 75-250' zone. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the construction of the 3-car garage with the understanding that the application not proceed to Council until it has been approved by the City's Public Works Director and City Engineer, the MCWD, and the Corp of Engineers. MIWTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (^10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder asked who sets the code for the flood plain areas. Mabusth reported that is is a federal flood plain regulation. Lindquist continued that the application may involve the Palm property. Mabusth said Palm may need to extend an easement to the City. Palm said he would be in agreement to this as he would like to solve the issue together noting the historic drainage problems in the area. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2075 HOWARD R. ALTON, 111, 1635 CONCORDU STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:15-9:1* P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the application is for a conditional use permit and ^^riance to allow alteration of 17 cubic yards within the 90 lineal foot section of the shoreline. Ice movement has created erosion problems for the sand bank ridge. The applicant proposes to restore the bank to a 3; 1 slope in order to grow grass. Gustafson has reviewed the application and said it was the best solution. Richter of the DNR also noted his approval and the need for no plantings. This proposal is a natural approach for solution to erosion, and the applicant was commended for taking this aproach. Mabusth said that while the City Engineer has approved the proposal, he noted if the bank is to retain a minimum 3; 1, the bank would have to be cut back S-8* and would result in the removal of about 34 cubic yards instead of 17. The applicant would then place 8 cubic yards of clean soil to be covered with sod. The applicant noted his preference for this change. Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2075 with Staff recommendations 1-4. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2079 RICK PERRY, 440 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:18-9:30 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Mabusth reported that the property is located on the east side of Willow. The applicant had previously received approval for a setback variance for a garage located in front of the principal structure. It did not meet the current standards but was approved at a S' side setback. The City did not address the need for a variance with garage placed in front of the principal structure. The existing garage was placed 6.4' from the side lot line. With the addition, the garage becomes an oversized structure, the structure is now subject to more restrictive area and setback standards. The .62 acre parcel is allowed 1000 s.f of oversized accessory structure. The proposed garage would require an area variance of 77 s.f or 7.7%. The structure would now require a setback of 30' and is proposed at 6.4'. Mabusth noted that the same hardships of the earlier application still hold true. There are steep topographies on the lot. The narrow lot limits access to rear of residence. The only gentle sloped areas are in rear yard where septic is located, and this area is needed for future septic needs. Peterson noted the dimensions of the oversize structure and lot cov^ge increasing from 13.5% to 18.1%. He asked the applicant why four additional garage stalls were needed. Peny said the stalls would be used for his collector cars. Mabusth noted that when the detached garage was approved, the applicant has stated he was going to convert the original garage space to living space. Perry said he did not do so as he and his wife did not have as many children as they had previously planned. He acknowledged that the proposal would increase his garage space to 6 stalls. Schroeder asked if the applicant was going to use the space for a business. Perry said no. Schroeder asked where he now places the vehicles. The applicant said 3 cars are in the tuck'under garage, one is being restored, and bikes and the like are sitting outside of the detached garage. There were no public comments. Peterson said he was personally opposed to the proposal as it was creating a huge oversize structure for a small lot. Lindquist agreed that this would be too much structure. The applicant asked if he built a structure keeping within the 1000 s.f allowable, if this would be allowed and no variances needed. Mabusth said side setback variance would still be required. Any structure placed in front of the principal structure requires a variance. The applicant felt that the garage would be a better alternative than leaving materials stored outside. Mabusth noted that there was alot of material outside now. The applicant said it was his desire to plant evergreen trees to hide the structure from view as well as installing a hip roof to lower the profile of the house. Mabusth asked the applicant about the power pole. Perry said he spoke with NSP, who said they would move the pole. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#12 - #2079 Rick Perry - Continued) Hawn said she was of the opinion that 6 stalls of garage space was excessive with 2*3 stalls being the norm. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2079 due to excessive lot coverage for the size of the lot. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #20S0 GREG AND DANA KELLENBERGER, 4045 WATERTOWN ROAD • VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the applicants have two development plans for additions to their residence located in the 5-acre zoning district. The existing house is located in a substandard location at 51' where 100' is required for the front/street setback The 24’x24' detached garage shown as Option A would require a street setback. Option B involves an attached garage to the residence requiring a 50' side setback and is proposed at 26'. The front/street setback from Watertown Road would be at 52'. The existing driveway at cast lot line can be saved and used to approach the back yard. A second curb cut further to the west has been approved by John Gerhardson. Option A would place a driveway very close to the septic site. The Option B for an attached garage would allow access to the rear of the property along east side. Staff recommends Option B. Peterson asked the applicant which option he prefers. The applicant prefers Option B as it gives them a spot for a patio to the rear of the residence. Peterson suggested the Commission review Option B for the attached garage. It was noted that the deck does not exist on Option B but the covered porch remains. The two-story home would remain but the flat roof addition with a tuck-under garage would be removed and rebuilt in same location. The applicant commented that they have horses and would prefer to keep the existing driveway to use for the horse trailer as it is a safer route to the west being located on a higher portion of the roadway. Mabusth said Gerhardson would need to approve maintaining the two accesses. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2080 for Option B for front/street setback variance of 48' and side setback variance of 24' for an attached garage. If two driveways are to be maintdned, they would need the approval of Gerhardson. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#14) #2081 PATRICK AND NANCY WALSH, 1390 REST POINT ROAD • VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:40-9:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Walsh was present. Mabusth said that she and Mr. Walsh met today and went over Staff concerns. The proposal at this time is amended from that in the packet as a result of this meeting. The proposal is for two single story additions at the sides of the residence consisting of a mud room/kitchen with eating area, an expanded master bedroom with a walk-in closet and expanded bedroom on the second story, which would encroach the average lakeshore setback by 9* and encroach the 75' line by 9*. The upper level above the garage would be for a recreation room or bedrom located 20' from the street lot line and require a street variance because of the intensification. The hardcover in the 0-75' zone exists at 11.9% and proposed at same percentage. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone exists at 40.2% and proposed at 56.3% for an increase of 774.5 s.f of 16%. The stoop will be roofed under the proposal and, thereby, included in the structural coverage. The views and plans were shown to the Commission members. The structural coverage is proposed at 20.1% and with stoop, adjusted at 21.4%. The amended proposal reduces the master bedroom by 44 s.f, eliminates the 80 s.f mudroom, reduces the 14 s.f entry, shows removal of 91.75 s.f of plastic, and removal of deck structure with fencing and planter with plastic. The amended calculations for hardcover with 75-250' area existing at 41%, originally proposed at 56.3%, is amended at 51.5% or a 11.2% increase. The 75-250' hardcover variance would be reduced by 4.8%. Lindquist asked if there was any change in the 0-75' zone. Mabusth said there was none and was same as originally proposed at 11.9%. All new improvements are in the 75-250' zone. The amended hardcover variance in this zone would be reduced to 26.5%. Mr. Walsh said he realized the lot was small but so was the house. Any expansion would require a variance. The house is at 800 s.f with a 3/4 bath, no utility room, and no kitchen eating space. The house is centered on the lot and is a cape code style with a low profile. The additions to each side would balance off the house. The roof on the garage would give the house a higher profile. The proposal is to give the residents more living space. The entry is to aid entry from an icy area. Walsh acknowledged to Schroeder that they have lived in the house for 17 years. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#14 - #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh - Continued) Peterson told Walsh he understood the need for improvements but noted the substandard lot by the lakeshore The applicant said that is why they have tried to keep the improvements to a minimum. Peterson said he would not approve any improvements in the 0-75' and noted all improvements were to be made in the 75-250' zone. Schroeder commented that the lot coverage would increase from 15% to 19.9%. He acknowledged that the additions were not large but that the lot was so small. Hawn said she was undecided. She noted the appeal in filling out the rectangle of the house but questioned whether any improvements should be allowed that increase the size of the residence. Hawn was concerned that paring down the mud room seemed silly. Mabusth said that the applicant read the Staff memo and came in on his own volition to discuss changes. Lindquist said he had mixed feelings but noted the addition was minimal. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2081 as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Peterson, Hawn, Lindquist, Nays, 2, Berg, Schroeder, both commenting that it was too small a lot to consider any additions. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#15) #2077 CHARLES W. HOMMEYER, JEFFREY A. BOWEN, KENNETH B. ROLLAND, 4119/4127/4125 OAK STREET - REPLAT AND VACATION OF PUBLIC ROADS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT The Applicants were present. Mabusth reported that the sketch plan review is for a replat of 15 lots and the vacation of Clyde Place, Park Ave., and the western section of Oak Street. The replat will create 3 lots. Lots 1 and 2 would share access from Linden Avenue. Lot 3 would use the existing driveway extending from Oak Street. 4111 Oak Street is served from the same driveway. Oak Street is maintained by the City to Oak and Linden intersection, the western end of Oak Street serves 4 properties and is maintained by property owner. With the replat, access for two lots, 4111 and 4119 Oak Street, will be via the driveway outlot. Access to the steep ravine area will be retained via a platted 15' alleyway. Staff questions whether the City should retain a walkway easement from the east to the ravine. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) Mabusth reviewed the street vacation application. Parcel A, the Knight property, is located in the LR-IB zone within the MUSA. Knight could ask for sewering of this property as well as subdivide with as many as three lots. If vacation of the only two public accesses to this property is approved, the City must provide access to a public road. The City approved a lot area variance for Lots 1-4, Block 3. Mabusth said she met with the applicants and found that it may be possible to maintain public access from Linden but with the loss of one small lot. The applicant would give 50' so there would be no need to enter the Bennett property. If a cul-de-sac were to be built, there were several options as to the location. Mabusth said Bennett indicated he would withdraw his application if required to dedicate a cul-de-sac. 20 additional feet will be sought for Linden Avenue. The Planning Commissioners had questioned whether a loop road would be an alternative in this subdivision. Mabusth said the applicants would lose the whole purpose for the leplat if they went to that configuration. It is the applicants plan for Lots 1 and 2 to share access up to where Clyde Place is to be vacated and then branch off to their individual homes. Lot 3 would continue to gain access as it does now. Schroeder asked if the problem with Bennett giving any private dedication was that there was no benefit to his property. He suggested that Knight cut through the easement to give the benefit to Bennett. Knight responded that he did not wish to do so as the aesthetics of the driveway with driving through a canopy of trees would be lost. Schroeder said the alternate would be the cul-de-sac should Knight subdivide. Lindquist clarified that the City needs to provide an opportunity for public access to Knight. Hawn asked if there was not a grandfathering of the existing easement for ingress and egress if Knight were to subdivide. Honmeyer said it would not meet the requirement for public roads. It was suggested that some land be purchased from Bennett. The applicants said they would desire for this to happen. Knight noted that this is why he recommends no action taken until all parties can discuss the applications. Honmeyer said if land could be purcahsed from Bennett, Knight would have his access. 50' is needed for the access but the properties would be dealing with more intense use in the future. There is a possibile division of three lots on the Knight property. Honmeyer said he would wish to keep the back portion of the property as buildable. Lindquist acknowledged that access to the Knight property would need to be worked out. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#15 - WlQll Replat and Vacation - Continued) Schroeder said it would be an incentive for all to work out the details and suggested tabling the review to allow the parties involved to meet. Ken Rolland asked why the road needs to be a 50* width, which he felt was not practical. Mabusth asked about the cul-de-sac and where it belongs on the roadway. Staff is coming from the opinion that the cul-de-sac should be located at the true end of the roadway to eliminate driveways coming off of the road in all directions. Rolland said if 50' were not needed, there would be more negotiating room. Peterson said the amount was not set but an idea on the what the width might be is necessary Rolland emphasized how treacherous the ravine was and considered it a liability. Mabusth said it was appropriate to question whether the City would want to take an walking easement to this ravine. Ann Honmeyer asked how much property would be needed to be purchased from Bennett if he would sell. Peterson said Staff could give directions regarding the amount. Mabusth said the two other sketches could be reviewed not involving the cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked the members to consider how that sketch would affect Bennetts subdivision plans. Peterson said he would prefer the cul-de-sac be located at the end of the development. Honmeyer added that may be no cul-de-sac is needed. Peterson said that was a possibility. The applicants will attempt to meet together with the applicants of #2078 to discuss both applications and how they would affect each other. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#16) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9,1995 No member of the Planning Commission attended the October 9, 1995 meeting of the Council. (#17) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was noted that private driveways were discussed at a recent work session Gaffron has begun to formulate a paper reviewing conditions under which variances to the private driveway code would be considered. 2.1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 18,1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 18, 1995 meeting of the Park Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#19) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE NOVEMBER 13,1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Schroeder will attend the November 13, 1995 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 16,1995,7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - J. Diann Goetten ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1.7:00 p.m. #2076 Robert Robertson and Weldon H. Dunn, 3535/3565 Watertown Road - Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. Class I 2. 7:30 p.m. #2078 Jensen Homes, Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary subdivision ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items \vill commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. j.#2031 Bruce R. Kelly, 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing 4. #2041 Phil and Darcy Otto, 4116 Highwood Road - After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. #2056 Michael and Barbara Wigley, 1035 Tonkawa Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1485 Sixth Avenue North. - Variances/Conditional Use Permit (Continued to November 20th Meeting) #2061 Arne Wasberg, 3135 North Shore Drive - Variance Renewal - Continuation of Public Hearing #2065 Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Marfield, 2455 Scotch Pine Lane/Mr. and Mre. H. Douglas Hill, 2425 Scotch Pine Lane/William Toles, 2435 Scotch Pine Lane - Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements, Preliminary Subdivision (replat) - Continuation of Public Hearing #2066 Robert and Iris Waade, 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing #2074 John and Kristen Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street - Variances - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1995, 7:00 P.M 11. #2075 Howard R. Alton. Ill, 1635 Concordia Street - Conditional Use PennitA^ariance - Public Hearing 12. #2079 Rick Perrv, 440 Willow Drive South - Variances - Public Hearing 13. #2080 Greg and Dana Kellenberger, 4045 Watertown Road - Variances - Public Hearing 14. #2081 Patrick and Nancy Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing Sketch Plan Reviews 15. #2077 Charles W. Hommeyer, Jeffrey A. Bowen, Kenneth B. Rolland, 4119/4127/4125 Oak Street - Replat and Vacation of Public Roads and Drainage Easement Planning Commission Comments 16. Report by Planning Commission Representative attending Council Meeting of October 9,1995 (Steve Peterson). 17. Other issues for discussion. Additional Items 18. Planning Commission approval of minutes of the September 18, 1995 meeting. 19. Planning Commission to select a representative to attend the November 13,1995 meeting of the Council. Adjournment Public AttendanceMeeting D ate C jCIT*. /9V 5^ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 T^/Wj:0 i. Qkt.O, 16-tvw\Aj' I. f {>^}uY / ^ ^L . JT Jl------------------------------------- ii ICS 0ic-^V'<3 GliAlSiljil fej' Av ( At.iv /j\(/^c6.. Jr. y('\ ^I U''- 15._ Q9119S.4 1i m I JIM im nn 5-.HP iiil m illl ?! !► I n I d I <0 I 00 I I o> 8 a.y^ y. i 3_ 5 ’ «Q n o o* a Tl 3Ia. n o £5-n > P. P. 5 ‘o D B.i- i^ is (/>n 98 ^o »£> t/* 3nI O- & in S a 'O ora •< f* »tJ p OQ Oc. p k oa a y<a p hn O-iV UQ O 01 V*? g •ID o ? g ‘P «y» TJ U o D 5' Oo B B g-g* o Oo B B na C It I io -I i/i On » M & o u n I'--g 1)5 a.‘i ;v >9- w jfJ ^ o y & x; g B a 3 t/ir*rt O' u 0 < 1 'p #> “ s s Pj r> Wk O II I io CIO i 5 ! |. o |i» 'Oo5 ? p p. g. II I io COo O?* i« g p a /** a If fi r» >n I* I-o!• s' o 5 V«jo p p I S » I II § I I •< f 1/1or > g gs I •u P o; n' :u f» II I jo **l • /l :r. n: P.1 IP f.Er # ^ j—• n f.n on p p. !i n Cl Iao n ‘v> *1 g g0 n 1 nj i: o’ II lio I • < 2^1 2: S« IX o f? Vi 3 Cl uf* oo 'I n Cl ?? 01 t/i 3 II I jo Ok On o o Ps g p. no i: C. 0 S. c 5f TJ r»1 >: Io p oo'» I/Irr 0 a1 D P< A < B g fj O 0 a g- 1o o o5cr crn II I Jo Ok Pt O f ' ^ ^ g M < O P-m O *P ’ 1? p3c gco a o •u i: crn :i:>%s I. ii H 1/ r*. & I. &a p.n-:?•«/» n u> g i?fpIv r* P g f?* •5 -A mK n r»aa o a o (O I: a S. ug t/t o o o c — O ip •3 S e p 'o- g 2:I rt . II IJo Ok n g PI pk v;o3 I/Irro3 a p A g g Oa •/«n g n 0 a B1 o a o •M C a- • • • 4k IJ O l/k kp " Ip • nJ?ii II ;vfi cc o a o '<nu S II. IJ o »/» Ok B 3*le- •b 9 ir «/k2; n « 3 u: ►- i“ ><a r: A v:o3-« < g gn Oo g.S'0 1 41 I i O • -o 2B il =* m 1 B 2."a •< 0 n •U 0y.s ■lp 1 ■-" s x g'". '« 0 i n; ') t: Cl IA 7I 0acg£cx 'iWri\-ia a < g g Rn Cla•— • o S. r. A nj II li O PI iP ?^ si •Vi g»• n Cl a p r* Oa c K •u A 1» A § UQ M > n H 0 ^ 3 I/) 1 '/J A A O S A A rjs 111 n 01 tl A •n 3 o -\ o !T \ a « 8 2- a o c O' cr. n I(.*«o 'O 41 li O *-l CO « .• pa Xo tl A p 4. O (/I i? ps 0 g- 1 .1 I 5. o’ p fi ♦ II g’H8 o, 3 d2.jo “ H o. i.i i/t k#i•/* «/• Ok l/l I A o :»o g. 4/1nso ?wo "0 COr n ain r; Ur n •7 Tlo5 5: H O R H Ci S' S-> A A ^ e^lB. A g a 2 a S'"?a 2 ?s 2 =•r OO M ^ -o cr <2 a 'QO o O' u B O' A a D' u •a ■2.5 3. o a u a aoe a<j a. O'•< 3 tift pcr cr A a s*n ncBB C‘ M.S'a pn u 7T Aa 0m no 5nP er.a I Cl 8n A li -I 00o H-nSt w d C ■< i • y. • i§i' 0? ' QtS* P : .• S®* S-9*ms /. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabuslh, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 10, 1995 SUBJECT: #2076 Robert RobertsonAVeldon Dunn, 3535/3565 Watertown Road Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Application: Application inv olves a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. It does not involve the creation of a new lot. Zoning District: RR-IB, total area = 5.33 acres (12,200 s.f. approximate area of wetlands not shown on survey, refer to Exhibit F). Parcel A: Required = 2 acres Existing = 2.05 acres (approximate .24 or 10,200 s.f. of wetlands), excludes road right-of-way of Watertown Road. Lot area Proposed = 2.33 acres. Parcel B: Required = 2 acres E.xisting = 3.2 acres (.04 or 2,000 s.f. of wetland) Proposed = 3 acres. Lot area exclusive of right-of-way of Watertown and Stubbs Day Road. Lot width: Parcel A: Required = 200’ E.xisting = 200’ Proposed = 230’ Parcel B: Required = 200’ Existing = 280’ Proposed = 260’ Pertinent Ordinance Definition 65 and 66 (A) - Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to be completed as a Class 1. , Zoning File #2076 October 10, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Septic Map 3535 Watertown Road (Parcel A) E - Septic Map 3560 Watertown Road (Parcel B) F - Designated Wetland Map Description of Request Applicants propose a lot line rearrangement of the existing division line that will divide .281 acres from Parcel B to be combined with Parcel A. The division line follows along a fence line for approximately 180’ and then follows along higher elevations that provide a natural barrier between the two parcels. The majority of the yard being transferred to Parcel A is now maintained by the owner. The smaller of the properties, Parcel A, is now being enlarged by .28 acres of dry land to offset the .24 acres of wetlland to the south. The division will have no impact on the existing septic systems. Both systems are conforming. Parcel A’s septic was installed in 1976 and Parcel B’s in 1992. The only issue that needs to be addressed is the need to acquire the additional right-of-way of Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road as shown on the survey. Since we are not dealing with the plat, applicants may quit claim the right-of-way to the City, review Exhibits D and E. Recommendation To approve the Class 1 subdivision application of a lot line rearrangement involving the properties located at 3535 and 3565 Watertown Road for Robert and Sandra Robertson and Weldon Dunn, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants to grant quit claim deeds of right-of-way for Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road. 2. .281 acre parcel to be legally combined with Parcel A. 3. Once the subdivision has been filed by the City, it shall be the responsibility of applicants to make the necessary adjustments in the legal descriptions for the deeds of each parwcl. Zoning File #2076 October 10, 1995 Page 3 4.Prior to subdivision being placed on Council’s agenda, applicants ’ sur\eyor shall provide a survey describing existing and adjusted legal descriptions. Survey should also include signature lines for the Mayor and Clerk, date of Council ’s action approving subdivision and signature lines for all property o\vners involved. If there are mortgages or other persons with an interest in these properties, the City will require consent to the execution of subdivision forms to allow for the filing of the subdivision. I ^ / o ‘ I \t 1-V • ^ / CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIMSION .APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address “S. A ~ -5 <2. to Proper!)' Identincation .Number (PED') Please check one - Proper!)'abstract or torrens; .Attach legal description to acphcation. .APPLIC.ANT Name .Address a -r > o CirV ' t; nr^ LO ' Phone (home) 3. r Zipcr££u- Phone (work) -^--1 ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name N.C . Address-a^g: ^ O City / cj Phone (home) d~ ZipAsas ^ Phone (work) $•( • 3Ci ^ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LANT> USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land .Acres Wet Land .Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) _________ PROPOSAL Division tor Tax Purposes -----— Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buUdling sites) ^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of BuUding Sites _________Exisimg Units _________New Umts Total Units - -• f*• * .* • -'..i i J3141V 9 ^ . w* X.' • VCriLK kuLt./ v-'Y.. -T •*’*. w Proposed Gross Density .Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM ^LATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELEVONARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees' listed below). 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. . t j 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’. labels and plat map^(you must obtain this hst. labels and map from Hennepin Countv Department of Finance. A-603, Government Center, 348o271). ... 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this ^plication. Zoning Official’s Signamre __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __— -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - .MINIMUM i\UTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -^- - - - - - - --- - - -—- - - - - - - I. application fees (Zoning Administrator to check [XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & HI) S2(X).(X) ^ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S300.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S300.00 -------- Preliminary Subdivision Application S325.00 + S25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat .Application (Class IID S175.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants rain. S200.00 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Leeal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ...................... -------- Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application S 150.00 (No change from ongmal application) Renewal of Class III. Preliminary Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) Totals ~^CC rc Renewal or ciass in. rrciumuaiy ouuuiriiiv/t. ---------------------» * .. Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $100.00 (No change from ongmal ^plicauon) B. Special Improvement Fees: cn e Proposed Private Roads S600.00 + S.50/lineal ft.;_____Iin.^ft. x .50 5-------- Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + S.50/lined ft.;...........lin. ft. x .50 = S--------- Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + S25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 -------- On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $200.00 ____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.(W ---------- ^ PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00/Dwelling Unit —— The aoolicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Attorney. Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay aU additional fees established by ordinanc^ ^ ^ ^ Applicant ’s Signature cr s r- ------ Owner’s Signature .'i' ^ Anniirnnt must havc all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Coition mectinas arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review tneetmgs of the rommfssi^ Ld Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agera^nd in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Date Date t(6~y 1(0 J-i 4-fc .5f<e ! •• o*; !• /16 '^3 118-33 i *! . i :itiM DATE Uki/n Mtch S04 r PROP AODR 0»tCR HAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR ••••* *PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADbR J PROP ADOR OltlER HAKE ‘ TAXPAYER J NAHE/ADDR PRdP ADOR 0»mER KAME TAXPAYER . tMME/AODR J PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR ••• SO <05-117-2S 12 0009 00040 STUBBS BAY RO S 1 NELOCN H DUNN ETAL ' HELDON H DUNN 40 STUBBS BAY RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 5SS59 SB S2-118-2S 31 OOOS 0S740 NATERTONN RD CATHARINE A CRAM CATHARINE A CRAM S760 NATERTOItl RO MAPLE PLAIN Itl 5S359 SB S2-118-2S 34 0006 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUTM JOHN P DUNN ED S BROHN RD P 0 BOX 77 LOND LAKE HN S5356 SO S2-118-23 43 0002 0SS20 HATERTWM RO 060 YOUNG GREGORY YOUNG S520 NATERTONN RD LONG LAKE MN S5356 SB 32-118-23 43 0005 0SS3S NATERTONN RO ROBERT E ROBERTSON 6 HIFE ROBERT E ROBERTSON 3535 NATERTOt^ RO LONG LAKE K; ^5356 38 S2-11B-25 4S 0008 03465 NATERTONN RO GREG J EHALT GREG J EHALT 105 SYGNET PL LONG LAKE m 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST SB 05-117-23 12 0022 00060 STUBBS BAY RD ! CLEMENT KROLL ET AL CLEMENT C KROLL 60 STUBBS bay RO S MAPLE PLAIN »t4 55359 38 S2-11B-2S 34 0004 00065 STUBBS BAY RO N R 6 A KROEGER RICHARD G KROEGER 65 N STUBBS BAY RD maple PLAIN 55359 tr': 38 32-118-23 34 0011 03685 HATERTOItt RD J H 6 M L HERIDETH JOHN H 6 MARLA MERIOETH 3685 NATERTONN RO MAPLE PLAIN »tl 55359 38 32-118-23 43 0003 03580 NAfERTONN RO SHIRLEY R FILBRANOT SHIRLEY FILBRANOT 3580 NATERTOm RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 32-118-23 43 0006 03565 NATERT’>tl RD NELOCN H OUIM NELDON H OUltI 40 STUBBS BAY ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 43 0012 0003B ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ELIZABETH 0 MACKlfBNIN GEORGE 6 ELIZABETH MACKIMION 5329 US COURT HOUSE NASHINGTON 0 C 20001 REPORT NO. Pi4S5401 PaGE 12 t.. •' 38 05-117-23 2i 006l 00055 STOteS BAY RO S CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO CITY CLERK PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY Hn 55323 38 32-118-23 34 OOOS 00025 STliBBS DAY RD N R GRINLEY 6 K TUKUA DENNIS M KRUHP 25 NO STUBBS BAY RD MAPLE PLAIN M4 55359 38 32-11B-23 S4 00l4 00075 STUBBS BAY RO N DONALD BRUCE MALBY DONALD BRUCE HAUY 75 STUBBS BAY RD N MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 32-118-23 43 0004 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C 6 G BOLLIS CHRIS BOLLIS 220 STUBBS BAY RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 32-11B-23 43 0007 03505 HATERT0»t4 RO AltaCK R H PRATBERNON «9MICK R N PRATBERNON iS05 NATERTOIM RO LONG LAKE Ml 55356 * I • f ^ ■-t . * ‘ * l"'t TOTAL BATCH 504 00017 • ’ • . / ■ ' PI •( » *•RUN D4TE 08/Sl/9^• I BATCH S04 HErtlEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY 0»MlRS LIST REPORT NO. PIA5M01 PA6t IS >fv }• • * I certify that the facts REPRESInTED are an accurate and TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERH TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. • • 4 •I f A V\?. .. ^ I ; i *• 9 .. I • ••» i; . :• ;-:v •J'-’.' iW 1 - - - ' •».'3: B^?T3' ri?5ST"". 'ir,w.vr •' "i :.^€12: V?;•-> ■ -C»— • «P;>m iW?/ - .' - V-te, ► <-^f- I82C1i' - 'i^-'x6?^/.#1ill^■^1i'is?v*'^!5ai!iKa T'T t'' - - ’*•S:i!'^mm w.*.. vl.'iV-f:m ^^■a^gBSBggSBSsaag^ mmmfesaa^ii ■’I j*\> /f n : Pm i> V * V3i' TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City AdministratorFROM:DATE:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 10. 1995 SUBJECT: #2078 Jensen Homer Inc., 405 Tonkawa Road, Class II Preliminary Subdivision Public Hearing kM Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.31, Subd. 5 - Refer to Exhibit J, specifically Item 3 entitled Dimensional Standards for Front Lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except at the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. A. Access outlot a minimum 30’ width. B. Access outlots can be shared. The City will recommend the sharing of the access by the parcel to the west and Lot 2. C. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of the adjacent lots. Any upgrade of the roadway must remain 10’ from parcel to south. D. No more than two residences may be ser\ed by a driveway located within an access outlot. Only two lots shall be serv ed as a result of this subdivision. E. The driveway outlot will not be platted adjacent to another access outlot. This is not an issue. Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required 30’ rear yard setback of Lot 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 27 - Parcel to the west serv’ed by an existing access drive is not subject to special standards for back lots created after January 1, 1994. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - LR-IA, lot standards. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) - LR-IB, lot standards. Section II, 03 - Definition 66 (B) - Class II subdivision. •VlTt rtliW;; •mt miSPi K^C^E^niil [ilifnwl WKili i»i:^ snoTii rosrc rtv/4T<i wiwurautiiit] rtriiranr^Ki niMirti rtriVPTH rtiirti F:TirtP.irfl r»Ti(r»riv»i LlWWsWll iltETll ^TiT«RT¥manirti nifiiiitj rtrcii^fni raKRUilil^l »i: ^■Ct^ rt]*Kt] mtwf] •ItjCt niirt] rtrirtnirt] Zoning File #2078 October 10, 1995 Paee 4 1.Pending resolve of the vacation petition of Application #2077, if City vacates Oak Street and Clyde Place, applicant will be asked to dedicate right-of-way for an extension of Linden Avenue at the southwest comer of Lot 2. If vacation application is not approved by City, applicant will plat a private driveway outlot along the southern boundary of Lot 2 at a 30 ’ widA. Access to Lot 1 shall be via an existing curb cut at the County Road. Access to Lot 2 shall be via the existing private driveway at the southeast comer of Lot 2. If drive is upgraded, the roadway must maintain a 10 ’ setback from the property to the south. 7. If City approves option A (E.xhibit I-A) for an upgraded access, applicant’s on-site septic evaluator should relocate alternate site to the north and east. The tennis court located within Lot 2 that encroaches the lot line shall be removed before building permit is issued for new construction or year from the date of the Council ’s approval of the final plat which ever comes first. All building envelopes shall be defined by the required setbacks for the LR-IB and LR-IA zoning district. Applicant to provide a soil delineation map and report prior to application being scheduled before the Council Ravine area in southeast portion of property is to be designated as a drainage easement. The City Engineer to determine required width and extent of drainage easement. Applicant may choose to realign Lots 1 and 2 along the ravine area. The Park Commission to make a recommendation concerning possible acquisition of park or trail lands. If there is to be a park fee, it shall only be based on the area within Lot 2. 9. Others recommended by the Planning Commission. '•NCITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION ^PLICATION^-4 :5*.A- ^' I ?Ki: > ■»•'i* d */PROPERTY LOCATION * ' ^Site address dnR Tnnkawa RnaH_________________________Property Identification Number (PID) 0611723140020_____Please check one - Property ____abstract or X torrens?Attach legal description to application. In tracts A, B, C R.L.S. # 540 APPLICANT Name Jensen Homes. Inc. Address_ 601 Lakesho re Parkway Suite 1225 City Phoae(home) ZipPhone (work) d7R-.nRd« OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Mr. & Mrs. Frank Bennett Address 315 Tonkawa Road City Phone (home) Qrono, MR (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Zip 55356 Phone (work) 334-5600 1 10.64 -0- 10.69 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units____1 Other (specify)_________ LR - lA PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) y Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 1 Existing Units 1 New Units ? Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per fio Acres ? acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land X Residential ________Other (specify)__________ • ** r* , i-.fc .. •./ •-••e jFr-cEI JL i-'wv.:,'. ihECK "1 . you ^74 J*,*.. 4 • i 7 j • . ... * v* • Jii • P9c« :Rrcs:aH.aTS*p$ 09/2S/83 ion* 0#12 4T8 I46»JBN91S< QOinS IMC ^QCZ MSWCM MAIBUAL SSQUIIED fOt COmCIl nUMISARY AF/UCAUaS 1. hyBm 9t &■ (ate 10 *^yUarioQ fk»' Uiiad Wlow). 2. CBopicM «pUadoa (bns. 3. ftiHnUiiiy pim kfciBMlM om Cidfla^ eMwvy. 4. Owlflid hopOTy Ovacn U m of witUa ISO'i likali tai piM (yoo sum ebuia dOi lli:, Uhcti tad fros H«h^ Ceoaiy Daptnatat of PIbubk . A<40), 0«v«aHt Caatv. 541-3271). Ai tt^AIUBitUM !• ^ uppllcatlsa, pl«M Macb • w|Mms UM «f uy eibv pmaw ymt «Uh aodfl*4 »t ippU«wjoa. IOC UAXniAL SBQUIUD raa CQMPIXTB ilKAL AmiOk-nOf 1. ?S^ast af tea (fiAr S AnaUateiy iuWIvtalM Appariil iwalialw m4 fmA hm If ap^teabl*). 3. Sl|aa4 OMlficBta af furvay ar aadv eopki af fbrail plM 3. Tltla oplaioa. 4. BaacBBta. eovcaanta. oc. 5. Zaa^ OfnehTt Stiaamm I. AFniC4TKWr A. rTimfxf AaBllalmar S ttak fX) ifaMt iMikb 4^1/) foMhUas of ■ Lot tiao JUamatoaoet SSOO.ao •uMMataa AppUsalaa (Cte 1 * IQ 000.00 PMUslaay MOvklaa ApiUeadoo S33S.0D * S35.00/IS (OiM HI ft ill O0&-ml4eiuli)) Phil flat AppUoMiaa (Gbm CQ $175.00 ■d m«: U.«3) „ ____I a^ n laMivUiaa AapliMtiaia 1190.00 (Na iO«ta froa ail|laal ippUecloa) _____af Qaa SX. nollstaify luMMMaa AppUMllo* fno.oo (Wa ahupa tem artftMl X mowiI of Fhat Ou* III SUMWliIon Appikatioa SlOO.00 (No ehaago ftos erifiaai tppUatloo) iooo.oo taJO.00 -f H9/fBib Ua. ft. a JO - S, Ua. ft. X .90 ■■ $ niiiiniri fWB low tymam (aadodlaf oalMtti) 1200.00 09-llM tynm. Iba l«oliuiloa Icvlow (ippiloAlo ■ rant MteiviMoa •ppUoMoaa) "a C. VsloBBl fiOO.00 ______ 999.00 ppp AffUaaMaa «4ih SuWlwUlaa CM.QO/D«alUai Ufth ABocQcy. puaolai C dobI « ta Movte all laflirowlfio laouM or toooxioO by te Zoalag A/atalMioM*. City Eajuoaaf. „l,r, aaoauvy W pmmut ifelf ipplkaltaa aad ftutkv oaiaaa lo fv all MlftllWsi . eiiy 1 fba ■ f/sjl /9S~ • ^ SisiSSir«‘:2i22:4liS2r. •••END••• •uTir AOOM ;.*V^i 'l.RUfl DATE 09/20/95V :£f•)MTCN 509 vf,:* WOP AOOR .ST'fHCR NUC r. .TAXPAYER NAME/AODR • ’■ •V.: i '■<: ^v Ip ROP AOOR -*• *'V.CEtCR NAHE taxpayer NAHE/AOOR ,; ;T PROP AOOR : f ( ONNER NAHE taxpayer. NAHE/AOOR > PROP AOOR > ; ONNER NAHE \ . TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR .• -i .: PflOP ADDR•-J rA%f>:OHHEK NAHE V.r .'J' TAXPAYER - NAHE/AOOR rl, A. A t ^ o ^. i A I / •• ‘J. ! •. it »V» ^ S • f*- •. ■ ')* . : HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST S8 06*117-23 41 0035 .04125 OAK ST CHARLES N HOIflEYER ET AL CHARLES N HOIflEYER 4125 OAK ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 06-117*23 41 0090 00460 PARK AVE TODD E I TERX L HOOD TCDD E HOOD 460 PARK AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0094 04111 OAK ST DSD SIEGEL DAVID H SIEGEL 4111 OAK LONG LAKE NN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0100 00456 LINDEN AVE H D DIETRICK-DLOCKER ET AL N D DIETRICK-DLOCKER 456 LINDEN AVE LONG LAKE HN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 509 00046 36 06-117-23 41 0036 04119 OAK Sr K 6 ROLt AND A K S RODEN KENNETH 6 KAREN ROLLAND 4119 OAK LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0092 00473 TONKAHA RD D L FRITZ APE FRITZ DAVID L FRITZ 473 TOTiCANA RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0095 04105 OAK ST N J ALBERS A H R PILDOH H J ALBERS A H R 6XLD0H 4105 OAK ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0101 04127 OAK ST J A BOHEN A B L BOHEN JEFFREY A BRENDA BOHEN 4127 OAK ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0040 309 WESTLAKE ST GREGG S & BETTE J PERL GREGG S & BETTE J PERL 309 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 i # i REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 26 36 06-117-23 41 0086 00425 TONKAHA RD B KNIGHT A J RIESNER KNIGHT B KNIGHT A J RIESNER KNIGHT 425 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0093 00507 PARK LA ERHIN D SHITH ET AL E 0 A H 0 SMITH 507 PARK LANE LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0097 00499 TONKAHA RD H S A R DOHBECK HICHAEL S A ROHAIflE DUHBECK 499 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 06-117-23 41 0105 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MURPHY BROS BLDG A RHDLNG CO MURPHY BROS BLDG A RMOLNG CO 2579 EASTMAN DR NEH BRIGHTON HN 55112 V; . 1. . • » . Hi i• Hr. • V f t* V • rl:^ t . . I • I* • 1* > • 1 ) • < • * f • •• V } : - if-• I ♦ • • • ^ » t • ; • I > i« ; - '!. ’ IT »!' r *• d V jfi : . ■ <* • • *.! r I *, i i OATf 09/20/95w • ■ ■ ..•B/»TCIf 509■■ ■' 'I . T iT/MPAYER ; M*»«^AOPR^ i fi »V ‘ ‘ ' .1^:pm)p ADOR . f ONNER KAHE ft'TiWAYER im/ADDR. 4 *.fV-I’.l •• ^ PROP AOOR;,r|:NOIt«R'NM«Tawaveri> NAHE/AODR• ■pjWH* AOOR : OlflER HAHE TAXPAYER iJ*^;^/AOOR PROP AOOR r ; ONNER NAME taxpayer :jfe,HAME/AOOR ' il I PROP AOOR ',,,4=' OHNER NAME ’ TAXPAYER . ^(f«^;tfM1E/AOOR ' >■ 58 06-117-23 19 0025 09135 BAYSIOE RO CHARLES N A HELEN F HAYSSEN CHARLES N A HELEN F HAYSSEN 9135 BAYSIOE RO MAPLE PLAIN m 5535956 06-117-23 91 0016 00965 PARK AVE OONALO L MEYER ET AL OONALO A CATHERINE MEYER 965 PARK AV LONG LAKE m 5535656 06-117-23 91 002000980 LINOEM AVEJ R NEILSON A A M tCILSONJAMES R NEILSON960 LINOEN AVELONG LAKE NN 5535656 06-117-23 91 002300960 LINOEN AVEJ.R NEILSON A A M NEILSON JAMES R NEILSON 960 LINDEN AVE LONG LAKE Ml 55356 36 06-117-23 91 0027 00036 ADDRESS UNASSlGt€0 jCHARLES N A ANN H HOMMF^'FR CHARLES N A ANN N H(»tirr£R 9125 OAK ST LONG LAKE ttl 55356 I*. nwr‘^-v'1.- ; ii'. 56 06-117-23 91 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CM HOrWEYER A A N HOMMEYER CHARLES A ANN HOttlEVER 9125 OAK ST L^ LAKE MN 55356 *•; , HErtCPlN COLMTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OOIERS LIST56 06-117-23 91 0019 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN R GERHARDSON JOHN R GERHARDSON 351 LAKEVIEH AVE LONG LAKE m 5535658 06-117-23 91 001700993 PARK AVEDONALD L A CATHERINE A MEYERDONALD L A CATHERINE A MEYER965 PARK AVELONG LAKE MN 5535636 06-117-23 91 002100960 LINDEN AVEJ R NEILSON A A M NEILSONJAMES R NEILSON960 LINOEN AVELONG LAKE MN 5535658' 06-117-23 91 0025 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CHARLES H A AFM N HOftCYER CHARLES H A AMI H HOMMEYER 9125 OAK ST LONG LAKE FM 55356 58 06-117-23 91 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CHARLES N A ANN N HOMMEYER CHARLES N A AMI H HOMtEYER 9125 OAK ST LONG LAKE Ml 55356 58 06-117-23 91 0031 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C A A HOMMEYER CHARLES A AMI HOMMEYER 9125 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 2538 06-117-23 91 0015 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JOHN R r^EHAROSON JOHN R GERHARDSON LAKEVIEN AVE LJ-JG lake MN 5535658 06-117-23 91 001900980 LINOEN AVEJ R NEILSON A A M NEILSONJAMES R NEILSON980 LINOEN AVELONG LAKE Ml 5535638 06-117-23 91 002200980 LINCtM AVEJ R NEILSON A A M NEILSONJAMES R NEILSON980 LINDEN AVELONG LAKE Mi 5535638 06-117-23 91 0026 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CHARLES N A AMI N HOMMEYER CHARLES H A ANN N HOMCYER 9125 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 91 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGtCD J A BONEN A 8 L BONEN JEFFREY BONEN A BRENDA BONEN 9127 OAK ST LONG LAKE IM 55356 38 06-117-23 91 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED K B ROLLANO A K S RODEN KENNETH A KAREN ROLLANO 9119 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 • .•■ I.) ONNER N-MEI<taxpayerHAME/AOOR • # «< n k ■' '• .it . q.: PROP AOOR , OMCR NAMEtaxpayerNAME/ADDRf.t• f i ‘ • , PROP ADDR i J pNNER NAME NAME/ADDR ■ 'V ): , PROP ADDR . .# OM«ER NAME taxpayer i i NAME/ADDR of®:"..- • ’ ?S ■ PROP. AOOR ONNER NAME T ‘ WU-Vj-:' J, > * , if .1 '•.' "i‘ f•■ t ,••Jj RUN DATE 09/20/95■•-1 i* :. ■!% BATCH 509v(|rpR0P ADOII ' '!! 'OMNER NAME TAXPAYER IJrNATC/AODR.r* i r>>ROP AOOR } I' i ‘ OMNER K;ME ;, iiTAXPAVER • ^ • IfAME/AOORV '-I r ■•>•> .1 ..'^I.’ PROP AOOR v : OMNER NAME s P v TAXPAYER * > '< NAME/AODR■ {•;SO 05-117-23 25 00»V 03M5 MYSIDE RO FRED BUNCH JR FRED BLANCH JR 5H5 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN S.J3553B 05-117-25 23 0024 00341 NESTLAKE ST X E A N K 8ERGSAGEL XRV BERGSA6EL PO BOX 149 NAYZATA 144 5539130 05-117-23 23 002: 003B9 NESTLAKE ST JANET DONALDSON JANET DONALDSON 3*5 NEST LAKE ST Liirt^ LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0I4CRS LIST3B. 05-117-23 23 0022 00325 NESTLAKE ST X E A M K BERGSAGEL IRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 149 NAYZATA (tl 5539136 05-117-23 23 0025 00349 NESTLAKE ST EONA T ANDERSON ET AL N/L EDNA T ANDERSON 177 PENINSULA RD MEDICINE LAKE ttl 554413B 05-117-23 23 OOZB 00373 NESTLAKE ST P M LAN6ERT ET AL H/l EST PRISCILU N LAhtERT 373 NESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE m 553S6 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2436 05-117-23 23 0023 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED I E A M K BERGSAGEL IRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 149 NAYZATA MN 5539136 05-117-23 23 0026 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED E C GAGE III A B C GAGE EDNIN III A BARBARA CAGE 460 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE'MN 5535636 05-117-23 23 0029 00365 NESTLAKE ST NESTEKN UNITED LIFE ASSUR CO JOSEPH D A MARY B FIEDLER 365 HESTLAKD ST LONG LAKE 144 55356 . •>I • •«. «>» ^■ *4M : f '<' iA f . PROP AODR (B44ER NAME taxpayer 'NAME/AODR {'■ ■■/ » PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER iNAME/ADDR 36 05-117-23 32 0001 00420 TONKANA RO ANNICK R M PRATBERNON EDNIN C OAGE III BARBARA C GAGE PO BOX 59159 MPLS MN 55459-0250 36 05-117-23 32 0006 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CURTIS L CARLSON CURTIS L CARLSON 550 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 05-117-23 32 0002 00460 TONUNA RO EDNIN C GAGE ETAL GAGE EDNIN C 12715 B STATE HNY 55 MPLS MN 55441 30 06-117-23 14 0012 04165 BAYSIDE RO ALLAN E REZABEK ET AL ALLAN A SHIRLEY REZABEK 4165 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PUIN 444 55359 36 05-117-23 32 0005 00520 TOMUNA RO PREMIUM SERVICE CORP CARLSON REAL ESTATE CO ATTN TAX DEPT P 0 BOX 59159 MPLS MN 55459-0250 36 06-117-23 14 0019 04165 BAYSIDE RD J A M ALT JAMES A A MARIE A ALT 4165 BAYSIDE RO ORONO MN 55359 t;m.’ \ it . iM k -A • • * • V • .t I , » « ■ 4 i • ^;v. : ' ■i f ’ ^ ■ PROP. AODR '^:4.|.0»44ER’NAI«f0s^ :> I r'i. o •Vv «v'. *, t;'-; .• tl 36 06-117-23 14 0020 00405 TONKANA RD F B A M M BEtWETT FRANC A MARTHA BENNETT Q/O NAYCROSSE INC PO BOX 9300 DEPT 26 MPLS MN 55440 <1 36 06-117-23 14 0021 00315 TONCANA RO F B BENIETT A M M BENIETT F B BENNETT A M M BENIETT 315 TONKANA RD ORONO MN 55356 36 06-117-2S 14 0022 04045 BAYSIDE RO HAL BOON HENRICUS C A CORNELIA A BOON 4045 BAYSIDE RO ORONO MN 55359 • , M. ■, ^ . .. 7 . ' • • .i • I n * ’>r It*» <• I '*^1 i'f • K ■ • rv - i‘ ■ . 'S'|‘ '• • □ ^PROPOSED SUBDIViSION FOfth 'i *'t; ■••■•■..................................... •*■ ■ , < FRANK BENNETT ^ IN R. L S. NO. 640 4 . . HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 1 * .w / \ f ____ \ \\ / •■t-baEI / t r \fi N / -1^ 1 mr. ^Wwv /I / / \ \\^ . \H { ■ \V\ \'*9**t±A3. ■>\ vL —#/ 2 / V ^ ------------------ 1/I# / y .Vj/ If y \ V-\ . '.\A ^ • V 4 / / } ustm:£OM I hu I /'..—.yLEGAL OESCRIPT'ON OF PRCNfSES: fritls A tnd • and tht Souihfrly 132.00 fttl of Ih# Watltrly 20$.OO fttl of Traci C. Rtgl&ttrod Land $urvty Mo. 140, fllti of Rtolltrar of IJlIts, County of Hannairln. This survty Intends to thoo the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of in eiI sting house, barn pool end tenhis court thereon. It does net purport to shou ony other inprove* • V , ■f ,*• •• > OtAIVNev mma*CMn oaenmoN 0 t0f t/*/f . Jf0Ttt Stt*$ « •0 • • • Con IN ic GKU\BI R(., INC I hvfrK crrtiA llu4 Ihit won- *»s% pnptmi ^ mr iv undrr my duict Mpie* thiim tni |K«I Um^duh rrftblrrrdChri Fnflnw lodlandS yrwy idif - Ihr Uwt c4 Ihr SOir ul Sfmnmaji M«ii S Cnmbrnt MmrtnoU Licrmr Nwmbrt 127^ acMS CM1I mm 9S-3S2 5-352' : : e ■ i.. Mffd K mr IV undrf my diiicf ------T-niin i|oi wrfg * tCMM/v»v •MU' . :... jmkrr I275S 5 1 KMm 95‘3Si . I ••• V • '* 1 • I -:j'■•' >. •) ' A 5 i»'f (^i/i^t-i(- (h-<^. li~i^~"!3ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIESAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE AND SUBDrVTSlON CODE BY DEFINING STANDARDS FOR THE CREATION AND USE OF LOTS WTTTCH do not abut a public or PRIVATE ROAD THE city council OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 are each hereby amended by adding the foUowmg deimitions: "Lot-Back" - A lot typicallv senarated from a public or private road by another lot and whirh ‘^ains access to the public' or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "back lot" when the corridor is planed as an outlot. A separated lot is considered to be a "flag lot" when the corridor is platted as part of the lot. When the corridor is merely an easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". "Lot-Front" - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlot has been platted for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows: Subd. 27. Special Standards for Back Lots Created After January 1, 1994. Back lots as defined in this section which were created as part of a subdivision that received preliminary subdivision approval after January 1, 1994 are subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. 2. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the front y^d setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line. 1 B 3. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 1505b of the zoning district front yard requirement. •i. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning distnct yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning distnct lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan of a frcnt/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standaids. e.xcept that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to tlie side street yard requirement for that zoning district. .Access requirements. 1. Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. 2. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. 3. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. 4. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. D.No access outlet may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. D. Screening requirements. 1.Driveways constructed in access outlets shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, at ail points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. SundJids for 3c::sson- s^icairts. Accsssory smjcmres shaU adhere to all require3e=-.s of the zomng code, -.vith the following additional requirements: 1.Accessory ’ structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer th.in 10 ’ to a neighboring prcpert>’’s side or rear yard. 2.Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the requned rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. No accessory structure shall be aUowed within an access outlet. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. A.Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided e.xcepc where necessary to provide separation of residential development from traffic arteriais or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B Access from any arterial roadway. Lxits shall not, in general, derive access exclusively from an anenal roadway. Where dnveway access rrom any anenal roadway may be necessary for several adjoinmg lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possib e, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any anenal roadway. Froni/back lot subdivisions. 'Flag lots" and "easement back lots as denned in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back ”) shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an ouilot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: t iwtakainn ii W t ■ "f. • .■ti? Applicabiliry. Front/back loc divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but ac'ca<^e is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. Front/back lot divisions may be used tor individual lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convemencc to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. c.A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abunmg the proposed access ouUot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning distnct required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a.Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. b.Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot Ime at the street vard setback line of a lakeshore back lot. or at the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shaU meet the zoning district width requirement. The street vard or front yard for any back lot will be a vard startmg where the narrow access outlot comdor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setbac line and at the street yard setback line. c.The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. d.The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shaU be 150% of the zoning district yard *, The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shaU meet the zoning distrirt lakeshore yard requirements. L. v: *::»^4TJcaii J. 6. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan of a front/back lot division shaU meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that ±c required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access oudot shall be equivalent to ±e side street vard requirement for that zoning dismict. Access recuirements: a..Access outlets shall be 30 ’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. In approving fronbback lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access w'lthin the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. e.No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements and accessory' structure standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory sameture standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this section shall apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary pl^t approval after January 1. 1994. SECTION 4. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be published m the Pioneer and the Laker newspapers and shaU become effective immediately upon publicauon. I Adopted by the City CouncU of Orono, Minnesota on this avcs and __nays. dav of 1993. by a vote oi Edward J. Callanan. Jr., Mayor ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hailin. City Clerk W** O— i jiS i ‘ ic. —* ** ^ A*\t (A (/ •jje''- i.1-2 4ijo; «r?j. :.-»e. .i Af« .—act C^»«rruv^rw ?«f»p oyr^ era O ? i- •O&A'T *©«#*•• • t • .Ur- - w S^rv3u ? • »;tTM t "jmtf •!. C.rnn ». Cdoc ^ E f NCVM • £ ^ *f .'.jun yi C..»A.* • £««*j 5^ Cj'MUtart p»o»%^c A :ir^d'-c »S- A Korean-. » £ t ^ £ ^.r-»»r5 »C C. wasAOta. ^ 1 C 9 uum. a la A. 33v^o«. ^ t Virk A. “»nj^. » f v.e''a#i • »iu?—»rri > f <. * # a. »£. M. AA4er:drt a l.® f 9 S rc-*.* c S^.' -jarcr ^ ? J i f«^at » i *.’.cr*# • • P *'e?A'fs« •* S M C L»-r^ ^6 .ar*#s 1. 5 .‘e^ 9 2efTXj-n. r L ?c^r^.» At^i^k f r • Anca'toA vur* t. Hoifi F E W« A. S*Wi F f Zsry A' Vor.#^ F I J AlA ;. Swrrsa • f A. F'clt F ;. r s.® F *• €. •»» . 0 V F P 0 J/s.i'i P f ■^ ■•» A -•^tmrt ? 6. >.. F»i4» 01 C“*5v»f F 6 w .VFI V?**/ VrSt?^ti. Pi a»’'an K 04^e »E - •oca fowf^. f « <c.en t. Vaco. F £. J. Sere f. » r SNawA 5. Cujtarjon. FJ Crctiio 0»»v»er. Ff. Kcrtt A Wa^ACf F f Faui G. Mfucf. F «. a Gorcc^. * t. Dfa 3. toyum. F £. Jeffrey J a £. ;a»eoF «. » s. vFF w M?Af» • 1 ICC M. Fa^»Cl|«y Ha«#n M. o*scr Fipnet M. F!-*- Jc/ncj f SngtfrsrCZ H-pp ((<oH ^^07^ 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Andertik 6l Associates Engineers & Architects October 10. 1^95 Ms. Jennne A. Nfabusth Building und Zoning Admini>trai.'r City of Oronc Post Office Bos no Crystal Bay. Minnc.sota 55323 Rc: Bennett Subdivision File No. 159-:078 Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the subdisnsion proposed by Jensen Homes. Inc. of the property at 315 Tonkawa Road owned by Mr. & Mrs. Fr.ank Bennett. TTic proposed subdivision will create one new building site on the 10.69 acre parcel. The propern- presently lies outside of the MUSA boundary. The .subdivision .appears acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval contingent on the following entena: 1. The subdivision should be done bv plat to adequately describe easements that should be granted to the City .is follows: 5-foot wide drainage and utilin* easements along all lot lines. - a 10-foot wide drainage and utilits' easement along the Tonkawa Road right-of-way (ROW). • Hennepin County should rc\icw the subdivision to determine if additional ROW is needed for Tonkawa Road (C.R. 135). a minimum of i2 feet for the west half of the road’s rccommc.ided. a drainage easement over the drainagC'.vav cro.s.sing the parcel 2. Primary and alternate septic sites should be shown for both lots. (Note: There is an existing 9-inch PVC samtari ’ sewer line along •■he wc.st side of Tonkawa Road that could .serve these prooerties if the MUSA line ever is expanded. 3. An outloi should be platted for the exisnng gravel driveway. Lot 2 should have access to Tonkawa Road by .naking it a shared driveway. We do not recommend a new' access onto an arterial roadway such as Tonkawa Road, unless th'-re is no other feasible alternative to provide access to a property. Also, a new drivew'ay would cross the c.xisting drainageway. requiring a culvert, tree clearing and regrading of the area. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours verv truly, BONESTROO. ROSEN*E, ANDERLIK £z ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. CtLStafson, P.E. y To:Chair Petereon and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Cirv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Buildine & Zoning Administrator Date:October 9. 1995 Subject:#2031 Bruce and Irma Kelley, 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Status of Application: The preliminary subdivision application was tabled at the June 19, 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission pending receipt of additional septic testing and revised preliminary surv ey in order to complete require rents of preliminary plat. Zoning District: RR-IB Total area = 6 acres Lot 1 = 4 acres (if shared drive remains, easement area at approximately 11,034 s.f. is deducted hx>m total lot area) Lot 2 = 2 acres Lot width. Lot 1: Lot 2: Required = 200’ Proposed = 200' Proposed = 300+' No variance is required. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 - Lot area, minimum. Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as proposed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary' sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements... Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - RR-IB lot standards. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Staff Memo Dated June 12,1995 Plat Map Engineer’s Report 6/7/95 Revised Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/95 Park Commission Minutes 8/7/95 ■ ■vft at vta —ft t It t' « n - Zoning File #2031 October 10, 1995 Page 2 Review of Amended Application ITie new survey submitted satisfies the preliminaiy plat requirements as existing structures have been located and drawn to scale. Building envelopes have been defined by RR-IB yard requirements. Septic sites for both lots have been tested and approved by the On-Site Septic Manager. As the existing house on Lot 2's current septic system is located within Lot 1. a new system must be installed within Lot 2. As for the issue of access, the applicant is advised that any use ot the shared drive will be a consideration if Lot 2 is further subdivided. Staff has approved a location for an independent curb cut for Lot 1 to the east side of the property. The use of the existing rock drive by Lots 1 and 2 is also acceptable by the City. Review the Park Commission minutes of August 7, 1995. The Park Commission had originally considered obtaining trail easements along Fox Street from the applicant but decided against the trail acquisition and will ask for park dedication fee. The City Assessor will be asked to determine the fair market value of the undeveloped land for the determination of the park dedication fee. The fee will be based on 8% of the total area within Lot 1 only. Staff Recommendation To approve the preliminary subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelley’s Lana, finding all standards of the RR-IB Zoning District, On-site Septic Code and pertinent sections of the Subdivision Regulations have been satisfied. This approval is subject to the following conditions. Applicant to grant 10' drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the property and 5' drainage and utility easements along internal lot lines on the final plat. Payment of a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market value of ^e two- acre parcel (homestead parcel would not be subject to the park dedication tee). Applicant/subdivider to be responsible for ensunng that septic system on Lot 2 is installed either as a condition of the sale of the property or prior to issuance of a building permit for new construction on Lot 1. Further division of Lot 2 shall be subject to all current standards of the Municipal Code at the time of the future division. Applicant is once again advised of the minimum lot area requirements set forth in Section 11.03, Subdivision 24 of the Subdivision Regulations, which specifically addresses the issue of easements and their impact on lot area of a parcel. 1. 2. 4. '•-S^ . . 'ln TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 12. 1995 SUBJECT: #2031 Bruce & Inna Kelley. 2340 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB - Minimum 2 acre recpiiremeni. Total area = 6+ acres, dry land Lot 1=4 acres, dry Easement area = 11,034 +. s.q. [amended area of Lot 4. =3.74 acres] Lot 2 = 2 acres Pertinent Ordinances Section 11.03, Subd. 24 - "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vclticplai pedestrian easements. ......... Section 11.03, Subd. 66 (C) - Class III Subdivision - Lot 2 does not meet required 200’ of width to the rear of the street yard setback. Required = 200’ Proposed = 195’ Variance = 5’ or 2.5% Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - RR-IB Lot Standards - it is difficult to determine acni^ setbacks of existing structures from lot lines. As structures have not been located based on tield sui^ey work Applicant has used topographic/aerial maps of City that do not provide the required accuracy for a preliminary plat. Lot 2 at the street lot line measures 195’ not 165 ’ as shown on survey. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owner’s List D - Wetlands Map El-3 - Preliminary Subdivision Application F - Gustafson Report G - Weekman Report H - Septic Plan Lot 2 I - Septic Plan Lot 1 J- Bill Kelley’s Land - Plat 12/77 K - Preliminary Lot Uyout - Information Required Zoning File #2031 June 13, 1995 Page 2 Review of Application The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of Lx>t 2. Block 1, Bill Kelleys Land. It is staffs understanding that Lot I, the most western lot, will be retained for a possible resubdivision. Lot 2, the most easterly lot, measures 195’ at street lot line, and not 165.44’ as shown. Lot line can be slightly altered so that lot width is increased 5’ at the 50’ setback line. As already noted, the driveway easement will have a major impact on the potential division of Lot 1 in the future. Based upon the directives of the code, the area of the vehicular easement must be excluded from dry land area Lot 4, adjusted at 3.74 acres. Review Exhibit F, Engineer reports, that he would approve the shared access at this controlled intersection, but the shared easement would have a negative impact on future subdivision plans. Staff reviewed a potential curb cut at the east lot line of Lot 2 at the top of the hill. Engineer notes that an alternate access at the easterly lot line would satisfy sight distance requirements. Weekman ’s report. Exhibit G, recommends that the application be tabled until applicante ccniultant provides additional septic testing along with scaled drawings indicating the drain field dimensions, lot lines, hardcover, and well setbacks. The consultant has also recommended that the existing system that serves the house now located on Ix)t 2 be used to serve the proposed new residence. The consultant has labeled the system as a mound system. Weekman notes that based on the presumed year of installation (1960’s) that mound systems did not exist in that day. The consultant has not provided diagrams to scale showing the exact size, location, orientation of the site or the property line setbacks. The surveyor should also locate the soU borings and perc tests holes on the preliminary plan as requested in preliminary appUcation information. Another prime concern is the fact that we have not received a preliminary plat survey signed by a licensed surveyor. Existing structures have not been determined from field inspections but from the City ’s topographic maps. Review Exhibit E 1-3, the application information clearly asks for detailed survey information when filing preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation Staff must recommend the tabling of the application until we are in receipt of a preliminary survey and additional septic testing and mapping so that we are able to confirm all code requirements have been met. Staff will attempt to meet with the applicant prior to our meeting so that we may discuss in more detail the issues that must be addressed by applicant. jb I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& IvJl Associates Engineers & Architects ... ••m- • ••• * 4 '• ' • • • » I*-• • rmm~'Z .*•' .. :• ^ - V- jc ce" * * .•^•r • '?■ •••'. •• t 'F “ c ■> I ■ - JC £ \ow*. -t "-»oe»t G .»>.r'urhC"' »*' V* • r*r ’' '1 ■ * 4» ••• % June 7, 1995 • J A ► • - •. j : . .• • ■ '£ e*', * M.»f« ^ H.w^icn P£ 1'! • - • J ■• •• J *'>3e« •' - • , 9urs.*r :• • /*^4* A 't • .••• • — » 't : I r -> 6 •»;- -*5 - - ? V • . * . o i ^ A \«T' »- 1 * • '\»f • ' •, • r -. e ; » »• . J* -£ . o .. •. Ae *? ~ t • 3 •• V ■? • .. -c •. ■ , t r* _ I *.»•' M• Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office 66 Crystal Bay, Mitresota 55323 Re: Kellev Subdivision File No. 139-2031 B Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Kelley ’s Land for Bruce and Irma Kelley. The property is located at the northeast quadrant of Willow Drive and Fox Street. The applicants propose to use the existing driveway as a shared access to the two lots. This access is located at a four-way stop intersection. As long a? this intersection is controlled, the driveway location is acceptable for a shared access. This would require that a driveway easement be provided to the easterly lot. If the westerly lot is planned to be further subdivided in the future, the driveway easement may be deducted from the overall area, which would not allow two lots at the 2 acre minimum. An alternate access for the easterly lot could be located near the east lot line as this is the top of the hill and has good sight distance. Drainage and utility easements will be required 5 feet wide along the proposed division line Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ol /jLcu^ J). Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. - .. . - • •: • •. -r . rn ^ i w.mC Si.ufT -J ....... *£ C. " ^ £ .ve V *'.*• e*. ^ £• c»ii« . *. ' M * • • - .• •- • • • - i ;•,» “ - - .*•••• » r •• • •• 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 O lA « Hn " O r* - •V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUN'E 19, 1995 X («) #3031 BRUCE R. KELLY .AND IRMA J. KELLY, 2340 FOX STREET - PRELEVfINARY Sl^DIVlSION - 8:30-S;45 P*>L The CertiScate of Mailing and AfSda\-ii of Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs Kelly were present. The propem- m quest.on is located at ti intersection o.Tox Street and Wi»ow Dnve in a RRIB zone requiring Z acre minimum lot size and _ acres ot conuguous land The applicants propose a shared access at the easting curb cut. svhich has been approved bv the Engineer. Mabusth cautioned the owner that the dnveway easement would have an impaa on division of Lot I in the future. The ^ea of must be excluded from dry land area. It was noted that the top ot the hill the east side of the new lot was an acceptable location. Mabusth said there was a problem with the septic testing. The existing septic system serving residence is located on Lot 2 and would not meet current septic standards Mabusth noted there appears to be no problem with the sepuc sites on the Staff is unable to locate the sites because the septic diagrams are not to sc^e. They need to be redrawn to scale. .Mabusth said new septic testing needs to be developed lot and a preliminary survey. An additional 5' is needed to have 200 of lot width to the rear of the 50' street setback. The AppUcant said both lots were over 200' wide. KeUy did not underst^d that the easement area is deducted from the dry buildabic. The reason for the subdivision is to ^d a reuremcat-P.pe home on the other lot. KeUy said the lot line was not necessarily fixed, but he only wanted to make it easy and simple. KeUy understands that two new scptics are needed and cited a report saying there is adequate space on both lots for mound systems He does not understand the need for tabling the appbcation. Rowlette commented that the survey identifies the property. Kelly was certified. Rowlette said she could not approve the applicauon without 200 on Fox Street for the new lot. Mabusth said structures need to be located in the field and setbacks confirmed from a fixed lot line, and the locating of structures through topograpical mapping does not satisfy requirements ot a preliminary plat. Schroeder said althoueh the Commission can not act on the application, direction can be given. Schroder noted ’that the septic seems to meet die requirements. Rowlette said caution was needed so as not to destroy a fiiture subdiMSion. Peterson moved. Nolan seconded, to table AppUcation ??2031 for City review of the septic sites and for a survey pinpointing structures and weUs. Ayes 7. Nays 0. ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 7, 1995 ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above date %vith the tollowing members present. Chaif Richard Flint, Lili Mc.Miilan. Sherok.ee Use. James White. Robert Howells, and Andrew McDermott 111 Susan Wilson was absent Council Member Goenen represented the Council Chair Flint called the meetina to order at T 15 pm. .AGENDA (#1) INTRODlCnON OF NENVXY APPOLNTED PARK COMMISSION MEMBER, .ANDREW J. MCDERMOTT III The newly appointed member ot the Park Commission. .Andrew McDermott III, was introduced and welcomed by Chau Hint McDermott is employed by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of Interior, as a landscape architea dealing with site design, park designs, as well as kiosk and budding designs. McDermott also is familiar with the ADA requirements He has lived in Orono for 8 years (#2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF J1T.Y 13, 1995 McMillan asked that the minutes clarity that the amount of S 14,227, approved by the Council for Crystal Bay Playground, be noted as money approved for playground equipment. Sec page 6, 4th paragraph, ot the minutes. Howells moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes ot the Park Commission meeting of July 13, 1995, as amended. Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#3) PRESENTATION BY .ANTOINE P.ARK NEIGHBORHOOD .ASSOCIATION This item was tabled as no member of the association was present. (#4) CONSroERATION OF LAND OR MONEY TO BE DONATED TO PARK DEDICATION FTJND IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISIONS; (Citv Staff to provide dollar amount of the park dedication fee involved if we accept cash and how much this will be reduced if we accept a 12 foot trail casement along the north side of Fo.x Street in lieu of cash.) \fTNXTES OF THE R£GUL.\R ORONO P.*^ COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 7. 1995 (#4 - Park Dedication of Land or Money Considerations - Continued) A. #2031 KELLEY, 2340 FOX STREET - POSSIBLE TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF FOX STREET B. #2029 SMITH, 2580 FOX STREET - POSSIBLE TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF FOX STREET D. #2043 BUHRER, 2620 FOX STREET Items 4A B. and D were discussed together as all properties lay on Fox Street. Any determination would olfeci all three propernes Mr Smith asked to again table the matter as he was unable to attend the meeting. Smith would like to meet on site with Commission members to sec where a trail could go if that option w as chosen. Gcrhardson said tabling this isaic would not unpede the process at this point. Flint noted a trail on Fox Street was shown in the conceptual bikc/hikc trail plans No decision on whether it would be located on the north or south side had been done, however. Flint commented that the homes were closer to the road on the south side as well as wetlands and utilities The utilities do switch to the north side farther down the road. Because of this, Flint said a recommendation would be to place a trail on the north side if a trail were decided upon. nint expressed the desire of all the Commissioners is to keep Fox Street as it is now. The disagreement Ues in whether an easement should be taken now in case of a tlimre upgrade of Fox Street. Flint said he believed an easement would allow a trail to be built inland negating the need to have a contiguous trail to a 4* boulevard. Flint reiterated that there is no need for a trail now but an easement would allow the type of trail the Commission would want if future changes were made to Fox Street If an easement was not taken now, and an upgrade was to be done on Fox Street at some future time, a trail could be built only along the roadway. Goenen voiced her concern with negotiating the wetlands where Fox Street approaches Brown and Orono Orchards Roads. McMillan said she believed a trail at this location would duplicate that of the Luce Line, which also runs east/west. McMillan thought the money would be bener spent in other areas. It was further noted that Fox Street is pretty well developed with only a couple lots where additional easements could be available as subdiNnsions occur. There is very little dividable land in this area. McMillan later added that the Luce Line geographically divides Orono and saw CoRd 6 as a possible northern trail route and the lake area as a proportionate, albeit unlikely, southern trail. Howells asked if Mr. Smith was for or against a trail on Fox Street. Gerhardson said Smith was originally not for a trail, but he has softened his view and is willing to discuss it. r # r- a* n I I M f 1< 4. To; From: Date: Sabject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator October 9, 1995 i^2041 Phillip and Darcy Otto, 4116 Highwood Road - Conditional Use Pemiit Continuation of Public Heanng Status of Application: The application was tabled at the July 17. 1995 meeting ot the Planning Commission awaiting a report trom the Cit\ Engineer concerning potential impact ot ttie proposed grading on an existing stormwater facility to the east ot the subject propertv', refer to Exhibits C ^d L. In addition, the applicant was to provide an amended grading plan addressing all issues detailed in Planning Commission Action Notice. Exhibit G. Applicant has submitted an amended grading plan addressing all pertinent issues. The Citv Engineer has also addressed the matter of the potential impact of the tilling upon the sensitive stormwater facility. Exhibit K. Pertinent Ordinances Pertinent ordinances remain the same as set torth in the enclosed staff memo dated July 12, 1995, Exhibit A. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J K L Staff Memo 7/12/95 Applicant ’s Addendum, Original Submittal Plat Map Original Site Plan Approved with Building Permit & Variance Application #1920 Proposed Plan. Original Submittal Planning Commission Minutes 7/17/95 Planning Commission Action Notice Building Elevations Otto Letter 9/13/95 Amended Grading Plan Engineer's Report 9/27/95 Drainage Area Brief Review of Application At your July meeting, you approved the two tiered retaining walls constructed along the west lot line of the property with a new curb cut created at the south/street lot line that was approved by John Gerhardson. The Planning Commission approved the island area as long as plantings were maintained and erosion controlled. Any plantings that restricted sighting at the roadway should be discouraged. It was also noted that the neighbor to the immediate west had approved the retaining walls. Zoning File ??2041 Page 2 October 10, 1995 Members are once again asked to review Exhibit B, applicant s reasons tor proceeding with the further excavation of the street yard. The major concern ot the review ing staff was the placement of the additional fill within the narrow side yard and to the rear of the residence. The raising of the elevations in the side yard became even more of an issue because of the narrowness ot the yard at 15'. The Engineer knew that it would be impossible to install a 3 :1 slope in the 15' and that we may be looking at additional retaining walls or layering of geogrid fabric to maintain the steep slope. Another issue was the low area in front of the garages at the street side. It was impossible to achieve positive drainage away from residence. The applicant originally considered installing a catch basin. Review Exhibit J, applicant ’s amended plan shows downspouts on residence tv ing into draintiles alomj the west side and along the street or south side. At the south side, the trench drain connects to a draintile that eventually drains at an outlet in the rear yard. Rev.ew Exhibit K, Gustafson approved the crading plan showing 2:1 slope. Note excavations are kept out of the neighboring property at the^'east. Slopes along the east side will be planted with crown vetch and then covered and staked with curlex erosion control blankets. All drainage from the residence structure will be directed to the north or rear of the property. Review Exhibit K and L. Glen Sauer, the owner of the property located at 4104 Highwood Road, was concerned with the additional fill being placed in the watershed and potential impact on his property. Gustafson has reviewed this matter with Glenn Cook. The report notes that the proposed grading will have no perceptible impact upon the retention area within Mr. Sauer’s property. Staff has advised Mr. Sauer of the Engineer ’s report. Staff Recommendation To approve the after-the-fact conditional use peimit for Phil and Darcy Otto for the property l^ated at 4116 Highwood Road involving land alterations not authorized under a building permit for the new construction. The land alteration included the installation of two tiered retaining walls along the west side lot line, creation of a new curb cut and the removal and placement of approximately 200 cubic yards of earth. This approval is based on the following findings: 1. The final grading plan approved by the City Engineer has been found to have no impact upon the adjacent properties as a result of the fxuther excavation of the street yard and the placement of the additional fill to the side and rear of the residence. 2. John Gerhardson has reviewed the second curb cut and approved the location and use of second curb cut finding an improvement in safety based on the narrowness of Hiehwood Road and the number of dwelling units serv^ed by this substandard roadway. 3. The land alterations will not involve the adjacent property to the east. r Zoning File **2041 Page 3 October 10. 1995 4.Propostd additiotul till placed »ithin the north yard of the property wtU not impact the stormwater laciliry installed to the east. Approval ts subject to the followtng conditions; It shall be the responsibility of the owTier and owner ’s contractor to arrange for an inspection by the City Engineer at the following stages ot restoration: I) Upon completion of all grading before seed blanket is installed and Engineer to revievv island area in street yard. 2) Upon completion of the seeding and final drainage improvement (downspout tie-ins to draintiles and trench drain). Applicant is herebv advised that boats on trailers are not to be stored within area of the second curb cut that has been specifically approved in order to provide safe ingress and egress from property, not as an additional parking stall for the boat. / <6- t TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building *S: Zoning Administrator DATE:Julv 12, 1995 SUBJECT: «f2041 Phillip Otto. 4116 Highwood Road - Conditional Use Permit/Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 19 - Conditional use permit has been filed for land alterations not authorized under building permit issued for new residential construction nor variance Application #1920 approved by City in May of 1994. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - 75-250’ setback area = 1,500 s.f. Allowed = 375 s.f. or 25% Existing = 325 s.f. or 21.67% 250-500’ setback area = 15,388 s.f. Allowed = 4,616.4 s.f. or 30% Existing = 1,788 s.f. or 11.55% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Addendum C - Plat D - Property Owners List E - Hardship Statement F - Sketch of Applicant ’s Approved Grad'mg Plan with Building Permit G - Sketch of Current Grading Installed at Property H - Specifications for Wall I - .Applicant ’s Amended Grading Plan J - Resolution Approving Application #1920 K Gustafson Report 7/7/95 L - Elevations M - Grading Plan/Surv-ey Approved with Building Permit 1 Zoning File #2041 July 12. 1995 Page 2 Description of Request In May 1994 the City approved lot width, street and side setback variances to permit construction of the new residence on property. Review Exhibit J. the conditions ot that approval required that applicant provide detailed grading plans to ensure that there would be no impact on adjacent residential properties. At the time of the issuance of a building permit, detail was also required for retaining walls that were to be installed along the west side where cuts in the steeper elevations would be called tor to allow for the access drive. Review Exhibits F and L, in the building permit review the applicant or contractor was advised ot the iwed to provide specifications for any wall section that would exceed a 4’ height. The more intense excavation in the street yard beyond what was approved with the building permit requires special consideration because the additiona l^ fill has b^jglac^ along the east side yard and to the north rear yard. The current op^aiiernat^evations along the east yard lot line present problems of severe erosion impacting both the subject property and property to east. Review E.xhibit G. H and I. the applicant has installed both a second curb cut and a retaining wall 3’ from the west side lot line. With the installation of a new curb cut at Rest Point Road, an island area has been created that shows signs of erosion and potential loss ot trees because of exposure of roots at the cut area. Review Exhibit I. applicant proposes two alternatives for restoration of this area. The engineer has recommended alternative B which involves the restoration of 2:1 slopes and replanting of trees that will obviously be lost as a result of these excavations. Applicant will replant with evergreens. The engineer has reviewed the specifications for the retaining wall and has approved the wall. There is also discussion of a need to install a catch basin within the driveway as garage elevation is at the same elevation of drive. The engineer requests detail as to the final location of that catch basin and the outlet. Because of the narrowness of this lot and the steepness of the elevations adjacent to the house, the engineer also recommends gutters and downspouts for the residence. Downspouts should be located on a final grading plan. John Gerhardson. our Public Works Director, has reviewed the property and approved the second curb cut recognizing the need for safety on the severely limited roadway. Please refer to E.xhibit E. Applicant has provided a hardship statement as to the need to proceed with the more extensive land alteration in the street yard and need for the second curb. Review Exhibit K. Gustafson ’s report of July 7, 1995 and Exhibits H and 1, recent submittals of applicant in response to engineer ’s preliminaiy review at site inspection. Gustafson advised in a recent phone conversation that the amended grading plan is not acceptable. He advises that area along the east side lot line that is steeper than a 3:1 slope must be covered by seed blankets. f" i I Zoning File #2041 July 12, 1995 Page 3 Applicani should also denote t\'pc of seed because of the need to maintain ground cover. He also noted the grading encroachments into east property and recommends obtaining written pennission from owner if Cit>' is to approve plan. Applicant may also consider other options noted in Gustafson's report of July 7th that offers other methods such as slope stabilization (use of eeoerid) or retaining walls. Gustafson asks for a more detailed to scale drawing of the tmal grading plans. Staff has listed the detail and information need on a revised grading and drainage plan: 1. A to scale drawing showing existing and proposed elevation. Locate catch basin in driveway and outlet (elevation). 3.In recent amended grading plan. Engineer opted for alternative "B". Applicant to provide detail on 2:1 slopes of island area and number and type of evergreen plantings to be installed and their location. 4.In areas along east side where slopes are greater than 3:1, provide either a slope stabilization plan, retaining walls or seed blankets. Applicant should provide detail on type of seed to be used and potential for maintenance. 5.If grading is to extend into eastern property, the City must receive written permission for the authorization of this grading activity. 6. Location of all downspouts on residence. 7. Drainage plan should also specify with arrows flow of drainage from property. Staff would add as a reminder to the applicani that boats on trailers are not to ^ stored withm the street yard at least not at the second curb cut that is supposed to be providing safe ingress and egress from property and not as an additional parking stall for the boat. Options of Action To either approve subject to the recommendation of the City Engineer and applicant to provide detail grading plan for engineer's review and approval before scheduling application betoret e Council; or table landing confirmation by Planning Commission that applicant has fulfilled all requirements of City Engineer. - - - -Tk — i ,•• • rs- r (J /i££££AlS &-) AiO- ^i~/h/AJ^y^6 CJT uZ l T^ fjLC ^li C-^L't 6-i^JAL- Coj'id. itrn'd.) A 7 » /• * ” -»•: t wi /■ SAtEU2/- zrr Li'^s bi'i=f=i c.u(^i_ / o A/i.ot>-f<-''y ~/7'£- <^k' / 7">/<£- -7 d f-/} TZiKb .A€Ct'C/'^yO A-aJ D //(^/4-i)^ OU-V AOfl I'Vn-fLu Oj2- ix I T uFAt^ bFiV'L. /U-ALl- - TC /H'etT COPp^ A fi- aJ‘c i7^' A ^/J/ii'yc. So'/<^ ~ /AaJP P^C£t -fQ '/ A, £~/9'Ll- ^ ^ 72>c^/e ■ yri/<J pPo Pas^p ; ,v jPAdyiA^// CAP Ac-CtSS ppj'CLCL I 3A0.P o<yJ ' yv/^S <--" I ' ~ \ A) ,, p T'ty ,^^rLt-^sT)<^A^eAc-b b^op. Pd tPa.' AeovAJ-> n ayrr yoKu.4e.DS pO^Si6Li> 7S np ‘p2. -m THS. ivtsrs,£>e nwt TP£- ptoccre'^ y ! / (?)(i> 1 »447.\% * 1 r'/ 1 kT®^ «[?El ^73) B ■ *«# LhGAL OtSCRIPTiON OF PREMIbEb; ihat part ut Lot 38, Highw dS follows: Commencing at the Lot; thence SouthwesterIy alun said lot a distance of 98 feet the property being described; degrees a distance of b.2 feet degrees to said Southeasterly the point of beginning, accoro file or of record in the ofric in and for said County. ALSO That part of Lot 40. Hignw Southwester Iy of the line draw westerly line of said lot. dis from the Southwest corner of S must Southeaster ly line of Sal easterly frym said SouUiwest Cv thereof on file or or ^ecurd n jf Titles in and for said Count ALSO Lot 39. Highwood. Lake Hinr th»*reof on tile or or recor*l ir of Titles In and for saio Couii ALSO Lot 43, Highwood Lake HInnelonr This survey intends to sfiow the described pruporly. It does not iiiipruveme.** 4 or e*i'.ruachments • < Da turn:Meofi sea level - .0 :Iron marker Beorinu^ shuwn dre bdSud —; —OJtf—: it ►>J1 -1* * • *( fl r^P^rtPvJ -fv I »A n^.^4* t'm*»T'*^*' rvKkJT^ ^>io ifc» V-r>* • <;.pvxA <n. E^*-SfsH ni*- If* - wy CftoOl^ Ht» rU^^MClKl^ »>OU»^ |0H»»i M»«tUf^U4fr MINXTHS OF THE ORONO PL.-\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JLXY 17. 1995 (#9 - #2040 Doug Olson • Continued) Mabusth noted that the peninsula shape of the lot places major poftions of property ^^ithin the 0-75'zone Lindquist said any consideration by the appUcant to remove the stepping stones to the dock ^ould be appreciated Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2040 for the remosal and replacement of die concrete pad around the pool with the removal ot 65 s t. ot s^^nes an 170 s f of patio concrete to be replaced with grass Ayes 3, Nays I, Rowlene i ay^ Rowlette's recommendation is for ail the stepping stones to be removed. Smith sai e will make that recommendanon to the Olson’s and amend the appUcation if approval is given (#10) #2041 PHIL AND DARCY OTTO. 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD * AFTER- THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:16-9:43 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit ot Publication were noted. Mr. & Mrs. Ono were present. Mabusth reported that grading plans had been approved with the building peniut. Through the process in working within the steep banks in front of residence, additional cuts were made which will require additional and higher retaining walls. The area was excavated fiirthcr than originaJIy proposed when the structure was erected and weU installed. The Engineer has reviewed the specifications for retaining walls and accepted them Drainage tiles to rear of wail were noted and drained to the rear of the property. A second curb cut was created with an island for safety reasons. Gerhardson approved the curb cut. Smith asked if the direction of the waU was changed and taken by the initiative of the applicant Otto said he had thouaht the well people had contarted the City. Mabusth said the City has no authority to issue permits for weUs. This was the responsibility of the applicant. Rowlette noted that the appUcant had commented to her when she visited the property that the house was not placed in the envelope as originally specified. The house placement was skewered by the guidelines of the setback. The original placement mad? the entry into the garage diflScult and the exit impossible. Lindquist commented that the two curb cuts seemed to make sense. MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JLXY 17, 1995 (#10 - #2041 Phil & Darcy Otto - Continued) Mabusth said additional fill fi-om the cxcavatio.1 was placed in the rear yard. The Otto’s arc attempting to provided a gentler slope to the rear yard. The problem at the east si has been intc^*fied. The problem now is how to deal with the finished elevations at tte cast vard at 15’ width and maintain 2; 1 slope, and also allow walking access to rear yard. Mabusth said it would be necessaiy to contaa the property owner to the east to gain approval of any encroachment. The propeity is possibly in the m the process of going tax forfeit. Madxisth said detail on elevations, catch basins, and final grades arc needed. Planning Commission is unable to midcc any ftinher recomnwndations until ^e criteria established engineer is addressed. Mabusth asked the Commission if they prefer to revisit the appUcation prior to going to the Council The landscaping plan would be done at that point. The Commission had no problem with the appUcation going forward if it met the criteria of the Engineer. It was recommended that the landscape architect work with the City Engineer. Glen Sauer of 4104 Highwood reported his concern with drainage from this lot exceeding the capacity of the ditch and retaining pond on his property. Sauer does not want this property to further impaa his yard Pictures from heavy rains in 1978 and 1987 were shown to emphasize the problems. Sauer said he was concerned with the filling in the Otto's back yard and the change in the slope in that area. It is Sauer's opinion that how fast the drainage flows does not matter. Sauer says it all will eventually go through the 20’ culvert with 8" tiles. He does not any fill to hamper any of the retention areas. It was noted that the gender slope may aid m water seeping down into the ground of the Otto property. Mabusth said the fill and sod should decrease the velocity of the flow Sauer said there is no more storage capacity available. Mabusth said she would have Glenn Cook review the drainage issue with Shawn Gustafson. Cook is femiliar with the drainage history of the are^ The Planning Commissioners said this further information will need to be studied. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to tabic AppUcation #2041 for fimher engineering review by City Engineer Cook. Planning Commission would Uke to receive confirmation on what will occur to the retention areas further downstream. Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Costal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Mr & Mrs. Phillip Otto 4116 Highwood Road Orono. MN 55364 ZONLNG FILE NOTICE OF PLANNING C03LM1SSI0N ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; July 25. 1995 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit;Variance DATE OF MEETING; 7/17/95 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: . - „ • Planning Commission recommended tabling application pending receipt ot the tollowing t^ormauom^p^ ^ revised grading and drainage plan to provide tte following information and deuil: j , • 1) Scaled drawing showing existing and proposed elevations. 2) Locate catch basin in driveway and outlet (designate elevation of outlet). 3) In regard to island area, the engineer opted for Alternative B. Applicant to provide detail on 2:1 slopes of the island area and the number and type of evergreen plantings to be installed and their location. 4) The area of the east side yard where slopes are greater than 3:1, applicant to determine method for stabilizing steeper elevations (i.e. slope subilization plan, retaining walls or seed blankets). If seed blanket is used, applicant to provide detail on type of seed to be used and potential for maintenance. 5) If grading is to extend into eastern property, the City must receive written permission for the authorization of this grading activity. 6) Location of all downspouts on residence. 7) Drainage plan to specify with arrows the flow of drainage from property. B. City SUIT to consult with City Engineer to determine if there is any negatiye impact of the filling on your property upon the drainage/retention area within Glen Sauer s property located at 4104 Highwood Road. Shawn Gustafson of Bonestroo, Anderlik & Rosene (636^) encourages your consulunt to ^rth^di^tly in order to assist with any questions your consultant may haye in ptepanng the final grading plan. In order to assure that you ate scheduled before the Planning Commission of Au^t 21. 1W5. vour revised trading and drainage plan must be submined no later than Fnday. August 11* or Lptember 8th for the Septembe'r 18th. 1995 meeting. to the City Engineer a copy of the revised gradmg pto at Gusufson. Bonestroo & Associates, 2335 Highway 36, St. Paul, MN . py plan must also be submitted to the zoning office. ) li ! . ! ( I i I J c-d.r\nc^ '> pA , I Q rh^ •«„ i;4 10557s pL^ftS<t d (.'aZ-SV/-^t^ Cijf: L/■Z'A//j $■ (I/f-p^. pLr^iJ Pop 77ti /\Jj- /T CoUAJ c»./'Z_- hpfld OC.r ^3, f^/96'. l l\/i f'Jteo n> Pocvt^ 5iPc£S Coed UpA-nrtP S^T^/k'k/- S'P/Pi.laI (ptiiT/f,P^0p/ Ti-i£. CJry pc/-hU /4-a.' ^ CoP£t<> O^XTP -nft^P/PCtOStP T!tt • PciPsE d’j^/7m,r' n-P/JP- ~7yia.hk (\ \ \ I i I t w«W • ^ \ . ''<>»«> ------^r— y Ho^j 6H.lTlc4kU. y '»'•»• ^___ v ^tU* rHt^ Ar<g» *TM*rfr wrm MIU4IX ^^.oce* M Bonestroo Rosene Ancterlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Sonetsroo *«€n€ Antfen* jtm J Assoc;«es. «i JA Aff ActiOh tQuM Opponurnty f*^c'o>ef Ofto G ttoneitroo. ^ f. W AE* oseof'C A^*K3e'*A •€ n L Sorva a. P £ tich«ra E P £ Giefw' f Coo«. P £ T*»o*^as £ Moves P E foocr? a Schuric-n ® E Wtjn M ED«ftin C P A • • Se^or Coeifu/tant September 27. 1995 Hcmsra A Sar^fortf. P £. Aetth A Qor&on.. P E. eeeert e p E 9 chartf W Eos^er PE ravto O LosPQta. * E tooert C A ' A Jorry A Sou* <ion. r k. Mart A Hanfois. P S Micnaei T Eautmann. P E Ted A f.e^d. PE Thomsi * Afsdefiofs. A l.A James E Eosenmeftet. P S Donttd C Burgartft. P E Thomaj A. Syfito. PE Predenc J Sttnoorg, P E iimaet iMartmee. P E Michael P Eau. P E Jir Pederson, PE Mtchael C Lyncls. PE James E Maiano. PE Jerry O Pertfsch. P E Sf-*rt j Argaree PE •tervseth P ArKiersoh PE Mart E toifs PE Mart A. Set#. P E Gary UE %lerien. PE PjMi J Gafwson. A l.A. Oantei J Edyerten. P S A. Eiei Schmidt. P E Dale A Qreve P E PMttp J Catwetf. PE Mart 0 dfaiits. P E Miles • Jer^sers. P E L. Ph*M*a Gravel. P I. Aaren l \IE»emen. PI Gary O Anitofit* PE •nars A. Gage PE P Tedd Pester. .•* t. Ee*fh E rape, p i Dougias J Benoit. P E. S.ha«m 0 Gustafson. P E. CtctMo Ofiv*er P f. Aent J. Wagner. P t. Paul G Heuer P E, John P Gorder P E. Oan O Boyuni. P I. Jeffrey J. Ehiennger. P £. Joteph t Ehetn. P C. lee M Manrs. P E. Chartes A Enction Leo M. Pswetsky Hanan M. Olson Agrses M Emg James P Engemardt )/s Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bav, Minnesota 55323 Re: Otto Residence File No. 139-2041 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the revised grading plan for the residence at 4116 Highwood Road on the property owned by Phillip Otto. The grading plan is acceptable from an engineering perspective and we would recommend approval. We have determined that the proposed grading will have no perceptible impact upon the retention area within the Glen Sauer property at 4104 Highwood Road. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERi IK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. cc:Mr. & Mrs. Otto 4116 Highwood Road Orono, MN 55364 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ._.j ! b To:Chair Steve Peterson ind Orono Planning Commission Nfembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Adminlstfalor Date:October 11. 1995 Subject: #2056 Michael and Barbara Wigley, 1055 Tonkawa Road - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. One Acre Application: Revised request for land alteration/C UP and variance to construct boulder retaining walls. R'*vised proposal omits boulder wall at base of slope. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - Letter of Revision Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/23/95 DNR Letter 8/21/95 Planning Commission Minutes 8/21/95 Memo and Exhibits of 8/18/95 Discussion Applicants have revised their proposal to construct just the boulder retaining walls at the the slope. At the August Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission had indicated a reluctance to approve the boulder walls at the base of the slope, but indicated there may be some Justification for the walls at the top of the slope to help stabilize the lawn surface. Issues for Consideration Has the applicant determined the function of the 5" draintile near the top ''f the lakeshore stairway? In the 0-75’ zone just below the lawn south of the lake stairs, there exists an area of mulch underlain by weed-inhibiting fabric, which under Orono's definition is hardcover. Should that fabric be allowed to remain as hardcover? If so, its squ^ footage should be documented and variance granted. Applicant should provide adequate justification for the fabric to remain in place, or should be required to remove it. The only existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is the 4 ’ x 40’ stairway and the existing boulder lawn border constituting perhaps 30-40 s.f. of hardcover. Zoniiig File #2056 October 11, 1995 Page 2 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that sufficient jusiificaiion exists for construction of the proposed boulder walls at the top of the slope, approval could be conditioned on the following: 1. Prior to application going to Council, applicant to provide a 0-75' hardcover worksheet indicating all existing and proposed hardcover. Planning Commission should determine whether to allow the existing fabric/mulch areas to continue to be lined with fabric, or have the fabric removed. 3.Require the use of "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" during the process of boulder wall construction. 4.Clarify that the approval docs not include excavation or gnuling in the 0-75 ’ zone for the purpose of eliminating poison ivy, nor does it inclwle approval for any tree removals in the 0-75' zone. Applicants have requested that this item be placed on the City Council Agenda f^r the October 23 meeting. Options for Action 1. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. Table. 4.Other. I, iria^ iMV bh '1 L i\ D Sc1 A PLUS Custom Design & Installation (612) 473-6649 oci ID < „ City Of Orcno P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 September 29,1995 Attn: Michael P. Gaffron RE: Michael & Barbara Wigley 1035 Tonkawa Rd Long Lake, MN 55356 I would like to confirm the placement of this application on the schedule for the October 16 Planning Commission meeting. At this time I would like to amoid the application to only include the boulder wall at the top of the hill; removing the lower lakeside retaining wall trom the design. We ask that you please put this item on the agenda for the city council meeting on October 23, 1995. Thank You ttliw W. Laue / P.O. Box 508 Long Lake, MN 55356 I cm' OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, VLN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2056 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION action DATE OF NOTICE: August 23. 1995 TO:Michael & Barbara Wigley 1035 Tonkawa Road Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES TO:Matthew W. Lauc 2165C Shenandoah Ct. Plymouth. MN 55447 Ron Anderson Final Grade. Inc. 5893 Miller Circle Prior I-ake, MN 55372 Dave Fellon Landscape Junction 21450 Hamburg Avc. Lakeville, MN 55044 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance. Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 8/21/95 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST ptanning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled at applicants' request pending Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review and possible plan revision AoDlicants* next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Please advise staff at least two weeks prior to the September I8th or October 16th meetings if you wish to be placed back on the Planning Commission agenda. If vou desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ch ad WONC NO STATl OP ps. ^ r~^ \ ^ ! js;;^ ^ ^ vNjj^ J ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS. 12C0 WARNER ROAD. ST. PAUL. MN 55106^,^eno 772-7910 7^ ^August 21, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway. P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE; Michael and Barbara Wigley Conditional Use Permit, Lake Minnetonka (27-133) City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Mabusth We have revie\A«d the above-referenced conditional use permit request (received August 8, 1995) and we have the following comments on the proposed permit. 1.We are concerned that the proposed retaining walls and landscaping will remove natural vegetation that screens the house on the lot from view on Lake Minnetonka. Natural vegetation, color and other means approved by the city should be used to screen the proposed walls and the house from view from the Lake. The ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka is 929.4' (NGVD 1929) and not the water level. Any work that occurs below an elevation of 929.4' (NGVD 1929) may require a DNR permit. 3.Steep slopes exist on the lot. The work that Is done should be limited to that work that is necessary to control erosion. Careful erosion control measures should be taken at this site to avoid negatively impacting the lake. 4.Any work that occurs below an elevation of 931.5’ is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and may require a permit from the Wateshed District Eugene Strommen (939-8320) should be contacted for further information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this conditional use permit. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist c:Orono Shoreland File Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Eugene Strommen AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 199? (#13 - =2055 Tony Eidcn Company - Continued) Mabusth rcMcwed the application. The applicant is ^°J^rIi^^-a^BalfRoad and the subdivision entrance at Thoroughbred Lane and NVdlow an ' ii at heicHt of 3- Countryside Dnve West 30‘ in diameter ’*^th 50 linear feet ot retaming wall 3-1/2V The monument would be of a horse dnniang water trom a rountain . vanance would be required because of the size of the monument Peterson said there was an existing ordinance m etfect dealing with and it should not be changed. The applicant, however, aoes have a ngh*i to co the Commission for a variance. .4 Inter from Bmcc Koial askmg for reieetton of the proposal was read irtfo the mmutes. Mabusth asked that all members of the audiertce present tn reiauon to "sJPPto"™ in on the attendance sheet for the record. There wne 10 p«ple wne tn opposition to the appUcation. Mabusth said she vsould notify the appheant of their displeasure with the proposal ,\nne Bowman. 10 So WTUow Drive, said she was not notified of the application Geotcc Sttekney said he lives at the end of the deveiopntent. monumemt would create a huge maintenance and vandalism “ monument would be an issue for the homeowners assoctation. Sockney »d was the architectural review commission for the homes being built ui the subdivision. Mayor Callahan was asked if it was requited to table the of the appbeant. Callahan said there was no requirement to do so, but it was what generally done. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table AppUcanon «055. Callahan asked St^toconvey to the appbeant the feeling ofthe audience and the Planning Commission. , . Nays 0. ,#14) #20«6 hnCH.AEL AND BARBARA WTGLEY. 1035 TON^WA ROAD - CO.-WirioNAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HE.ARING 10:28-10i=8 P..M. The Cenificate of .Mailing and .Affidavit of Pubbeation were noted. Mrs Wiglev', and landscape architect, Man Laue, were present. F MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NNING COND^OSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 {#14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigic>' • Connnued) Gaffi-on reponed that the application is for land akeraiion conditional use permit and variance to excavate in the 0-75' zone and to install boulder retaining wails. Code secnons prohibit grading within '5' of the lake, as well as any hardcover in that area, and requires a CUT* for lakeshore aiterauon The application proposes pao tiers of boulder wails, one at the top of a 2.1 slope, the other at the base of that slope in the flood plain next to the lake The walls would taper to a 3 1 slope. A retaining wall at the top of the slope would be extended to make the lawn level. A MCWT) permit is required to build within that flood plain A previous contraaor had been turned down by .MCUX) when he applied for their permit Gafifron said he hjrf spoken with the MCWT), who saw no need for the walls ^ Gaffron said he concurs with the finding that the walls would provide no significant stabiiizaition Showing an elevation sketch. Gaf&on said the wall would be exposed 5-1 2 of the I J' height at thejake. It ^ would be difiRcult to screen all of this wall GatTron said Stall'sees little justihcation tor the walls unless there was immment failure of the slopes. Walls are not normally approved by the City for aesthetic reasons or for surface soil erosion. The erosion occurrina bv the house is in the shaded area. Fill would make this arM to the nonh and south more”leCel and could possible be screenable with vegetation. Staff currently views the site has having a natural state of shoreline, and changing it as p^posed will yield a layered look of ornamental vegetation. The Engineer has found no problem with the proposal fi-om an engmeermg standpoint, but notes there is no evidence that the slope is about to fail. Gaffi-on said the hardcover had not been measured. There is mulch with fabric within the 0-75’ some of which Gaffion said should suy and some should be removed. There is likely a need to stabilize the ground where no grass is growing to control the erosion. The drainage around the house drains towards the neighbor and fans out. Peterson asked the applicant why she felt the walls were needed. Mrs. Wigley said it was her feeling that erosion was occurring on both sides of the house as well as bemg the issue on the hiU Her main concern is for safety of her famUy noting the vegetauon on the h^ is full of poison iw and poison oak. Wigley did not wish to remove the natural look ot the hiU with zrass She said she is a maintenance-type person, who likes to take care of the problem before the hill faUs down and would like to remove the poisong ivy and oak. Schroeder said the applicant could leplace the poison ivy and oak with other vegetation without requiring boulder walls. Gaffion said the City' feels there is no need to ^ade the hillside to get rid of the poison ivy and oak, and there is no slope problem requmng ^e wall Gaffion did agree that leveling ofthe top area would be helpful. Schroeder said he agreed that erosion was occurring on the sides of the house, and maybe at the top ofthe slope, but did not see any erosion at the bottom. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^aSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 (p14 - ^2056 Michael &. Barbara Wigiey - Contir.ued) Peterson told the applicant that the Planning Commission does not want residents to wait until a hill is eroding, but he also did not see any problem except by the house The weeds and the structure on the hiil should hold back the hill while revegetating according to Peterson It was also noted that the stairwav was in good solid condition. Gaf&on inquired about a drainage pipe found on the property ’ The applicant said she had no idea what was the reason for the pipe. The contractor said he would check on the pipe. Laue said defoliating would be difincult and would kill the undergrowth. Hawn asked what would be used to kill the poison ivy' and oak voicing her concern with chemicals was'ning into the lake Laue said a spray would be allowed to dry resulting in no run off. Laue said the top wall would hold back erosion from the house area. It is his plan create a swale with the boulder wall being located higher and the soil lower to catch the drainage and allow it time to oercolate thru the soil Lane said an orieinal pcmut was denied by the N1C^VD, not because of the plan, but because the neighbor's contraaor was under investigation. The neighbor was asking for a similar boulder wall, Schroeder said it would be hard to believe that the permit was denied for anv other reason than merit. Schroeder said the Cir.-'s Comprehensive Plan sets guidelines for lakeshore. The Plan requires that natural veceiation be preserved as much as is practical. If erosion is present, rip rap can be used. The City ’ recommends a natural look. The appiicam asked wnat was the definition of erosion It was noted that no erosion was noted by either the Engineer, Staff, or the Planning Commissioners Schroeder said the only erosion noted was near the home, which can be assisted with walls at that location. Widey said she was looking at taking the grass out and putting in vegetation. Lane said the mulch will also be removed. Gafrfon asked if the walls were to be approved, what construction process would be used for this projea. Laue said two options were available. If permission were received from the neiahbor. he would come across their property ’, drop the materials over the hill to be placed by a machine at the bonom. Tne othv’r alternative would be to bring in the wall material over the lake during the winter and install it in the spring Gaffron read into the minutes a letter received from the DNR noting their concern with retaining walls removing the naniral vegetation, with screening, erosion control of the steep slopes, and concern over water level and ensuing construction. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNlNG^Ca^llSSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (;?14 • ?2056 Michael &. Barbara Wigiey - Continued) Hawn said if the boulder r^aUs were wanted to hold ^ should be able to provide plants that gennmate quickls Silt - option to prevent erosion into the lake wnile vegetation was germinating. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application =:056 for redesigning and eainina of a MCWD permit Ayes o. Nays 0. Lindquist said the wails would more than likely be denied b> the lake and n ' ' coing ahead with this proposal Schroeder said if erosion w as clearly show^t, then he would be wiling to look at the proposal Smith said she did not see the project to include boulder walls The applicant responded that her major concern for the project w« the safety of her children (#15) #2057 JAMES NYSTROM. 1745 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES PUBLIC hearing IO:5»-li:22 P.M. The Ceniicate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publicatton were noted. Mi. Nystrom and his architea, Greg Frazee, were present. Gaffi-on repotted that me located within residential tear down 7'M^e w^ 10’ wide deck encroaching the 0-75' the 0-75’ zone and is ‘ jown and reconstniaed to meet the setback zone. The 0.7;. ^o„e would be significantly reduced with increases requiremems. H^dco e ^ zone. The side s«back ts ;ZrsS m 9 i' wher^W fs required. The average lakeshore setback ,s also an issue to the house on the north. I H if rhp. deck and house could be moved back 10', resulting in no hardcover Lindquist asked if the done but preferred the proposed scenario. m the 0-75 zone. ^ j^e 75’ setback with a porch touching the side lot line. The house to the sous. • ^ applicant to maintain the back lO’, the view of the lake would be limited. Lindquist said he had a problem with any structure in the 0-75’. 21 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Sieve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planmng & Zoning Administrator August 18. 1995 #2056 Michael and Barbara Wigley. 1035 Tonkawa Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, One Acre Application: Request for land alteration CUP and variance to excavate in 0-75’ zone and install boulder retaining walls. Pertinent Code Sections • Section 10.55. Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd 16 (J)/Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Grading prohibited within 75’ of lake. • Section 10.22. Subd. 2/Seciion 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): No hardcover allowed within 75’ of lake. • Section 10.03, Subd. 19: CUP required for lakeshore alteration. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners’ List D - Letter of Request and Cross-Section Sketch Plan E - Site Plan F - Survey/Topography (not as-built) G - Letter from City Engineer H - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts I - Watershed District Denial Documentation June, 1995 J - Staff Sketch Summaity- Applicant proposes to construct two boulder walls within 75' of the shoteline one at the too of a 2:1 slope the other at the base of that slope in the flood plain netet to the lake. A the base of the slope, the intent is to excavate within the flood plain, creating a terrace at to wa er edge approxtaateiy 10-15' deep, backed by a 3.5’ boulder wall, placing excavated tnatenal above the wall (see sketch. Exhibit D). Zoning File #2056 August 18. 1995 W' Page 2 At the top of the slope, a 2-3’ boulder wall is proposed, presumably of similar construction, i.e. excavation below and fill placement above. The stated purpose of these walls is to decrease the effects of erosion and to clear the ”001 of control undergrowth" that is "extremely unsightly". From the letter of request, staff concludes the proposal will then be to clear virtually all ot the undergrowih on the hillside and replant with strips oi ornamental shrubs. Ciiy Engineer’s Comment The City Engineer indicates the design of the boulder walls is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Discussion Having inspected the site twice this week, staff finds little justification for approval of the proposed walls, especially at the base of the slope; Normally, the City only approves new or replacement walls in the 0-75 ’ zone to solve existing or impending slope failures. In this case, there is no indication of slope failure. There is no evident fraemring of the soil above the slope suggesting that a slump may be imminent. Further, the slope ranges from 2.1 to 3:1, which is normally a very stable slope not subject to massive failure. The only visible erosion that is occurring is surficial erosion in the yard due likely to a weak root structure in the grass because it is in the shade. There is no evidence of significant surficial erosion happening on the hillside, and in fact the hillside is highly vegetated with various natural plant materials as well as many young trees in the range of 1" diameter, and a scattering of mamre trees at the toe, middle and top of the slope. While there is poison ivy in abundance on the site, excavation of the slope is not necessary’ to solve the poison ivy problem. There is no visible undermining of the shoreline that suggests the immediate need for a seawall or riprapping. The proposed location of the wall is 2* above the OHW. Excavating at the base of the hill and placing boulders with fill above them would create a terraced effect that has no apparent slope stabilizing purpose. It also creates a terrace at the lake edge where applicants apparently wanted to place a beach sand blanket. That application was denied by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in June. (Please review Exhibit I). MCWD staff indicate that they would not support the current proposal for excavation in the flood plain. An M(2WD permit would be required for the work as proposed. -I Zoning File ^^2056 August 18. 1995 Page 3 Having viewed the site, it is staffs impression that \bc shoreline and slope as they exist ti?day are quite attractive (beauw is in the eye of the beholder). It currently has a very natural look, in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve the namral character of the shcvreline. There is no evidence of erosion, the vegetation ir nl.ice is fairly well established, and the only reason for excavation and boulder wall at the base of the slope is to create an unnatural ­ looking terraced beach area. As proposed, this 3.5* high wall will not be screened by vegetation. There is some merit in the upper southerly wall extension towards the house. That area of the yard suffers from surface erosion due to the slope and rrof runoff, and a terrace wall near the house would be suitably screened by existing vegetation. Such a wall at a height of 1.5-2.5* would allow the lawn above it to be relatively level. In the area proposed for walls, tlwre is little or no impact from drainage that comes from the east (uphill) %ide of the house. That drainage either goes to the north or the south of the 2:1 sloped area, and some of it actually flows to the neighboring property which might some day be an issue. However, that drainage does not appear to have eroded any visible channels but appears to be dispersed. Issues for Consideration Are the justifications given by the applicant sufficient to allow the proposed excavation in the flood plain and in the 0-75’ zone and the installation of the proposed boulder walls? Absent evidence of slope instability, are the aesthetic justifications suggested by the applicant, in keeping with the goals and principles of the Comprehensive Plan (see Exhibit G)7 Will the proposed planting of ornamental shrubs result in a "contrived" shoreline appearance? While there is no doubt that the City has approved construction and replacement of extensive retaining wall systems on other lakeshore properties, most of those applications were approved in the context of providing needed slope stability, ^d required plantings to minimize the visual impact of the walls needed to provide the stability. Where does the applicant ’s proposal fit in this context? Zoning File ^2056 August 18. 1995 Page 4 There is a 5" draintile near the top of the lakestore stairway that apparently drains the yard area to some lower elevation. Can applicant inform us where that pipe outlets? The Cit\' has generally discouraged nd prohibited the use of draintiles directing stormwater directly to the lake. M.>rc information on this tile might be helpful in justifs ing its existence, especially in the context of its impact on maintaining the slope stability. A portion of the slope in the 0-75 ’ zone just bckiw the lawn south of the lake stairs contains mulch underlain by weed fabric, which constitutes hardcover under Orono ’s definition. The square footage of this has not been documented nor is it identified on the materials submitted. Staff Recommendation Staff is skeptical that the proposed wall at the base of the slope will serve any slope stabilizing purpose and is merely proposed to create a terrao d area for beach at the shoreline, leaving a wall that looks unnatural. However, there may bt justification for some of the walls at the top of the slope to help stabilize the lawn surface. Planning Commission is advised to consider the issues noted previously, and any recommendation tor approval should specify the hardships for granting the variance and CUP for land alteration, specify which walls are approved and to what extent, and should require the use of "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" during the land alteration process. Further. Planning Commission may wish to address preservation of existing large and small trees in the area of the proposed alterations, and consider whether there is any justification to allow the fabric hardcover rci;iain in place. ' f 7 * j •J / CITY OF ORoi6 - GENEICYL LAND USE APPLICATION OPERTY LOCATION [) Site Address Type of Application to be Filed_______________ Propenv' Identification Number (P.I.D.)----------— applic .ant . 1 Name L.a UJ—L iAsa? Phene iliome) — Phone (work) V ^ ^ ^ Address j\ C wL Ga.lipua >.IL _ Zip lit difi SAtf -----K./J. rA rv . Date Property' Acquired ------------------------ . . ..ZT I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ot land. fees - applica.iott S125.(X) Residential Accessory Use ^ S200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments S150.CK) Duplex Credit/Bldg 5250.00 CommerciaMndustrial Use 7 S2(X).(X) Land Alteration Grading and fillinz - designated wetland or floodplain ■ Grading and fdling - 101 cu. yd. or moreGrading and lUimg - loi cu. uirp.hore ~T~ Grading, seawall, retaining walls withm 75 of lakeshorc PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule . SIOO.OO Renewal Fee (no change from onginal appUcauon) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER ^ 5250.00 Vacation ^ SI75.00 Easement Vacation ^ S 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision 5300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ~ S300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5100.00 Appeals * ^ Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPER^ Present Zoning District . Present Use of Property _ y( Residential Other (specify) (month/year) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. / Completed Application Form 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. / Describe request in detail. Cemfied Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain this Hennepin Couniy Depanment of Finance. A-603, Government Center, 348-32 1). Plat Map. , , Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suneyor) - refer to handout tor survey information. Aiuch legal description to application if n<n included on required survey 8. ■ Topographic ar%ey (existing and proposed comours) if land alieraiions insolve changes in elevation (grades). « y • f 9. 10. enanges m cicvuuuu . •« ,u^ \ List of the legal names (include marital batus) of all persons with an interest in the property-. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). V Construction plan, if applicable isee statt tor requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF FOR REPRODUenON (11" X 17' OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUME. TS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings ot all documents, plans, etc. to submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Depanment that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:^__________________________--------------------- "unusual u,:pcnses tor«d in «v«w of Mlicalion. and cenifies .ha. .he mfonnadon supplied is true and correct oLhisriJ^f knowledge. Applicant’s signature „ Ix:Date members for purpose/oLi^esiiga^n and verificatK^of this .equest. Owner’s signatufre Date ADDlicant must have all submittals into the City officM^S^torc the Planning Commission Meeting. r^mmission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at ;dl scheduled of tSe Hamtbg Commtss.on and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled mt^tmg please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Buildmg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. -■j-ivf-i— I r - —••ifcA'i.fc i )puM MTf or/zr/wiATCM SUMOP Aon TAKPAYfA MM/AOINI M U toolMfM TtNUm M I. 0 A Qom TiU$m$ UNttICf A HUXLYN DOM 4SSS N00iifX6N> H{NTKIIMX UCANAOA CA nOll mfHLPin COUNTY MQPCRTY XNFQPPIATICii STSTfH PAQPCITY LISTM M-117-tS If 0001 01000 TONKAMA 00 0 J HOrmON ITAi OAYHQNO J NOrrMN 1000 TOWANA 00 LONO tAICE HN ISU4 RfF«T NO. PI41S401 PAfif to • ^S8 08-U7-tS IS 0001 0104S TOM(AMA M J ■ t C R CAMIILSON JOMN II OAMIiLSON 10«S TONIAHA to LONO LARK t94 EtSM - NAW/AMM 1 0OCR N«M TMRAYtRmm/am > . • hj' POOR ADOR ' ' OMCR NAM TAXPAYER NAHK/^ :6' PROP AOOR ii: QMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR •■> . PROP AOOR 1 OMNER NAME ' TAXPAYER U NAHE/AQIW SR 0R-U7-XS IS 0002 RIOTS TONIAMA RO R N MARTIN III A L J MARTIN RSCNARO A LINDA MARTIN III 107S TONIAMA RR LONO LAKE MN SSS54 ill'•“ 'M, - * i . f • SR 0R-a7-ts IS eois RIRAO TONIAMA l» R S J RAUMAN RORERT J A JOAN C RAUHAM 1040 TQNKAMA ROAR LONO LAKE MN SSS54 SR OR-117-2S IS dolf 01040 TONIAMA RO K 0 SMART ASP SMART KEXTN 0 A SUSAN P SMART 1040 TONIAMA RO LONO LAKE N« SSSS4 SR 0R-117<2S 24 0002 OIOIB TONKANA RD DANIEL C A RUTH M PARTEN DANIEL C A RUTH H PARTEN 1015 TONIAMA RO lONB LAKE Nl «S54 t. . SO OR-117-23 24 0005 OOOSa ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO DANIEL A RUTH PARTEN DANIEL A RUTH PARTEN 1015 TONKANA RO QRONO MN 55SS4 m 0R-117^n IS RRRS tlO» TONIAMA n> L A L RAROMR LAMMNCI J RAROMR lORS TONIAMA RO QRONO N4 BSSS4 SR 0R-117-2S IS 0014 01020 TONIANA RO DOURLAS J NtLLIAKS DOURLAt J HILLXAHS lOER TONIANA RO LONR LAKE MN SSSS4 SR 0R>117-2S IS 002R R1R70 TONIAMA RO J 0 NATRON A J P MATSON JOHN S A JANET P MATSON 1070 TONIANA RO LONG LAKE Nl BSSS4 SR 0R-117-2S 24 OOOS 01025 TONKANA RO S A A S H KISTINO SCOTT A A SUSAN H KXSTXNO 1025 TONIANA RO LONO LAKE N4 S5SS4 TOTAL RATCN 511 OOOIA ii’: % 9 ‘ 4 M M-117-2S IS Mil OlfM TGNMMf n futviN wotmm cm nMviH umnm ISM ccntcr HPiS m fSMf S8 M-1I7-CS IS MU fltlO TQNKAMA HO II S CDNUNDS i 0 K CDNUNDS MMiT B • KMA K iONUNM •Yfl NIOMN QAM M CMN PtAIRII MN US44 SQ M-II7-CS tl MU MM8 TONKANA RO RAMIIL I fl^WVCMXTY AVI N I MPLS Ml SMIS S8 0i-ll7-fS t4 0004 OIOSS TQIiCANA RO RARRARA A HXGLKY RARRARA A HXQLCY loss TONKANA RO LONO UKC Mi 66S54 . > A • L A D S < A I : i.t-JT' *•% '4 Cit\* Of Orono Julv 27, 1995 mf ^ 1 Wc arc rct^ucsting a permit to build t>^o boulder x^alls Wiith-in 75’ ot the lake shore at 1035 Tonkawa Road The present hill slopes to the lake shore in a 2-to-1 slope We would like to clear the out of control undergrowth on the hill that is extremely unsightly and also a hazard to the home ownm children t^ause it contains an immense amount of poison ivy The hill side will then be replanted in a very naturalistic way using large quantities ot five plants placed in sweeps crossing ||)l V V I ^2 up the hill Being that there is already some erosion we are concerned that in * ^ between the process of the clearing and establishing of the new plams there may be more erosion. To help elevate this pre-existing problem we would like to construct a boulder wall at the base of the hill. The wall will be placed eight feet back from the west end of the bottom landing of the steps This point is also 20* fi^om the water level of 929 06' as it was on July 26, 1995 The created flair at the base of the hill to the top of the boulders will help slow the runoff imo the take, thus lessening the effects of erosion. The base will extend a maximum of 40* to the north of the steps and 24’ to the south. Neither wail wiU exceed 3.5 ’ in height.Custom Design & installation (612) 473-6649 We propose to build the second wall at the top of the hill to slow the slide of the lawn down the hill. This w^l will be 34 ’ toward the lake shore from the edge of the patio. To the north of the steps shall be a straight wail along the existing edge of the hill The south side will angle back towards the comer of the house. This wall will extend 32’ to the north from the steps and continue all the way back past the 75' set back on the south side tying in with two walls to be constructed on the southwest side of the house. This wall will never exceed 3.5 ’ and normally run between 2.0' and 3.0' The actual construction of these boulder walls is to be done through Landscape Junction Inc. by Fiiud Grade Inc. A MCWD permit will also be applied for this project. If you have any further questions please feel fi-ee to call me at any time. Office; 473-6M9 Mobile 720-6691 Home: 473-8988 Sincere P.O. Box 508 Long Lake, .MN 55356 L A N D Sc A PLUS Custom Design 6c Installation o ' ■ Name md Address List Michael and Barbara (married) ^1gley Home Owners 103 5 Tonkawa Rd Orono. Mn 55356 Matttew W. Laue Landscaping Pius 2I65C Shenandoah Ct Plymouth, Mn 55447 Ron Anderson Final Grade, Inc 5893 Miller Circle Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612) 473-6649 Dave Fellon Landscape Junaion 21450Hamburg Ave. Lakeville, Mn 55044 P.O. Box 508 Long Lake, MN 55356 L M ■j \ ^ \ /; 103^\ o*ovc*\uj a«t>, D Oais PLUS |,^-. aa" 13.-U<r^ ^c^«. Custom Design & Installation S:Av.«f -c2 ’ TITtAU WAoATt\) 10 F/ccr,P/.,o 2“'“' (612) 473-6649 P.O. Box 508 Long l.akc, MN 55356 ^tak ( I I L______I I---1 O o 0 CII> 955.6 r* * i -'>» • * •• •? r*'- j . • :£•• '' ■* ^ I Bonestroo ffijg Rosene Anderlik& |\J| Associates Engineers £■ Architects August 8, 1995 Mr. Michael P Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Wiglev Residence File No. 139-2056 •f' *r ' • ■ : ■» • " ?•••• • c ^ i % - r '• *. i : . 'f ■ ♦ * • • V * ! • * *P - ‘f ’ ^ •... . ^ . .>r ■' ** -“f »e '*e.* •’f - H- ’ t •- . X ••• ^ -f r 3 't »K ... e 9 ’c r i - lec Cv* . A *>'• e»“ »€ ■* »o ♦rt^'or -V : A ^ O -.♦iKW*' ^ '•* r > -.e 'f • <*'♦• ^ ’f ‘ t v*0» ?/ **f Dear Mike, We have reviewed the proposed boulder wall construction on the Wigley property at 1035 Tonkawa Road in Orono. Boulder walls are acceptable provided they are less than 4 feet in height and if tiered, no less than two times the heigh apart The plans meet this criteria and appear acceptable from an engineering standpoint Erosion control should be installed along the shoreline prior to the work to protect the lake. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612*636*4600 /■ ( H-l ENVIRONMENT JUNE, 1980 The statistical result of this study was the realization that a natural storm water drainage and filtration system was economically practical for Orono, but that excessive urbanization would outstrip the natural capacity of most of the wetlands leading to flooding potential and to increasing levels of nutrient pollution in Lake Minnetonka. Three of the twelve study recommendations are most significant in terms of the effect on this CMP: 1. Every available means should be utilized to preserve the natural water storage and treatment system, which is one of Orono's best assets. 2. The City of Orono should protect land adjacent to marshes which require more than their total existing areas to control storm water runoff and preserve the water quality. 3. The City of Orono should acquire supplementary land which is needed to preserve the integrity of the natural system of pollution treatment and runoff control. ORONO^S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT Tht- oals and Policies of this chapter are basic to the remainxng sections of Che Communitv Management Plan. Without environmental stability, Orono s character and vitality would be lost. With environmental care and concern, orono citizens expect their forefather's heritage to live on for generations to come. CMVTPnMMENTAI PROTECTION GOALS 1. TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LAKE MINNETONKA. 2. TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF ALL OTHER LAKES IN ORONO. 3. TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLAND AND NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 4. TO PROVIDE FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SUCH THAT THE CITY IS PROTECTED FROM BOTH FLOODING HAZARDS AND POLLUTION HAZARDS. 5. TO PROTECT THE CITY'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES FROM POLLUTION AND FROM DEPLETION. TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM All., WATER AND NOISE POLLUTION. TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR, INCLUDING SOLAR ACCESS FOR ALL PROPERTIES. TO PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATIVE WOODLANDS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF ORCNO'S HERITAGE. TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT IN WOODLANDS AND WETLANDS. 10. TO PROTECT THE LAND FROM SOIL EROSION AND THE HAZARDS OF DUST AND SILTATION. 6. 7. 8. 9. CMP 3-18 % ENVIRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 GENERAL POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ORONO WILL PROMOTE THE FORMULATION AND ACTIVE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES BY OTHER LAKE MINNETONKA AREA MUNICIPALITIES AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. Even though Orono plays a key role in the protection of Lake Minnetonka, permanent preservation of the quality of Lake Minnetonka is impossible without coordinated policies and without active implementation of proven protective measures. Environmental enforcement nay be difficult in the face of development pressures, but without commitment and sacrifice, a nibbling effect will surely place the goal beyond reach and beyond r covery. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES WILL BE UTILIZED IN THE FORMATION OF ALL OTHER GOALS AND POLICIES IN THIS CMP. Orono*s commitment to environmental quality is carried throughout each element in this comprehensive plan, coloring the goals, policies and implementation practices in every facet of municipal responsibility. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. SURFACE WATER RUNOFF WILL BE DIRECTED THROUGH THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE AVOIDED AND WILL BE PROHIBITED WHENEVER POSSIBLE. The longer the routing of storm water between source and the lake and the longer the duration of ponding in a wetland, the more nutrients are assimilated and the more silt is settled. The transfer of storm water runoff from one local watershed to another or recycling water through the same marsh, will be pursued and encouraged as a practical method for increasing the duration of water retention before runoff enters the Lake. The result of extended retention will be improved lake water quality. NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS WILL BE FAVORED OVER ARTIFICIAL STO^ SEWERS, grorm sewers speed runoff and provide no natural filtration or nutrxent assimilation. Storm sewers will only be utilized in local flood prone areas or where there is soil erosion insolvable by natural means. Whenever possible, storm sewer outlets will be directed into marshland or natural drainageways and not directly into the lake. Storm sewer systems will not be considered for new developments or where satisfactory natural drainage systems already exist. CMP 3-19 ENVIRONMENT JUNE, 1980 7. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City’s storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen­ dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 8. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds..• • i . . ( CMP 3-20 PNVIRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 11. DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. os of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected y o er pro­ visions applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, i mg alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 12. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion measures and similar site data related to each project, whether publi or private. The extent of each such review will be determined by probable environmental impact. Greater detail will be required of larger projects than of smaller ones. As proximity to Lake Minnetonka or a major wetland increases, so will the care and concern increase in direct proportion. 13. ON-SITE WATER RETENTION FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED AS RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHENEVER NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE THE EXISTING STORM WATER RUNOFF PATTERNS. Whenever a development's location, size, scope or har cover would tend to increase the quantity of runoff, increase the speed of runoff, or decrease the quality of runoff, that development will be required to provide on-site retention facilities sufficient to maintain the existing situation or to improve the resulting runoff by reducing quantity, reducing speed and/or improving quality. No development will be permitted to adversely impact it's neighbors, or the City, by changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting storm water drainage. 14 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT THE EXPENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazard, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. No land use will be allowed to adversely affect the neighborhood's air or water resources nor will any use be permittee to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution. CMP 3-21 environmental JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL lAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roa ways Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. iIRRAN AREA PPLICIPS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LI.MIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. .Minimum lot widths wi:.l space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property an the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 2. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URB.’^NIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typi''al tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to preven erosion, in which care they will be screened with natural vegetation. 3 DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. 4 ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED * SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all ' therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation include on-site retention on all new developments and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. 5 CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPRO^ STORM WATER QU^ITY. salt use for winter street treatment will snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites will not overload the natural drainage system or salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring remove roed^anas and salts before environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 environment JUNE, 1980 6. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 7. ALL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE DESIGNED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR, AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. RURAL AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE POLLUTION LOADING OF RURAL MARSHES AND DRAINAGEWAYS. Rural densities will be low enough to ensure permanent reliance upon satisfactory on-site sewer and water systems and to ensure that rates of phosphorus and nitrogen generation will not adversely affect the water quality in the natural drainage system. RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOODS AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homes! es without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total watershed population increases, even at our relatively low rural densities, the volume of runoff increases as does the nutrient input. Upland marshes and wetlands will be required for flood control water retention and for maximum nutrient assimilative capacity. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE FARMING PRACTICES DESIGNED TO CONSERVE THE SOIL AND GROUND WATER. Where farming occurs in the rural areas, the use of innovative tilling methods, land banking, crop rotation and wind breaks are encouraged to protect the native soil from erosion and deterioration. Animal sanitation methods will be enforced to assure minimal pollution of drainageways or ground waters. CMP 3-23 I AND USE JUNE, 1980 f AND USF GOALS POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goa and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years. I AND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2.TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3. ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. ?S'J5.SS ?o"pKS:I‘S." NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. fiFNFRAL LAND USF POLICIES 1.the metropolitan urban SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED, orono’s Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and leaally of the Conmunity Management Plan and are described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map No. 6. 2. and policies of the Environmental * Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting thei misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 I AND USE JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanisation increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be deterained by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease­ ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason­ able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 AND USE JUNE, 1980 7. DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located alona the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 8. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. 9. ORONO’S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND OWNERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require­ ments of the Community Management Plan. ■•I. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. CMP 4-14 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 14. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura­ tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 15. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 16. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 AND USE JUNE, 1980 If the individual development's density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. 17 NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT'S LOCATION ^^D PHYSIC^ CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDAN WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be o^ such size, character and location that it can be safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. MRRAN LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE MAJORITY OF ORONO’S URBAN AREA “ RESER^D FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighbor will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental multi-family residential uses will be limited to loLtions near eristing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 WiTTOHCTBClWOAWT 1<5 . 11 / . •. <; ................. ' • ...... . ■ — offlee: (612) 476-7970 fax: (612) 476-7973 BOARD OF MANAGERS; 7hc.Tas Mas'c. «r.. ?-es. • C. V/oocrc-# Love • Jcm E. Thomas C:antson Unoiey • Thorras W. LaBounT/ • Varu'a S. Ha.<^:el • Pamea 3. B:ixt cmr CF' ------CrONO June 13, 1995 ___-_u\y LsiJi/ Permit Application No. 95-120: Applicant:Barbara Wigley 1035 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 JUN 15 1895 » Location: Purpose: City of Orono, T117, R23, Section 8, NW 1/4 Shoreline improvement involving the installation of approximately 55 a noS^^alTerato involving excavation within the floodplain. Dear Ms. Wigley: At the regulaily scheduled June 8, 1995 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibi s. 1. Permit application number 95-119 received May 10, 1995. 2. Site plan received May 10, 1995. 1 This pennit application was denied by the Minnetonka Creek Watershed District Board of Managers at the regularly scheduled mid-month meeang on June 8. 1995. Sincerely, WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers for the District Kristin M. George KMG/ljv ,SsttUMHJ*UJ'*m«lliLTX-AES-lj» Ik gI I . I » I t H *•. •mi iHo - Alo- t • (// raIU/ ()■ I'/■' .A*'' ■f <*. ^1 V t I a vi i V .u I vt r |0 I n' I' 9'I r I J—J W,0 e To: From: Date: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 11, 1995 Subject:#2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 1485 SixthAvenue North Variances/CUP - Continuation of Public Hearing Per mutual agreement of staff and MCWD Manager Thomas LaBounty, this item will be continued to Plannin g Commission ’s November 20 meeting. mm To: From: Dato: Subject: n Chair Peterson and Oreno Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 6, 1995 #2061 Arae Wasberg, 3135 North Shore Drive - Renewal Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Status of AppUcation: The applicants have advised that they will attend the Planning Commission meeting of October 16,1995. Staff has recopied the original packet of September 18,1995 meeting. TO: FROM: DATE: Phnning Commission Chairman Peterson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator September 12, 1995 SUBJECT: #2061 Arne Wasberg. 3135 North Shore Drive - Renewal Variances Zoning District - LR-IB Total Lot Area - 43,529 square feet Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.03 Subdivision 14(C'' Review of Structural Coverage Allowed = 6,529.3 square feet or 15% Existing = 4,461 square feet or 10.1% Proposed = 4,923.4 square feet or 11.3% No strucmral coverage variance required Section 10.22 Subdivision 1(A). Lakeshore Setback Variances. Refer to Exhibit E A. Existing principal structure = 30 +. feet Proposed principal structure = 30 ^ feet B.Existing deck — 11 ±_ feet Proposed deck = 27 +. feet Variance for principal strucmre = 45 feet or 60% Variance for upper level deck = 48 feet or 64% Existing gravel area underlain with plastic is to be removed and is located 20 feet from lagoon shoreline. 10.22 Subdivision 2 Review of Hardcover Variances A. 0-75’ setback area = 29,974 square feet Existing = 3,694 square feet or 12.3% Proposed = 3,195 square feet or 10.7% Hardcover reduction = 499 square feet or 1.7 %. B.75 - 250’ setback area - 13, 555 square feet Allowed = 3,388.7 square feet or 25% Existing - 5,131 square feet or 37.8% Proposed = 3,242 square feet or 23.9% Hardcover reduction = 1,889 square feet or 14% ____ukOr-wta.rti n-----—n—mtr.----------irli-\-nTb ‘^Tr-riY'*nrirtaaiMI^~TBflBrrMfni‘‘afTrti''rta Zoning File #2061 Arne Wasberg September 12, 1995 page 2 of 3 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D * Exhibit E - Exhibit F 1 Exhibit G - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan -3 - Elevation Resolution #3461 Description of Renewal Request • r .u The new owners of the property have applied for a renewal variance application for the variances that were granted in 1994 to the previous owners (1941 Lee and Wanda Fischbach). The owners have advised that they wish to live in the residence to determine the design modifications needed for their level of use. The applicants have not revised the hardcover calculations, although they noted to staff that they have already removed much of the plastic underliner beneath the landscape areas around the house. They have also advised that they would like to remove the existing driveway at North Shore Drive that currently serves the residence and to relocate a new access at the existing driveway to the south. This will also result in a reduction in hardcover. They would in turn plant trees along the North Shore Dnvc yard, providing a landscape buffer to the noise and activities on the county road. The original applicaticu involved a two story addition at the lakeside of the residence, existing upper level lakeside three-season porch would now be replaced with a two-story addition plus upper level deck. The existing upper level porch is 30 feet from the inland lagoon or lak^ The proposed two-stoiy addition would extend no closer to the shoreline referred to Exhibits D & E. The prepared »^pper level 3’ deck at its closest projection is 27 ’ from the lagoon shoreline and would extend no closer than the existing upper level deck. The two story lakeside addition was to provide for an expanded family room and living room on the upper level and an exercise room and family rec room at the lower level. No grade level deck improvements are propos^ beneath the three foot upper level deck. There is a lower level 4X14 ’ deck proposed below the cantilevered upper level expansion of a master bedroom area. The improvements also included a new entry addition at the street side of the house requiring no setback variances. Major decreases in hardcover are proposed and structural coverage held at 11.3%. At their September 12, 1994 meeting the Orono CouncU approved the application as recommended by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. The enclosed resolution records the conditions of the Planning Commission’s original approval. Zoning File #2061 Arne Wasberg September 12, 1995 page 3 of 3 Staff will not get into any further detail on these improvements as it is clearly not the intention of the current owners to proceed with construction. The new owners will present a new and less ambitious plan in the near fumre. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may adopt the findings and conditions of the enclosed approval resolution, ft is not clear to staff why the applicants wish to renew the previous application for improvements that they do not plan to implement. The variance application officially expired on September 12, 1995. Applicants may be best advised to withdraw the application and file a variance application when they are ready to proceed. CITY OF ORONO - V.AJUA>CE APPLICATION ^ -r 1 Initiai AppUcaiion Fee S^CO.CO (S50.00 per each additional vanaccs; Reaewal Variance Fee SlCO.CO (no change from ,-cO.OO Variance for non-conicrnimg strLCX.-s Arie-the-Fac: Fees (Double application .-1 L.. -I••• .“S t I • r ' • • • • : -V property I>TO^NUTro.N Site Address Propertv Identii’icaaon Number reauired survey.Aoach'legal description to applicati.^r not memded o .__________ Date Propern- Acquired (month/’year) , ,ao,<J^ ^1^0 own .........Vchcr (specifr),ProsonTusTor property: j^rtsice-tiai ----- Zoning Disn-ict: ------------------— Phone applicant Name A''^ r<^:r OWNER (if different than appiicam)^ ___ ^ Namg5^^-*> ^ ^ Address: ~ Phonetheme) Phone (work). Zip:,xS5 (attach additional sheets if necessary) variances required Lot Area _Lot Width //^ Hardcover Lot Coverage l/^ Setback:Side ear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HAiUJSHIP/DESCRIFTIONOFL^Yii^raO^^^ °omptnce wiS Sfc cl requmer^:. (attach additional sheets if necessary) I 1. 't J. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS .1. .h, fnllnw^n. ------- n,..« h, ^.hmitted bv^h. -.pplicHrion dea^lin^ d^te h Olito for vour aPDlication to be considered complete: Hennepin Councv Depanraem of Finance, A-o0:>. Govt Center, j48o- ). _ Plat Map (Obtained ^-evor) and inclnde hardcover — Srula““ns°L “equhed.In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'^- x ll" for ?o'’;o“c survey (extstmg and P^-sed elevariot.)jf any grade — are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S<A x “ clutches or olans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/5 x U ). — LUt of dtrie«rnl s^^^^ marrtal stams, of all persons with an mtetest m the — n orem TOs would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). _ Sdendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. provide all infotmation required or requested by the Zoning information supplied is true and co^ct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signamre Date acknowled<^es and agrees to this appUcation and further authorizes reasonable onto the property by cfty staff, consultants, agents Commission members, and CouncU m^bers for purposes of investigatio^n^ verification of this request. Owner’s Signature . I- all submittals into the Cuy oiutca i.j uaijra ----------o commission Meetings are held on the thirf Monday of each mon^ h must be oresent at aU scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg Commission Appbeants jnurt P ^ scheduled meeting, please make arra^^enis - yo “ P- to «*vi« flK Building & zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 i MJN oATf os/iirif! ?•-. .• • •.; MTCM so« MOP AOOd OltCR NAHi TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR / • . ' PROP AOOR ■OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR • OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AQDR PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER ‘ NAME/AODR M Ot-117-ES SZ 000« OSOtO NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J HC6LYNN DANIEL J HC6LYNN SOtO NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN SSS91 M 09-U7-ZS SZ 0009 0S180 NORTH SHORE DR P J DLOHSERO I D J DLOIBCRe PAUL J A DEVERLY J DL0IBER6 5100 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m 55S91 5D 09-117-ZS 5Z OOIA 0510S NORTH SHORE OR Z 0 LUNDRUXST ACT JOHNSON X 0 LUNORUIST ACT JOHNSON 510B NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN 55391 SO 09-117-ZS SS 0002 OSIAB NORTH SHORE OR NILLIAN TOLES MLLIAH TOLES IlAB NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA IM 5SS9I SO Ot-117-ZS SS 0016 OSIDS NORTH SHORE DR T A S ENLOH THOHAS C A SUSAN S ENLOH 5185 N SHORE DR NAYZATA Itl 55391 HErtCPlN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFOnttTION SYSTEM PROPERTY QMCRS UST38 09-117*Z5 5Z 0007 OSIZO NORTH »«RE. OR 0 R PONIJE A P L POHXJE DAVID R A PEItaE L POHXJE SIZO NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA ni B5S91 38 09>117-Z5 5Z 0010 03186 NORTH SHORE OR F P PACOVSKY A H L PACOVSKY FREDRICK P PACOVSKY MICHELLE L PACOVSKY 5166 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA tt4 55391 38 09-il7>ZS SZ 0018 0S1S5 NORTH SHORE DR S A NASDERO A A H DECANOIA S A NASDERO A A DECANOIA 3135 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA m 55S91 > S8 09-117-ZS SS 0009 05175 NORTH SHORE OR ‘ MAC RUSSIN . . MICHAEL A CATHERINE RUSSIN 5175 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN B5S91 if TOTAL DATCH 506 OOOIS REPORT NO. PASE58 09-117-ZS St 0008 0S160 NORTH SHORE OR K A ZULLO A J A ZULLO KEMCTH A ZULLO S160 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN B5S91 58 09-117-ZS St 0015 05115 NORTH SHOME m RICHARD J OLSON RICHARD J OLSON S115 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA IM 55591 SR 09^117-tS SS 0001 0S1S5 NORTH SHORE 01 RONALD 0 LAUER J L HANDEL A P HANDEL SlS5 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA m 55591 38 09-117-tS SS 0015 ‘ 05145 NORTH SHORE DR MARTHA J SNEDENOORO MARTHA J SNEOEICORO 5145 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA Itt S6S91 t .«• * P14SSM1 ■’ I , .v-"' V • I i: : 4\ i i .'•4 r ■ •• I ff-s : I m • ■ ^ ■ V 11’ J•. w ■ • itvS*- • ■■ ? . I .................... ••• '?‘-V r • I » •« ■.•iV •# N f J • jp- i »t; .'SI i ;4>* V. ** ;‘ ti' H • f ■+7 A 7 I ’ I- MM MTt p»/it/n ,r' tl HCNNEPZN COUNTY raoKRTY INFOMMnON SYSTIM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST •i.I *■ • > 7, »*,V( • ,s • .1 .1 » •» V • I • I \ * * %' ■ < • I »* ‘ • > I . ’ • 't Hit " 03 f r • • ' i I! Tr ) ..REPORT NO. PX41M01PACE to ..1.i:;)i ‘‘MMIWv.. I i'. *Y r » !0v, ^ :,.K' ’■•4k* •‘. .-0 ‘•*t ' i fi'* *4 ‘i* \*\'-fr r- . , %^ . ^ .• I ■ ■^. ■^ vw"‘0:f:lL ••*1 . • • X CERTXFY THAT tNE FACTS REPRESENTIO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TMIE KPRESENTATXON OP XRFORHATXON AS XT APPEARS THXS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE»tCPXN COUNTY OCPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAi(ATXQN> TO THE SEST OF NY KNEMLEME AND KLXEF. r'DATE ^•25*f5, •V ’ 0f . ?.’ I* A .... •'• • ;■ . , . •.>’•.•/• ■ -V-- :/•,••;, ’ , ;;;;j • *. ■■' ■;'•■■■: ^ HsHy'- ■■'a: ■ ."'■h ■'> -L ■,Mf|o i 111- ;.■••; •••. ‘ . ‘Vy-V'-~' : f- . i'r-> v •/.‘. H <, V ‘y.v^.; • .. 4u /'rtph?#- : >1 . . * < ‘ i* ■ / 'H n't^ i OUOui\urvi'i I </> R 8 ^ Ji-<^ ^ » « ;J y \ V ^w/ ''^ ^ ■I.d s? o 11 9 I § HpiI' o 3 iz ^£ 5 *' « 5 »i £ « z o« r 0§ ^rOS ^ I I I \ * I ^ r • I H . •! M>r/A J>^ ~ ________^^/2Z00^^ ______- —““ '“22-ff ^ _•», 'F^S a- .^1 - F 0<S ^ 2S2 ?r '' 5 I tra^i ^ v3«S2* ^Ng^tTi-<aHi \ ®f «iL OLI li t 3- //orM __ —.-—* P r, V A • ^ c. k —ON 6>' i 1 ' ’ 1 m- -4 ’ ‘ t I ! : \ ! ; li ^ i • I I \ i V It i ! ; ~vi \ j*. .,v: iiF* ^' * •: * •« » 'i' '• ,'f;; •. ■■■ ■ i' - ’>• i . i ;»•' v\ • y \\ 11 !i CITY of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE Cm COL.NCIL NO. .8-4 S I____ (9 A lUiSOLUTlON ArrRON LNG VARl/ViNCES TO MUNICirAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22. SCBDIVTSION 1 (A) AND SUBDIVISION 2 FILE .#1941 WHEREAS, LeRoy J. Fischbach anU Wanda L. Fischbach Uicrcimifier "the applic.'snts") are the owners of the property located at 3135 Norili Shore Drive wiilmi the City of Oroao (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tiact A, Registered Land Survey No. 1113, Hennepin County, Minne.sola (hereinalter "the property"), and WIIERCAS, the applicants have applied to the City tor a variance to Municipal Zoninu Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) to permit constraiction of a two story addition and upper'level deck tiiat would extend 27’ fioin the shoreline of the adjacent lagoon where a /5 setback is required attd where the existing structure encroaches within 21' ol that shoreline aiid a variance to Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 as hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area is prop«.>sed at 3.195 s.f. or 10.6% and where 3,694 s.f. or 12.3% exists and where none is allowed. NOW, 1IIEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDLNGS 1 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1941. The properly is located in the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 43,560 s.f. in area. The property consists of 43,529 s.f. Page I of 6 • « CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 61_____ 3.The Orono Plannins Commission reviewed this application on July 18. 1994 and August 15, 1994 and recommended approval of the variance application as amended based on the following unique findings and hardships: A. . SOTr of the total property is unbuildable. B. The original struemre was placed on propeny in 1973 prior to current lakcshore setback standards. C. The majority of the existing house is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. D The interior lagoon connected to main lake by a dredged channel is considered part of the main lake placing greater setback restrictions on building envelope. E. The current proposal involves decreases in hardcover within the 0-75 ’ and 75-250’ setback areas as follows: In the 0-75 ’ setback area there is a 499 s.f. or 1.7% reduction and in the 75-250’ setback area there is a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction. 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 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 mtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reco.mmendations 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 6 I.T* *v.» CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TH NO. fF TTI^CJTY COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS, ORDER .\ND CONDITIONS approve a setback4°% Ukeside wo sio^ orio'vn sSjelTw d«k and a hardcover variance within the 0-75 ’ setback area of 3,195 s.f. or 10,7 subject the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. r,-=;r,s,;rs ns be required to file an amended variance application with both the City and DNR. All landscape areas underlain with plastic shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new constmction. Applicants to provide necessary erosion control along the shoreline of the pond fiS^ wherever deemed necessary by the Orono BuUding staff prior to any land alterations on this property. AoDlicants have agreed to replant specific mature evergreens to be removed as a result of these improvements. Applicants have subnutted a ««?•»" existing and proposed plantings in the 0-75' setback zone incMed as page 6 of this resolution. Plantings are to be completed pnor to the fuial inspection for the new construction by the Orono Building Department. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicarits, expire on that date (September 12. 1995). Paee 3 of 6 . / o o\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 ^ ^ ^______ 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigm. hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September. 1994. AiyEST: Dorothy M. H^in. rn "^)Sql££c^ City Clerk Edward J. Calli^n, Jr.. M^ayorM, i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of September, 1994. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. LINDA S.VEE WVMUMWWSOm nEalMJM.S1.2n II .'7^ 17 Notary Public Page 4 of 6 1., V STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY of ORONO RESOLimON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 6 1______ On this dav of , 1995" before me a Notary Public withinand for said count> :p^.o^W^^ the foregoing instrumeni. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (thetr) free act and deed. m :ary public vasa STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On iliis /6- _ day of ^ oc.urc .u. a Public within and for said county, personally appeared Le Kci ^ known to me to be the personfs) descrioed in and who executea the foregoing instrument, anTlcknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. , 199-i’" before me a Notary m. asBi y y yyy / l/jUL/n / NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 To:Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planmng & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: October 13, 1995 #2065 Samuel and Joyce Martield/Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Toles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Easements within Plat of Dicon Addition - Replat of Dicon Addition (Preliminary Subdivision) - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre List of Exhibits A - Comments from Long Lake Fire Department, 10/13/95 B - BRW Letter and Map. 9/21/95 (Fire Protection) C - Revised Preliminar>’ Plat Drawing. 10/12/95 D - Existing Conditions Map, 10/12/95 E - Site and Grading Plan, 10/11/95 F - Letter of Transmittal, 10/12/95 G - BRW/Preston Memo, 10/11/95 (Traffic Issues) H - Staff Review of Low Usage Cul-de-Sac's 1 - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts re: Transportation J - Subdivision Code Excerpts re: Road Standards K - BRW/Sandberg Letter, 10/11/95 (Environmental Benefits) L - Planning Commission Minutes. 9/18/95 M - Letter from Dorothy and Morris Levy, 9/18/95 N - NSP Letter. *)/18/95 O - Mu negasco Letter, 9/15/95 P - Memo and Exhibits of 9/14 >5 Additional Information Since the September Planmng Commission meeting, the following has occurred: - Applicants have submitted additional items: 1. A report by Dale Beckman of BRW. Inc. regarding fire protection issues associated with the street vacation. 2. BRW comments on traffic issues and environmental benefits. 3. Revised preliminary plat. Zoning File #2065 October 13, 1995 Paee 2 4. More detailed 'existing coraiiiions' map 5. Revised proposed site/grading plan addressing tire access Mike Brovvn and Jim Cox of the Long Lake Fire Department met on the site with the applicants and staff on Monday, October 9. While the Fire Department representatives felt that the existing cul-de-sac provides for excellent fire fighting access to all three properties, they expressed wUlingness to consider other options under a private driveway scenario which could leave adequate width of clear driving surface capable of supporting heavy trucks. BRW provided them a site plan with driveway specifications for review; their comments are provided in Exhibit A. In response to the Planning Commission query as to how many additional such simations are "waiting in the wings", staff has compiled a list and plat maps of public and private cul-de-sac roads that serve three or four users (Exhibit There are a handful of cul-de-sacs which, similar to Scotch Pine Lane, provide road access and abutment for three lots where only one of the three doesn't abut the collector road. Staff has included in your packet excerpts from the Orono Transportation Plan relating to direct vs. indirect access. Also enclosed is the Subdivision Code section regarding road requirements for subdivision. Sununary of Issues The issues identified by staff regarding the proposed vacation and replat are detailed in the staff memo of September 14. 1995, and are summarized as follows: 1. Fire safety/emergency vehicle access Subdivision performance standards: Back lot issues. Lot width/area. Frontage on public road. 3.Easement vacation/rededication. Utility locations/NSP and Minnegasco comments Drainage. 4. Neighbors' concerns (15' setback to Toles driveway). 1 --- Zoning File #2065 October 13, 1995 Page 3 5.Access policy issues. City requirement for road serving three or more lots Potential for setting a precedent. Necessity of unique findings. Staff Recommendation Please carefuDy review the new exhibits provided as weU as the memo of September 14. As noted in that memo, in order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to find that: The necessary variances involved in the replat (lot width/'fiontage/back lot issues) are clearly justified and supported by adequate findings. It is in the public's best interest to vacate the road All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. The vacation is unique and supported by compelling justifications that apply to this neighborhood but not to other similar rwighborhoods, in order that a basis to deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (i.e. show why this vacation does not set a negative precedent). Options for Action 1. Approval as proposed, subject to: Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. Subject to confirmation of location of existing utilities, to be relocated or easements granted for them. Minimum setback requested by Levy for Toles driveway (15’ requested) Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to delineation of wetland (topographic basis may be acceptable) and granting of conservation and flowage easement over wetland. Subject to grading and drainage plan approved by City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. I Zoning File #2065 October 13,1995 Page 4 4. Specific variances to be granted in replat include; . Lot area and width, all lots. • Lot area and setback (150% standard), Martield back lot. • Lack of frontage on public road (Marfield lot). • Others as may be subsequently found as the review process continues As part of any recommendation for approval. Planning Commission should specify how this proposal for this neighborhood is unique as compared to other similar three-lot subdivisions, and define why this one might be approved while others might not be. Table for further information (specify). 3. E)eniai (provide specific reasons). Other. I ! Lone Lake Volunteer Fire Dept. Lens Lake. Minnesota 55356 y IAt - . ^ — To: From: R«: Date: Orono Planninq Commission Long Lake Fire Department Scotch Pine Lane vacation October 13, 1995 We have met with the three homeowners of Scotch Pine Lane who wish to vacate their street. They have asked us for our advise in how to provide fire fighting access to their homes if the street is vacated. We have suggested the following: 1.Improving the fire staging area for the Warfields and the Hills by making it stronger. The planned added thickness of blacktop and newly created graveled areas are to support a 50,000 pound fire fighting vehicle. 2.Building a new 12 foot driveway to the Toles' house which will have a 60 by 24 foot fire staging area at its south end and another 2 feet of open working area on each side. The hard surfaces are to support a 50,000 pound fire fighting vehicle. 3.Making a wider and stronger driveway to the Marfield's house. It will be widened to 12 feet and will have a 2 foot open working area on each side. It will be strengthened by adding a layer of blacktop. These suggestions are fine with us as long as all of the work is carried out as sho%m on their plan and as discussed above. Memorandum _________________ ,fr -- ^ SER 2.6 “'5 612/370-0700 Fii 612/370-1378 Denver Milwauketf Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portlar.ii San Dieeo Seattle B R W LNC DATE:September 21, 1995 Planning Transportation Eng*in««nrg TO:Mike Gaffron City of Orono .'\ssistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Urban Design FROM:Dale Beckmann Thresher square 700 ThirJ Street So Minneapolis. \L\ 55415 RE:Proposed SCOTCH PINE ADDITION Orono Zoning File ? 2C65 Street Vacation/Fire Protection Issues By way of introduction, I am a vice-president at BRVC^ with approximately 30 years of experience in engineering and development work. 1 was als6 the Assistant Fire Chief for the City of Inver Grove Heights for 6 years and the Fire Chief in that City for an additional 9 years. I have extensive experience in both engineering and site design activities and in firefighting and tire protection issues as well. I understand that, based upon review of your staff report for the above referenced project, there may be concern both on the City's part and the Long Lake Fire Department's part with respea to potential Life Safety and Property Protection issues ii the project vacating the existing street is app,.j»c.a. I have reviewed both your report and the site maps prepared by our office in analyzing this issue. I would offer the following comments regarding these issues. • The current roadway layout requires a "Dump and Go" operation. The "first-in " engine would drop a hose (large diameter) at North Shore Drive and lavout hose up to the residence. The engine company would utilize its water tank (5CC - 1,CCC gal) for an initial attack of a fire. A second engine or a tanker would connect to the hose at North Shore Drive and pump water to the first engine to continue to fight the fire. Mr. Mlki Gaffron September 21, 1995 Page 2 This is the same fire attack scenario the Fire Department would use with the proposed street vacation, as well as with any fire in residences along North Shore Drive. I ha%'e attached a half-seaion aerial map which shows the approximate length of the driveways for homes along North Shore Drive. Note that the Martield driveway which would result from the vacation will be about the same length as the majority of those homes and will aaually be shorter than several of the existing driveways . Fire fightin? capabilities for a tire at the Toles residence is improved. The proposed new drivew'ay places the residence less than 2wC feet from North Shore Drive versus the current 4?C + feet. ___--------------------------- •- • !-*-? i* •• rr any other residence along the south side of North Shore Drive. SUMMARY Three criteria can be used to evaluate the fire proteaion issue for the proposed change: Life Safety Property Protection Fire Fighter Safety Life Safety Property Protection Fire Fighter Safeiv Hill No Change No Change No Change MarfieM No Change No Change No Change Toles Improved Improved Improved Fire safetv at the three residences requesting the change has not been a problem during the last 20 vears the Dicon Addition has been in place. As you may be aware! there was a fire at the Martield residence several years ago which was successfully fought by a single truck which utilized the Marfield ’s driveway for access and was able to maneuver close to the source of the fire by this means. At th.\t time there was an island in the driveway which is not present today. The truck was able to enter and exit the Martield driveway and property without dam.ige to the site. Mr. Mike GattVon September 21, 1995 Pas;e 3 The probability of a future ftre in this area is lo'x' based on the past 22-year histor)’, which indicates a low potential for a fire truck to damage the roadway. In fact, the weekly trip a garbage truck makes over this proposed driveway in the spring time causes much more ro^way damage than a fire truck which has been needed once in the past 22 years. I would be happy to meet with you and/or the Long Lake Fire Chief to discuss this matter. Thank you for your consideration. attachment cc:Keith Dahl/Jeff Sandberg/BRW Sam Marfield. Douglas Hill. Bill Toles file 3233 A CO dnbjsked.mem lv)< ri?;r ^ : “*tf >S«, M mmim:.• X rx-:PA-^ll e I § ^5.. ^ '>r-^ .'^.'jrSt'. Vii ;\ Mm mi ».■?* mm3i |.|c^ mm «r-N ■■',L l»" i. ^ S& m » f^: /<.'• / -’y^ »:4SKifv^ -:: ‘»®^%tvSsS :,• - • ■•••V'v ,/v/i<rH.'/ >-■ V ' •• VJ mm^ iit®-.! {.%■? laija October 12. 1995 HAND DELIVERED B K VV INC. Plannini5 TranscH>rration Engineenrx L rban DeNi\;n Thresher Square TOO Third Street So Mir\ne.ip<.^lis. MN 53415 d12/370-0700 Fax 612 370-137S Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis L>riando PhoeiD X Portland San Die>;o S*att!e Mr. Mike GafTron .Asst. Planning &. Zoning Administrator Cit> of Orono PO Bo.x 66 Crystal Bay, NfN 55323 RE: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL PROPOSED SCOTCH PINE ADDITION CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #2065 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed are the follow ing materials for our preliminary submittal on behalf of the Marfield, Toles and Hill properties: 1 . 6 full size and 1 -11 X 17 copies of our Preliminary Plat. E.xisting Conditions Map and Site/Grading Plan for the site. Note that we have rev ised our drawings to reflect those comments we have received to date. Those revisions include: addition (and revision) of proposed DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS as requested by the City's Engineer, location of wetlands in proposed LOT 3 an'^ delineation of a DRAINAGE EASEMENT surrounding that area ( note that the wetland boundary has been shown from a field survey locating the top of the pronounced bank surrounding the wetland area), additions to and revision of the Grading Plan both per onsite meeting with Long Lake Fire Dept, personnel as well as comments received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Note that we have also made a minor revision to the lot line between the Marfield and Hill residences , and lot areas have also been revised to reflect that change. In addition, we have also added the location of utility lines to the drawings to the Existing Conditions Map and have also added easements around them as well as around the sanitary sewer services. 2. Letter from Mr. Jeffry Sandberg regarding environmental benefits from Scotch Pine Lane pavement removal. 3. Memorandum from BRW Traffic Engineers regarding proposal for new Toles driveway. We have made application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and are on tonite's Board agenda for approv al. [ Mr. Mike Gaffron October 12. 1995 Pace 2 Please contact me at 373-6465 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with this matter. Respectfully Submitted. BRW. Inc. Keith E. Dahl, RLS Senior Associate attachments cc:Messr s Marfiald. Hill & Toles (w/attachments) Mr. Jeff Sandberg Mr.Howard Preston Mr. Jeff Holstein File 3233 A 00 spasub.klO Memorandum h-' B R W INC IManning Transportation Engin«^nng Urban Desnm Thrtrsh^r Square 700 Third Street So. Minneapi>lis, MN‘^5415 »>12 370-07(X) Faxfel2/370-l37S Denver Milwaukee? \linneapi>iis Orlando Phoerix Portland San Diego Seattle DATE: TO: FROM: RE: (ktober 11. 1995 Keith Dahl Howard Preston, PE, Vice President of Traffic Engineering Jeff Holstein. PE, Senior Traffic Engineer SCOTCH PINE ADDITION; Scotch Pine Lane Vacation We have investigated the traffic-related issues associated with the vacation of Scotch Pine Lane as proposed on the SCOTCH PINE ADDITION Preliminary Plat. It is our understanding that the proposed action would result in an additional residential access drive to Hennepin County Slate Aid Highway 51 (CSAH 51) approximately 250 feet east of exi.sting Scotch Pine Lane and that existing Scotch Pine Lane would be vacated as a public street and maintained in it’s current location as a common residential driveway. The proposed new access drive would serve one home and the common access drive would .serve two houses, '^’he following paragraphs describe the traffic-related i.ssues that were investigated and the conclusions of our analysis. Appropriate Access Spacing Alone CSAH 51 The appropriate access spacing along CSAH 51 is dependent upon the design function or functional classification of CSAH 51. Roadways are typically divided into functional classes for purposes of applying design criteria, establishing jurisdicticpal authority and determining available sources of funding. Tne two characteiistics that determine a roadway ’s functional classification are access and mobility. These two functions confiict with each other as the roadway network attempts to serve its two basic purposes. Typically, the greater the access, the less the mobility that is possible and as the degree of access is limited, the mobility of the highway .segment is increased. Keith Dahl October 11. 1995 Page 2 In general, roadways are typically clxssified as either local, collettor or arterial (major, inten.. .*diate and minor) t'acilities. These classilications aa* delined below. - Lk>cal roadways have virtually unrestricted access to aducent properties. However, thev also nave limited mobility or ability lo mvive through• * traffic. - Collector roadways, while providing access to abutting land parcels, also enable moderate quantities of traific to move between local streets and arterial roadways. - Arterial roadways provide limited access opportunities to adjacent land parcels, mostly only to major cross-streets or traffic generators. Arterial roadways are designed for the efficient movement ot through trailic. The September 13. 1995. letter from Bonestroo. Rosene, Anderlik and Associates V) the City of Orono indicated that "The City should discourage an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such as County Road 51" and that the request for vacation should be denied. We agree that access to arterial roadways should be limited. However, our investigations indicate that CSAH 51 is not an arterial roadway. Discussions with the Hennepin County Highway Department indicate that CSAH 51 is currently classified as a "collector" type roadway. Therefore, the proposed 250 foot access spacing appears appropriate and adequate, especially when compared to the existing 150 foot to 3(30 foot residential access spacing along the remainder of CSAH 51. Sieht Distance <>f Proposed .Access Drive A second traffic-related issue that should be considered is the sight distance of the proposed access drive. The typical rule of thumb for u-affic engineers for adequate intersection, sight distance is ten seconds. Based on tire existing posted .,peed of 40 mph along »his segment of CSAH 51, ten seconds of sight distance would equate to ^88 *'.et. Therefore, if a driver stopped at the estimated stopbar of the access can set an approaching vehicle for at least ten .seconds or 588 lect in each direction, the sight distance at the access would be considered adequate. Field oh.servations conducted at the proposed access location by BRW, Inc., in October of 1995 indicated that, at a standard driver eye height of 3.5 feet, the sicht distances to the east and west along CSAH 51 ranged from 12 to i6 seconds in both directions. Therefore, the intersection sight distance from the proposed access location is adequate. Kcilh Dahl Ocwber li. 1995 Page 3 Cimclusions - CSAH 51 is curremly classified as a "collector" type roadway. As such. It is appropriate for CS.AH 51 ti> provide access to adjacent properties at some reasonable spacing, typically a lot width or the length ot a city block (200 to 3(X) feet). - The proposed 250 foot access spacing is consistent with the other residential access spacing along this section of CSAH 51. - The intersection sieht distance from 'he proposed access will be adequate. In Nummary, the investigation indicated that there are no tralhc-related problems as.sociated with the proposed access spacing and Scotch Pine Lane vacation. If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please call Jeff Holstein or me. i PUBLIC/PRTVATE CUL-DE-SAC ROADS SERVING i-4-5 USERS Public: X Private; o o X X X X o o o o o o o 0 o o 0 X o 0 ROADS SERVING 3 USERS 'Stronghold' Wear Circle Scotch Pine Lane Partenwood Lane Eileen Street Gaixler Road Sussex Circle Ridgewood Circle Wear Lane (S) (Hilbelink Subd.) ROADS SERVING 4 USERS Cristofori Circle Ru-Ann Road Woodhill Avenue Knoll Manor Road ROADS SERVING 5 USERS Cox Farm ad (N & S) North Streain Road Lydiard Circle French Creek Circle Landmark Dr } Length Possible Addt'l Built to < Users Road Sta 1100'Yes No 500 ’Yes Yes S 350 ’Yes Yes N 400 ’Yes Yes ^ 400 ’Yes Yes 475’Yes Yes 300 ’Yes Yes 700’No No 400'Yes No 250 ’No Yes 1050 ’Yes Yes 800 ’Yes Yes 650'No Yes 500'No Yes 350 ’/550*No Yes 375’No Yes X 'A 200 ’No Yes S 425 ’No Yes 200 ’No Yes n>5 •« TMSMOLi (2) lib od tV» 51 I l»2i l^UL 957.J3 5d9*56!3rt 1S9ALDR0M , AIDDM (7) :S3I.43 R6S ro !»•Jl mo V 1^ w ?? A i e X i %ors#1 amiuG IIV t >b 04 ?. MADOC^S 5»f »?•«•£ (5) 415 B1 f lol ^ M5 :4 I \2 •0 £1^ 1 ,0-^^ I (6) ( M) 3-9.1 wmsi 2 i55*i0 52-£ 3c4V7i Aom I US) /«ijT <5 Ts ff ir ¥ £ e- t. c*i* IT - >«*fl in'? r3i 3-*- li •C3 5 I (7) V*J »? !>• *! 7^ - C.kOf A 59 ^i;^) ^ (111 44 I ?9 Vi* .MC.S9 s I (10) ^ r' 6 in K «« in (•:) >*i iu fO o »N» kT (t) 3 (9) f.S5-l7:3-» ■yiT X , r? '5 f> 3X•50 440 »4 \dry'0 -»t.^1 33 33o ^ 1 11) ^ 1 (5)0 (3) —, ?559.03 PES r A- ,> !i. .**•-. :••* . *•.•: .*:^0 0^ i t inin•5( M) 4» 5? 3 *>»(13) PETEmiA ___is :, y cm SECOND 1 (n) is : s 1 i *c 45? «: m S' ;ii '*$1 ^C*.5^ I?t0. I Cg^EK ”ur,^ ’MO. ^i KLS •..*• • • ...*.• • •*. *. A • •• • • • • * •• / 58 c v69J: outlot 8 ^ -------- 3 ( I i9) s 9>J> " T? •12 ■»*< » *..y 3 \M :0 \ “T^ '35 13.* .* 6 5 121. I(M5) f f % 5 sT >. 3 l_^'C3) s1 v23i*5 ^ -> '3 !4 C. ’ 15 \1 . • .4 !-* /♦! •3*.1.. /♦ ____________'' '■■ ____________ST’2\rm— 11 \II \!/ ‘ .•■ (118)^hf (H7)^ 3 >. 5 35 *r «35 QC . »35 ^ a 159 >3 /1 Q.15 /\ i *. 2 14 .•\ 2 13/»v*« • : . ^:l-' 11 . ■• 5 •■•*••*■••*••••••••••••••••••••••*•••. iVXM'345 JIS^.kSAA A {2? ^ iil 114 ?. >'S 32 (4 Sb. vi l\‘u p\"^’ no 4 (2P) J?:. 6* 1 12?5 n 1 > I1 1 S L s { i cod (i I H \ » 1 g :jc» (21) r:t? c 1 « 1 ?• y" (1C)' 5 f 1\ 3:s3 p i •«e9*i9'» see-e’ c lOt 12 (5) FOX ST Its?361. 5l€AS H69*5a'ii J7i. 5 ?la'3a©.e5 KS5*y * ^ I Clr ^(<) r» * -»> •«*>3-*:'*5^5. ::; •Sit ?5f:.'-J IDRIDrv» - » » • 1 1 (1) r "£ t• ^ h. >, ” 5 '^■’F 310 ' ^ i IB 190 /i,.r 33 / 1 1 X 1 PART OF cOI 6 (0 1 « f - �--•. ... ( I 1, -- • � I -,·-r;, ,,,,II I ' I I f -� , • I I. I t I I • • ROAD J 1) ,s -- .. ,,I r� ' • 2.02 Ac� / �,IJ • •••--• I>, • I, ,d' • 7I . ., r I...,, • • I ... ' -• •.1 ............. ,r .. I ,. J. -·---� ---....-·---­ o*« . �-• ' � �� ·I" . ...... ......,,, 't. ..I),,-�� I . . a:-_-'(" I). V -• •o ..... ·,� / )J I La I :: � -· r � --.....----.... ... ''¥. . i-I·--· -t��•c.� I � •:): \1 � J-. • �., • -Ov•"·:�.�� .. �j I \ �' • -L :-� ', I \ L t � .. / n ! , •� ' ' . t 1/ I : \ r o ------ ' I' - \ •. ( - •••........................ . ...,. ............ . ( S) (6) ----• -------. LUCE • I • I • t I tf. 7 - ( 10) -rao. ' ( ) (J) ( BOOK f.036 PAGE SI Z OF DEE_OS). ,,.,, "' .... ·,41······· OUflor A(7) .. - ( , I i ' i . . . . . . . ....... . • ' J ••• t.. •• • .. • • ... .. • 1 . . .. ... . . .. . . , I ( , . . . . ...... . • .. - ) ) ( ) ..... ,, • .. �5· ..... . .. ... ... . ... . • V •k 5»(PHILLIP:•1(8)1 ((3211 ;k11 (Yfl5^ r4M. It lM*M*trt ' 1.... 9 1 >---------------SIXTH 'AVE--H---------'.......... '■ SFiY ilT “ 1 eo7.»^ Q AA Al. ‘ J i .· .. . . . ... e. • • I . . .... . .,,· ·.. . . • •• • ? . ' .. · • 4!,I'. I .. . . . . . . . . . . :. •Y C " I .... ., GOV 5. t .. . . . . 9 J ••••,. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .... ···•.. -,,, ( 'E , ...... -,., - • ,rv :· �"''• . .' . . . ... . - �a. - 126 � :· -- vJg rv- 95 UI � a, -- �I.It . -· ··. :· ..... ··...... : . . : · ... :: ... •.,,· . ; ... 25'3 . 02 RE.) ' . . •· .. : . '\, ... . . . .. . . . . .. -:� ,' � � - ,' � ••·•· : . , .. . . . ' • • -,-0 -- . . ... . .. •·· . . . . : ..... . '\. � -"' � -- �½\;,0 �-- .. 26 ,--... ... -- z • • ) ... a GOV LOT 5 TJ f S��ORE OR , ) I --------�··' ( CO RD -N& # 76.T6 to 05 (20 4 22Z.TB i (37) / 2 IJT {101)3 «3 I3«.85 1 ISO. 19 1 303.4: jr. >••——-T * SC ^ CU'lOT S * 3 M’9) S ^ Wi • (70) * ^K _ *33 \l4% 9>-i^ 'I Y 13\ « \M v..^ .3 t2 \ \ll 6 11 »0 \%T *0 5 '•.a :___L22 ___n* 15 /•(\15)1 IS 14 /2 14; n/\ 3 IK 1 n 13/ :\Z 0 UC ID ^ i45. 74 -#«0f ^ #“* -*• •“' • ^ • / # #* • j*r*Vl/ lx I 't ^ t I I ^ *1 ^1 f / ----------------------- L«»V h^' ^»***•* I f iJ-ti.- I ---------------- --^-a J 4k iiL^------\X .••• 44Qt CA^V • 'A'/- •f i..if •* /* C* /*•^ /'T '* /"• •*' • *r" • - *1 .• • ^L*t. n » I .. I J I y /\ ^:--NrX. \ "'7xr-r-^,ri I i.a ^ • '-------------- I__"l\ d '■■''''•»,, .0-«-|Nfc'».^ \ ■4 k X. 1-^'' X / \ \ X \ ...i^x_ i^N_ _\ P)\ ^ " V 0*»^*«*\ SfH^4T /•4#l - , //^c n/n V4 0f Sfc // \ •f ?: •• •(•• - ** J.'4« ,00^> i iVn \\ "^VH.rn / j, j \\* M\* / /'i*' \}? J>4 /! r ?i <\TERTOWN I t/ L R ROAD C4r00f^ 0f SCV4 of Tfs ACirjiTr / ^erzov/ 474.JO Nl f *---U ••'k 1 TRANSPORTATION jmiE, 1980 TRANSPORTATION GQAl S AND POLICIES Orono's Transportation Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which are designed to be consistent with our regional responsibility for coordinate t-ans portation planning, and with the goals, pol-.c-.es, an olans of the other elenents of tne Ccr.nuni-y Manageaen 4 Plan. TRANSPORTATION GOALS 1.TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE, SAFE TRANSPORTATION NETI^ORK SUFFICIENT TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF ALL ORONO RESIDENTS. 2.TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE MODES AND TRAVEL CHOICES FOR MOST ORONO NEIGHBORHOODS. 3.TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED PLAN FOR LAKE AREA TRANSPORTATION WHxCH WILL SATISFY BOTH ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. 4.TO ACHIEVE THE ABOVE GOALS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES OP THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS. (;PNFRAI TRANSPQRTATTON POLICIES. 1.COMMUTER AND GENERAL ARTERIAL TRAFFIC MUST BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM LAKE MINNETONKA. County Road 15 has become the "Main Street" of the Lake Area primarily because of habit and the lack of alternative routes. Shoreline Drive was originally built as a military road in the 1860’s. The road provides the only access to Minnetonka 3each and to many Orono residences. Meanwhile, traffic has increased substantially to where the road is crowded because of commuter traffic. The sensitive environment of Lake Minnetonka, and the property rights of the riparian landowners, are being damaged by continued reliance on this outmoded roadway location. 2.ORONO WILL ACTIVELY PROMOTE THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT TO PROVIDE VIABLE EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES TO CONTINUED OVER-USE OF COUNTY ROAD 15. The City has constructed one link in this system which Already has reduced travel time by up to ten minutes between Mound and wayzata. With additional linkages and intersection improvements, a transportation corridor can bo developed to handle the majority of truck traffic and commuter trips from the Westonka area while relieving the strain from County Road 15. CMP 7-8 ,>-.wk.^■ JUN’E, 1980 TPftfif^PQRTATIQA 3. 4. s.nsitiv. ar.»5 -ili protac.ec ..=>p _ __ _ _^ m m ^^ ORONO V;i:,L actively RRO.^f^S a SCSNiC ?A-.^"A.^ SCSNICALLlf parkway systeta curvv, slow-spe«d connoting the Scenic parkways provide character of these r . . amenities and are sp.cial vi.tas of travel. High best suited for re axi g ^nd commercial volume traffic. scenic oarkways traffic is not benefit from the because these users ^ mature of the road is attraction and *-hru-traffic movement, not conducive to efficient -^'^J^i^ations . scenic Because of natural ^ provide local property :r=i:r:nrii-tt:d “!n=“:r-:o:d .uncnoa,. ArXQ n-D^MCTT SYSTEMS AND INVESTIGATION OF ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE lup^rt ^TERNATIVE r^idinj «aL- innovative approaches private auto, popt.tion : I/p;I«trian and ?his include. 5ueh =°"=*P“/%^!“.v.d bu. tran.it. SGXrViCC I CLa*^a* ^ «=.T.TAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN THE :b:^-=r!n^r.irro ito|in,^oi_^..ap^ primary boating u.. of -b. let.. CMP 7-9 L. JUNE, I960 79ANSPQRTATIQM |«RBAN TRAN<^PQRTA TPN POLICIES «» • 3. ,"TT" BE O^vNED AtID MAIN'^AxNED BY THx. LOCAL STSXETS IN CHE UP3AN density CITY. Because -.he land high, the of wha urban neighborhoods -s -1-, .it u-^ban city -111 provide ;ai.tt.nance properties. City '--:(.;°^g^,g%treets levels will ensure passable, al ,,aS'if-''ee andavailable at all tia.s dor eaergency vehiC-e. and for general public ingress and egress. all URBAN PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DIRECTLY SERVED BY THE PUBLIC STRE SYSTEM. urban J'-'*i “?7"Iih!,-i„.d private roa^r sUniMcln; :x«ption."to this rule are in eh! cl.e of a planned residential or connercial developaent havins private aaintenance ’ « !n sen.ltlve l.be.hor. lot. g, could be served by one ^ reduce hardcover and toposraphical proble URBAN STREETS CONSTRUCTED TO URB^^OESW STANDARDS. .i-h-ra! n:o:.£;h!Vu£r^ d«ignid and regulated accepted tn?natural d«lS!ge systems and to avoid direct runoff into the La]ce . 4e CURB CUTS AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WILL BE LI.MITED FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY. subject proximity to intersections distance, lot width * ^ ^ties will be allowed ” »t»«.^f-r|::;ber “f'««n point, and th. JocaJion of allowable access will be Halted for public traffic safety purposes- p““dr!dequtte onl.ite parkin, facilities. 7-10 f I. L t I L I r I [ } f TRANSPORTATION JL*NE, 1980 6.THE CITY WILL PURSUE ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE-HIKE TRAIL FACILITIES. The conpletior. of an interconnected bike-hike trail systen is iacortant to the further­ ance of alternative transportation incentives. The City will encourage Hennepin County to speedily iaplenent the planned bike-hike trail systen along several county roads. The separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic is of the utaost inportance in accident prevention. 7.THE CITY WILL PROMOTE I2^R0VED MASS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. Orono has established a Park and Ride Transit Systen. Orono encourages improved bus scheduling and improved service, especially at off-peak hours. Orono strongly supports the "Tonkamobile" program and encourages expansion to provide improved Excelsior-Wayzata service via Orono*s North Shore neighborhoods. RURAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 1.PUBLIC STREETS IN THE RURAL AREA WILL BE PRIMARILY LIMITED TO THE EXISTING COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL GRID SYSTEM. The low rural land use density does not require jiojj can it economically support an ex ten s ive public street system. Rural lot arrangements have always been served by the existing grid 2tremts and are capable of subdivision to the planned rural density without requiring additional public street investments. 2.THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT UTILIZES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING RURAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. The principal corridor for traffic from Minnetrista and points west utilizes {{gjjjjepin County Roads No. 6 and 19 and State Highway 12 The City of Orono has constructed a key link between County Roads 6 and 19. Additional ring route traffic uses the existing north-south collector roads to travel away from the Lake toward these principal travel routes 3.THE CITY OF ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE ALL NECESSARY ROAD SURFACE AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE AND TO FACILITATE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THE RING ROUTE. This will include cooperation with the City of Long Lake in accommodating traffic on Highway 12. CMP 7-11 JUNE, 198Q T^ANSPORTATIQH 4. 5. 6. Because of coocgraohical -^-°"!.;/-?*./den3ity shace of rural land divisions, and -^id.ntial lot^ of rural land use. most new toads -unning off the existing street system. .he \ dwellings on each road, the oublic roadway and the scattered road locations make maintenance excessively costly „iH public benefit. Therefore, nosw new rura ^ ?. dir.ctly ..rv.a by priv.t.ly owned roadways. New public streets *aeneral public a -through- configuration provides / benefit and/or where the number of residences justifies public maintenance expense limited for public safety purposes underlying pu i ^,,^te roads. These easements easements , ^f the public to all will ensure legal private road. Development properties ser/e acceptable forms of financialcontracts backediby accep^ ‘“•'^“^".ranrardr".n':;r=?d!:rjor.! "bfcKy ’”vid'-=’r:»on:ble‘'“and;rd:^ H recui-ed maintenance agreements and/or wo':o:nar*ra;*o=’aoion., and bhab failur. of the homeowner naintain their private road cause for the City to accomplish needed will be assess the benefitted properties ^irthHiract coat of each .ainbananc. % : iii CMP 7-12 JUNE, 1980 jpftN5^PQRTATIQH 8. 9. C AMD SERES'” OR PRIVATE ROAD INTERSECTIONS DRr.^WAY LOCATIONS AND traffic WIIX BE I.IMITED F0R_T.^.- = IC^S^E;^: , , ^peed is genera-i/ -as- ‘ ea-e' sign- distances neighborhoods 'action conflicts for and a lesser number -a*e-v. Joint use of the same degree of "^^^^111 generally be carefully located Z ^ to public highwayspreferred over direct access onto pu from separate properties- ^ ;aTERI.ATE TRANSFORATION and bicycle !'sike-hike trail system and completion of the trails connecting the the private development rural properties, public trail system ict motorised use of The City will continue riate to the trail’s tr.ll. within “n.*'in=o«?«ibl. with .dj.c.ntbasic purpose and as in p residential properties.„.id.ntl.l prop • SERVICES FOR RURAL ORONO. THE CITY WILL NOT PROM cannot eeonomioally The planned rural services. Existing bus routes support public trans -enroute between Long Lake, pass through the r^xa.1 -hese routes are sufficient wayxata and urban 0'°"®* ^ will in feet provide to%.'-w. orono'. n..d £or additional additional rural ••'’'-oc . location, ar. urban ..rvic. d.sirin, to u.. transit r.rv'::a^t!ru :'th:*:.tabli.h.d part .nd rid. ‘l“ttIon. in Navarre and wayrata. •401 ? 7-13 fcweae XT i m fl- a a.ie v ■K —LiATiadr’^iOSTv^ ma> rk.'ma j._____i JUNE, 1980 -piMSPORTATIOM -UP TRANSPORTftTIQN PL&ti »ol»n for srreers and roads.Th« principal n«.d and has litrl. planning resid.ntial n.ighborhoods 1.a plan to provide for computer pov.p.nt away fro« the and eommereial centers, an '‘lakeshore. congested, env:.ronnentall/ sensi------------------- -O ono's T-ansoortation Plan are as follows•he principle components of Orono s T-pr -------- anr^no'fartL^^s dLecf tHf f^c'awi^f ro^^a^ snoi c <*■— developing the private road concept for access to low density rur. residential properties. V, r-wtrr.Tc np PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE FOR ORONO *S promoting REASONAB^ L£.VE^ maintenance o£ the existing MTC bus commuter travel to taie cenrer . r| |ig^TFT^/»iTI9^ SYSTEfi , connonly accepted way to writt^JniClt^s'Strf::»ri:v.jrrf" :s“hrougk a ="ntruc^ioi standards. This Plan follow, tarvices and ®'^jgy*loped and adopted by the Minnesota Departnen if pfan^^ortrtiorarappli.^ to the types of roadway, serving Orono. SAP NO. 14 INDICATES °L'’^ioSai®t«nIpo«atlon°plaL^ r^lcilftlef^f^fh. Metropolitan Cooncil.^t^^ pfvlird°n!tld «ptanations of each of Orono's roadway classification . CMP 7—14 Vr u I I & I I I I E I Iii. I 1 JUNE, 1980 tpan«^PORTATIQN Highway 12 rhat becomes linited-access with wayzata. J 'rrerial is a controlled-access, INTERMEDIATE ARTERIAL An Intermediate ^ -vehicles between cities access and intersection characteristics or coH^ctLor • JORISDICTIOH! STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY RIOHT-OF-WAY width= MINIMUM 100 FEET FOR TWO LANE MINOR arterial “j“i;*ie^J,hiclI"within plAnninn fubt«gions »nd ,tr.«t or highway i.,r, Minnatonka Ring * "t= between adjacent subreg •^lincioally commuters and truck traff » arterial functioning to move , p *s into the urbanized areas of Wo. ih. wa.t.rn Lak. «i»«“";:/^:rro;«"han«l. traffic away froo the Twin Cities. The 12 and 55, and in the near future, Lake Minnetonka ^^^^rstate* 494 in Plymouth. Land use access a diract .“‘f '"”l*r«.fflo g.naiator. and local atraat t^t"rrcrionrwrtHiirdI^« -iHa t, individual raaidancaa. JURISDICTION-. HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION right-of-way width: MINIMUM 30 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY I rr or intnrTed, ta artarraj^j^^ )^^rS7^n. but li reguialed as s.o local street access is available_^Interse cn"r~lled With signals or witn four-w siop signs. Traffic usage is moderate. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY right-of-way WIDTH: 60-66 FEET CMP 7-15 JUNE, 1980 jgAMqPQRTATIQU. ccEMIC PARKWAY Scenic ?and enolied by Orono to those the Cities of Minneapolis and oaint signUlcant roads which traverse especial-y 5 = -./picailv a narrow, curvy, slow a^eas of the City. -he scenrc par.-.-'ay ‘-a^eas and soecial vistas soeed road which provides access to 2®:;® ^ t-af*ic and commercial traffic of scenic attractions. High volume fusers do not benefit is not appropriate on scenic nature of the roadway is not from the attraction and because t Because of environmental c;nducive to efficient through traffic higher capacity sensitivity, scenic J adversely affecting the natural collectors or minor and/or the property rights of setting, the scenic qua ^natural topography of the area, abutting landowners. ^^e traffic and local access = ,-.ntc oarkways also provide some of tne Of Lth lo=.l .nd =0H.cPcr Phree-.s. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 50-66 FEET r^lTolT^lV^conirou.d by .toppin, th. led .tr.« traffic. JURISDICTION: CITY 0rD!rDr"LN=rwlI.r3rLIMi;E0 By PUBLIC SAFETy COHSIDEBATIOHS e ^^ ^ ^i M roads be constructed and egress and access to all properties ^ buft^e Jity^wtirlllow ?he property rLd»* =rid'rp - .nd p.v«.i ov,n.rphip •^^^iirhirb:"n»:^pr=p.r-.y ow„«s. Xi JURISDICTION. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH UNDERLyING EASEMENT TO mIxiLm service. APPROXIMATELy TEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MAXIMO depending UPON NUMBER OF USERS ,,DaT-Or-WAy WIDTH. CONSIDERATIONS DEAD-END: LENGTH wii- CMP 7-16 TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 PRIVATE DRI^/EWAY A driveway is a privately owned and privately naintainec vehicle path between the street and private property. Private driveways shall be subject to access perr.its according to the classification of the abutting street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public easenent or access right, but do require recorded private easenents where driveways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served and the street. JURISDICTION: PROPERTY OWNER .MAX I.MUM SERVICE;1 RESIDENCE TYPICAL; JOINT DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED WITH MAXIMUM THREE RESIDENTS PER DRIVEWAY IN .RURAL AREAS MORE USERS REQUIRE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS DRIVEWAY WIDTH:WILL BE REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED OR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE LENGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC ROAD EXISTING ROADWAY MAINTENANCE JURISDICTIONS A?1E REASONABLE AS THEY RELATE TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN. The State of Minnesota has appropriate jurisdiction over the only Intermediate Arterial in the City. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over the only Minor Arterial designated in the Plan. It is anticipated that Hennepin County will assume jurisdiction in the future over the City- built ring route link between County Road 19 and County Road 6. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over most of the designated Scenic Parkways which is appropriate in that these roads serve as access to Lake .Minnetonka and to County maintained landings for many County residents who do not reside in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over those Scenic Parkways that are away from the immediate lakeshore. including the access road to the Orono Golf Course. The City has appropriate jurisdiction of most of the Collector and all of the local streets which serve all Orono residents. Certain key street segments have been designated for Municipal State .Aid construction assistance, including: OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD from County Road 6 to Fox Street, County Road 84 WILLOW DRIVE from County Road 6 to State Highway 12 and from the Long Lake border to Fox Street FOX STREET from Willow Drive to County Road 146 McCulley Road (Ring Route link) between County Road 6 and County Road 19 Finally, individual property owners have appropriate private jurisdiction over those Private Roads serving only their individual properties. I >05f7). \ i V A / i S ^ I s -? S' \ ' ./ • ■ - i i ' ^ P, »/!.^# / W . = f I ■• V /> W.> 'i-ail-’ SrA. 'i" i M|i|M\<X /;rvt:?:." / \ -^ I " 'rvi 'vfiiVc y P-ilirfiiifcr o--1 • • ^ t iiiiiiiiiiTiiiiiiiiiii •r •s #' * A ■■,,^ Y ■ ■., .1 Cr5r—f \ 1- "^" #....^‘^'Tj*yT.Vi)Q?V / V. //•)I%-m -wm. ^ v ri ^ im ■’,, ii\ ! vV q »I ./^y 3 :j -n •J S 11.31 p.oviae iot drainage ^aU be ,hall be denned so as to avoidpattern for thXatea. drainage shall be^s^gneo so ^^jacent concentration ofXstorm drainage water f.ojiv^ eacn lots. \ / / Subd. 7. \Debris and Waste.. Wo cut trees, timber, suoa. /. Mjeot.a ruDoish, or other waste debris, eartn, roc<s,- stones,^^ anv land, or left or materials of any <ind shall of the issuance of a deposited on any lot ^/^vision nor shall any be left or certificate of occucancv a J time of expiration deposited in any area ^il^ication of oublic imorovements,of the performance bond dedication or ?uoxx whichever is sooner. e ' A a wa^^»rho'<^’-“S^and Watercourses. If a tract being subdivided® =°=ntaus a bod^ i^.riHl''ao"d“aw'n Vs")X’'%"istVil:;te°\nlsn;r .sv.sv s'« ^ lots. The r . safe maintenance of those areas ownership of and re^sponsibiliw/ .City’s tesoonsibility. is so placed that' it a lot from the Where a watercoi^rse separates provisions shall be made for ?Ss%*a*llatLn a“2 culveu o% other s'tructureV^of design approved by the City. / n Q 3Tformance Bond to Includkl*ot Improvement. ,he oebf;®r';\n-=:-srair^nclude anou|. to ,«arant «a.ple,fion of all drainagl, ^er^lot improvements required by whe City. SEC. 11.32. ROADS. Subd. I. Off-Site Premises; Roadways. A Access to Iraoroved Public or Private •Jhaii be aooroved unless the area to be subdividedNo subdivision shall °® existing oublicly dedicated and Shall "=”Vuate rladiay ^ to travel or vehicular opened between persons or between persons and use pursuant uo ^dwSv must be suitably improved as required by the City, ‘ ^of%innesota or Hennepin County. In the event the City, the including but not limited to existing bridges,the public roadway inclJaing pavement, alignment drainage structures, to handle the proposed or site distance, subdivision, the subdivider at hisvehicular traffic ton^^^ improving the public "’’"Standard accep^table to the City, to insure that the . health. ORONO CC 456 (4-1-84) s 11.32 safety and welfare of the =iti«ns oresenUy aslng ^ in the future will be “^av ciuTed by th^ subdWia^ by the increased use of wne oriot to final subdivisionThis improvement shall be accomplishe p provides aapproval unless the City agrees and the subdivi« sSitable performance bond to complete >.ne .mprovc subdivider"'3 agreement. n ^naroved Public Roadways Over Existing private RoadwayV. ^t^o’ orovided herein above for public roadways. ST Subd. 2. On-Site Roadways. A.Grading and graded and improved to ^roved^ as to design and specifi- cations by the City q",^o^final subdivision approval,plans required to be submitted pr.or -o B, Topography and Arrangement. 1.Roadways shall be related appropriately to the topography. All'roadwaVs'^ shall^be arranged avoid *|rpossible of the building sites at, or. so as to obtain as »?c^jaes of streets shall oonforis above, the 9ta<5e» j jpax topography. A combination as closely as avoided. Specific standards :'e ^nlai'ned'^ in ?Se design standards of this Chapter. 2.All streets shall be properly integrated dil'lca\‘y ’d 7ig“'-"of-t"ay "a's°"rs'tlbli7hed" fn t\^°'ColprVh'enslve Municipal Plan. 3 All thoroughfares shall be properly •f/- i-rsf^ic generators such as industries, business to specific r^hurches and shopping centers; to population 1^nrit!«; a%t%o the cittern of existing and proposed land uses. 4. Roadways shall be laid out to oo"«°r" »* to the topography, to discourage use by through much as °ffici^^^and utility systems, and to. TelulVV tl^e^llnl'i.um'nlmber of riadways necessary to provide cinvenient and safe access to property. 5 The gridiron roadway pattern w ^hesrV,? to and the use of curvilinear roadways or S^lhaped^rLdways shall be encouraged where such use will result m a more desirable layout. (4-1-84) ORONO CC 457 S 11.32 6 Cul-de-sacs shall be discoutagedj proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary ohvsilS condi- subdivided, unless prevented by topography or f fj not tions, or unless in the opinion or City sucn extension i necessary or desirable for the coordination of -he subdivision with the existing layout or the tost advantageous future development of adjacent tracts. the roadways and oth« sc=ess%'ryV%h\[ll walks and parking areas so ff « ™‘"i‘”“|i„”“o,aestrian.between the various types or w4.ati.ic, inciuu , . C.Blocks. bL“"s‘adTa=ent‘to%?t«^V^^railroads, or waterways. rionT«tVrTal°s^ol\%%" r shall be’not less than one thousand (1,000) feet in length. 3 In all blocks the City shall require the r,f an easement through the block to accommodate utili- J"! AaTnaoe tacim^ os oldestrian traffic. Pedestrianwaysties, drainage rac^-^J_ ' ^ ‘ noj wide, may be required by ?L'i!ry“?i^oignh£cenrer o^^ 2Sa!f SlTch Lngth and width as n.ay bl determined suitable by the City for prospective use nd- Sion bo°r'de^s''”n“r “ontaL"s*'L \Vi®sVing®'or p?lpo%eS ar?«iil' the City may require that access to such roadways be limited by one of the following means: 1 The subdivision of lots so as to back onto .h. arterials and front onto a parallel local or =ollec tor roadway I the arteriais a from the arterial, and screening shall Se ;«“ded ?n a"s't/ip of land along the tear property line of such lots. ORONO CC 458 (4-1-84) S 11.32 to such a parallel street, with the rear lines lots backing onto the arterial. 3.A ,-«9>nal access or road^ separated from the arterial by a planting or gras -. thereto at suitable points. plan a. postmaster shall be consult-d by -nd in soelling from other ISLl be su££iciently .^““Susi ooi^Jicn. A road which irtr"?s*|unneS*a“V continuation o£ an eslstin, road shall bear the same name. before issuance <=Vd .t""the streets approved. The c y ^Ib’d'iVfsVon, Mf.*"ti;e*lnl^lolat^“n*on£ which to be approved by the City. r Reserve Strips. The creation of reserve adiacent to a proposed street in such a shall not be permitted adDacent ^ ^ _ ^o such street,manner as to deny access from adjacent properi^y H.Construction of Roads and Dead-End Roads. 1 ronst-uction of Roads. The arrangement of streets shall P^oviie^for l^iirn?^nt'’«o7.Va^t o£ tra££ic e££.c^^^^^^ efficient °'city CoipVehensIv^^ Plan- ^ \\ |h. accordance with t ,,„dJ«eioDed and the street must be a dead-end adjacent property is un _£g^t_of_way shall be extended to the street nav^imit the ^length of temporary dead-end lllirts^n «oordeice Witk the desi,n standard. o£ this Chapter. 2.Dead-End Roads (Permanent). Where a road aoes not. e^ctend to »c*i4*'*for“lcUV." Vo" aSJoVnin,continuation is TOt requiteo Dy^^^^^^ y nearer to such pcoperty. ^^*.55.5 ,em f.et However, the City nay require the cts«V/tio ’n"o/Vn ’^appropriate easement to acconnodate drainage ORONO CC 459 (4-1-84) I s 11.32 facilities, pedeswtian ^ .^VeV-aanent dead-end street in accordance be provided at the end °^ * ?*^^* %nd specifications. For with the City s cons^rac-ion s^an ®ffective police and fire greater convenience to ^ general, be ........................................................................ SBC. 11.33. DESIGN STANDARDS. Subd. 1. General. In alcoB°»oda?^ suitable location, wi *satisfactory access to police, prospective traffic and Yanitation and road maintenance firefighting, snow removal,compose a convenient equipment, and to ®^ghfps to adjoining properties, the ?o^^rinrdes^7nitrn^ar*ds'Vot^rc!a% are hereby required: i Surfacing and Improvements. sewer and wate^ utUit^{{;^/- ^"*-/^p*^ve'’Ln\^r ‘bou\’ie^": d?L “ge'iaprlve*»e"« °and *““\\Y%*ons%^^«lon «d sidewalks in =°"‘°':;»"=®,““c,tv anrsha^ Incorporated into clnltruetlof plant squired J be subBitted to the subdivider for final subdivision approval. 3 Right-of-way. Rights-of-way shall be accordance with the following performanoe standard: 1, Minimum Right-of-Way Widths. Principal Arterial Intermediate Arterial As recommended by the State Department of Transportation Minor Arterial 80 feet Collector Local Parkway Cu." -de-sacs 70 feet 50 feet 100 feet 50 feet radius 2.Rights-of-way are needed for future roadways in the opinion of the City. 3 Rights-of-way widths or additional in existing 'if toygVaVhV°aafitlon“‘‘“« ro'lr?vU'%S.Tw'e«%«t5T«^’'' luch slopes shall not be in excess of three to one. ORONO CC 460 (4-1-84) i s 11.33 Subd. 2. Railroad rights-of-way and lands shall ba treated asas to affect the subaivision or adjoining xanas follows: A.in residential districts a the^'lot ?lgu "ed in” tt'e'distAcf fh^”ir=«1r=v”id*d%'dTacen the railroad right-of-way or limited access roadway. 3.in ,^“’tin ”figT”*a?itl t\ industrial uses railroad shall be at a sufficient d??”ai;ort\%'r.fr*of to'ensure suitable depth for cooneroial or industrial sites.streets parallel to the railroad intersecting a 4on \1,i^^r?Aroad^ rfghtt"of-U^ at a distance ^®**?_t!?«ined with due consideration of the ®JSU«*dt."ta%=%*regui*red*?or future separation of grades by means of appropriate approach gradients- D.Streets crossing the railroads shall be avoided. Subd. 3.Intersections. a streets shall be laid out so as to ** •wi ► riflht ancles A proposed intersection of two nearly as ®'L '“rteU than seventy-five (75) degrees(2) new streets at an angle or . street should be curved shall not be and should be approximately at rightapproaching an intersection ana snou therefrom. Not more fli^two'uV i?r%%%r sh^air >n\e‘r\“e^^t'*.V aV ’y* on. point unless specifically approved by the City. n ^roDosed new intersections along one side of an existing street shall irt^s%%^*ron^iig%7rtf «nt.r- jrne°SII«n of‘^ss jh“f^ 150 e.et .ball not wS? where the tnt®'»*=??^.*\”te,seltion: Wh^ streets intersect median breaks «A’''’,Yi„nSient shall be continuous. Intersection Sf^«tlrill roadways shall be at least eight hundred (800) feet apart. r Minimum curb radius at the intersection C.wininiuBi , . fifteen (15) feet; and minimum (2) local. gelt ion involving g collector street or curb radius a a rommercial or industrial area shall be at leas local feet Alley intersections and abrupt changes twenty-five shall have the corners cut off in !^&^"o^“w^^^'"st^n'’da°r=d^ngineering practice to permit safe vehicular movement. ORONO CC 461 (4-1-84) 1 r I S 11.33 D.rnter..«ions *^11 ‘’i** a^"r»iSintl.“l «« Stopping area of at leaSw I q* industrial area. The and designed to ocovide a maxiaun grade o£ two (2)* percent. -Sh.r. anv sr-eet intersection -ill involve earth banxs or exis^ng'^eg-et^-ioV inside any..lot corn_e^ that ,--Id create a shall cut ------ . ne«s«ry h'/*thrc*f^"-«%-'vTd; ‘an-ide-guatV sight distance r The crown of all streets, including intersections, shall be three percent (3%) or less. Subd. 4. sJbgra'de ^?A-6 *Soll°Classi£lca- Uon["anl aay br"bje^- to changed Soil boring, -ay be required to be determined by the City. existing vegetation ino.ae subdivider “Vulh'^^ground'^anl/Sr the^UUnt n with ch« grading of whe gh. y or^t7^^^A Street - Residential Units 3-6 R.O.W.* M.P.W.** 50* 24* Over 7 50*28’ Public -Residential Units 3-10 R.O.W.* M.P.W.** 50' 23' Over 10 30' 32' Maximum Maximum cul-de-sac length - 1,000* number of units on cul—de— Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface 8“ Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface Public Street - Commercial or Industrie Units 1+ R.O.W.* 70' M.P.W.** 32' Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 4" 2341 Bituminous surface *Right-of-Way Width ** Minimum Paved Width ORONO CC 462 (4-1-84) f r. S 11.33 Subd. 5. Horizontal and Vertical Cont rol. Functional Class__ Private Street- (cesidential) Public Street- (cesidential) Public Street- (cora. & ind.) Design Soeed Vertical Control Ma«i:nuiB Gradient Horizontal Minimum 30 MPH 12%275 • 30 MPH 10%275' 40 MPH 3%400' Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 11.34 through 11.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 463 (4-1-34) 1 s 11.40 SEC. 11.40. BQAD DEDICATION AND RESERVATIONS. subd. 1. New perimeter id nil subdivisions shall be i^id half-street is adjacentperimeter half-streets. «^here an ex^isting hair^s to a new subdivision, the other ..citv mav authorize a improved and dedicated by ‘improves and dedicates new perimeter street l?dth -ithin his own the entire required Sw.ee- ..gnr subdivision boundaries. Sabd. 2. Widening and to^d or when the Where a subdivision borders an Agency indicates plans Comprehensive Municipax : at wouW require use of somefor realignment or widening a road that wouio req required to snro-- a^d^'d^='a\^^d^/£s»/at hi, own expense to the full width as required by -his Chapter. Subd. 3.Land reserved for ”f’ t"hV Zoning «S«t%%%^^'^'«"’an^d“?,;t};be dedi^^^^^^^ to the Cit. in fee simple or an easement is granted to the City. SBC. 11.41. DBMIWGE AND STORM SBWBFS. ...... Storm or flood water runort. block. The storm water be shown for separate and independent of any sanitarydrainage system shall be separate^ required, shall be designed by sewer system. Storm se , citv and a copy of design computa-the method as approved by the City and a c py tions shall be submitted along or around any provided so that surface of more than 600 feet in theintersection, nor for a dista indicate that curb gutter in urban ^point, no further allowance shall be r,"dVS%^rftol\%^”nd%h‘,t%?i^"t: and basins shall b, usad to intercept flow at that point. Subd. 2. Nature of Storm Water Facilities. A Location. The subdivision shall be... cu,.. C...V vr..":.".".".’.."!'. .""s: L-s;.av."i/.‘5Sright-of-way wh«e feasible, ot in pat^ accordance with ?L*l?t?^“=-%«uction*standards and specifications. ORONO CC 464 (4-1-84) *»!■>■ fM nfm^—, la i ■ r ■I'e ii i ii i i i B R w INC. Planning Tramportjtion Engincenng Urban Design Thresher Square 700 Third Street So Minneapolis. MN 55415 612/370-0700 Fax 612/370-1378 Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlando Phoenix Portiand San Diego Seattle K October 11,1995 Mr. Michael P. GatTron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crytal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Scotch Pine Addition City Zoning File #2065 BRW File 3233AOO Dear Mike: This letter is in response to comments from your letter dated September 14, 1995. Specifically, I would like to SKldress the environmental benefits from this project. A budget analysis program was used to estimate the contaminant loading for the before and after conditions for the proposed street vacation. The results of the budget analysis show a contaminant reduction of approximately 50% for the drainage area contributing to the adjacent wetland and ultimately to Lake Minnetonka. This analysis does not take into account the oils, rubber, and other garbage commonly associated with street run-off that currently enters directly into the wetland by way of the existing storm sewer. A permit has been applied for through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the plans for this project have been revised to reflect the comments of the Board. A Site/Grading plan was submitted to your office on 9/13/95, which addresses erosion control, utility adjustments, and pavement removal. If you have any questions, please call me at 373-6362. Sincerely, BRW, INC. S.Sandberg, EIT Project Engineer Sam Marfield Keith DahimRW c: C fcr —#r-rr— \flNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 10 1 ».. («) #2065 SAMUEL MARFEEXD. 2455 SCOTCH aq wn i Qr^nxm PrVE LANE^ AND WILLIAM TOLES^ 24J5 vSoTSf ^otch pine DRAINAGE AND UTILm EASEMENTS - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) 8:00-8:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Afildavit of Publication were noted. The applicants. Mr. & Mrs. Marfield, Mr. & Mrs. Hill, and William Toles, were present. Gaffron reported that the request is for a vacation of a road vacation with a rededication of utilitv- easement and replat propertv was planed to create j ouuoaoic lois emu - k «------- ••• ■ - ^ ^j 1 The reolst would a U ow the Hill property necessary to accommodate existing and future utility needs. Gafiron noted that a leaer irom NSP indicates there is a distnounon facility N^wiU not give their approval for the easement vacanon and any changes will have to be made at thfeipense of the applicants. Gaffron t -ught if the existing ut^^lmM were located that NSP would possibly approve the easement vaemon in «change for easements A Minnegasco lener said there are natural gaa lines in “f ’*■ company objects to the proposal unless suitable right of way and redediMUon iwwived. Peterson clarified that the utility easements must remain as they now exist. Gaft confirmed this. OshfR-nn said Citv scwcr was extended to the area in 1980 with 10* easement on cither side of the line Hie Citv Encineer indicates 30* total width is needed for that utility casement. U applicants have not pro.d^ a surv ty of where all the utility hnes are located. This is required and is being asked tor from the appbeants. >m flt.*--i'*-rV'■.a.i k'.am ..an.mm . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#2 - ^2065 Marficld/Hill/Tolcs - Continued) The paved portion of Scotch Pine Lane would be removed and the property replatted in this proposal. The Hills would gain a portion of Scotch Pine adjacent ot their ho^e as well as the majoritv ’ of the cui-de-sac, giving the Hills a continuous single p^cel from the County road to the lake. Mr. Toles on Lot 3 would gain the end portion of the cul-de-sac area. The Tol« driveway would be re\ised to gain access ffom CoRd 51 Regrading would be done to eliminate the existing drainage pipe. The Manieids would gain the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane. A 20'x90' outlot is proposed for the sharra portion of the proposed Mar6eld/HiII driveway Staff is concerned that the replat would result in a "backlot" configuration which would not meet the 15W^ acreage or setback standards The Marlield lot would appear to become a backlot under the proposal. Another Staff concern is that with the area being zoned for 2-acre lots today, if this 3-lot plat was proposed, the City would require planing of a private road 50’ wide with a 100* cul-de-sac aiul a 24' paved road. The application as proposed does not meet the current City codes, but what currently exists does meet code. Marfield commented that if the three lots had 6 acres, the lots could accommodate the roads. It was his opinion that all of the blacktop to serve the three small parcels was too much. He noted City officials in the past had agreed with this opinion. Peterson commented that requirements are changing. The Fire Department feels the road as it even now stands does not totally meet their needs and would ask for more road if that were possible, i.e., larger cul-de-sacs or loop roads. Marfield said Scotch Pine Lane is the only public road between CoRd 51 and Bohn's Point. He would like this road to be similar to the other accesses in the area, most of which arc driveways. Hill sugsested that the fire department use the grasseo veas to gain access. It was commented that fire trucks could get stuck in the grassed areas creating new problems. Mrs. Hill noted that the fire depanment could not access the Toles property as it now exists Rowlette concurred with this notation. Marfield noted that, although Orono is into ^een spaces, it aUowed this 3/4 acre of blacknop to be built where it isn’t necessary. The Commissioners aceed that tney too like the green grassy areas but trends are changing for emeraeno- situations. The police depanment has responded that they approve the proposal. The fire depanmem had not been notified of the proposal. It was noted that the pubUc uses the road, even though it is marked dead-end, and are creating a safety hazard by driving 30 mph. Mrs. Marfield noted that her grandchildren had a close calf from being hit by such a car dnving on the road. Other concerns were noted regarding security of the area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (U2 - H2065 Marfieid/Hiil/Toles - Continued) Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application ^2065 until the Fire Department could give their recommendation regarding the proposal. Toies noted that t ing wo upset liis plans for rebuilding on Itis property this tail. Gaffi-on asked the Commission about the issue with creating a backlot by having an outlet rcsultinit in the Martield propen>' being more substandard for ^ . requested whether there is also a problem v»ith the outlet to be o'^n y ot i and Hill. Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it. A letter from neichbors. the Levy ’s, favored approving the appbeadon providmg the new driveway not be closer than 15’ from the lot line and the utility easements to the^property remain in effea. The neiahbors to the west, the Lukes, also had no obiwuon. They asked that the City stipulate that no additional buildings be aUowed on the site. Hawn moved. Schroeder seconded, to amend the tabling motion to ^ approval motion for Application #2065 subjert to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to dealt with, and the driveway must be at least 15’ from the neighbonng property. Gaflfron suegested it may be inappropriate to place the fire depanment in approve or disapprove this request without fiirthcr Commission input, (^on ask^ the Commissioners to address the issues under item #1 m the Staff memo rel^g to variances requested for replatting and rededication of easements, the wetlands d^nwtion and dedicaSn on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to define this as a unique request as compared to other three-lot subdivisions, or be prepared to grant approval to other neighborhoods making similar requests. Rowlene said she did feel there are specific findings in regards to this appUcation notmg the existing substandard access to the Toies property. There would be better access from CoRd 51 for emergency vehicles under the proposal. Hawn noted the additional finding that removal of the cul-de-sac to ^low the Hills to cross to their lakeshore parcel without crossmg the road would be a benefit. Smith asked Gafiron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of 3-party cul- de-sacs to ask for removal is this opening the door for similar requests. Gaffron s^d it could be opening a -Uttle door", and that is the reason good findings are important here. P«erson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this appU^tion forw^d to the Council in a messy form and requested that it be tabled. Lmdqmst Les mav come back to haunt the Commission. Schoeder agreed this could happen »d not only on the cuWe-sac issue, that there are many issues involved in addmon to the fire safety issue. ^^rNUTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNTNG COMNCSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#2 - #2065 Marfidd/Hiil/Toles - Continued) Hav*Ti withdrew her amendment to the morion. Schrocder moved. Lindquist seconded, to table Application ^2065 to gain specinc input from the Fire Department and general input on the issues. Vote; Ayes Nays 1, Rowlette, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment. (#3) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER. 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH RENOTIFICATION 7:18-8:00 P..\L The Certificate of Mailing and .Afiida\-it of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Weckman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from property that had been combined from a 3-parcel property consisting of lots 1, 3, and 4. The applicant had previously stated he had not intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a result oi a request for one tax statement. The two lots meet the area and width requirements. Weckman said the main issue is with the access roads on the property. Lots j and 4 are the current homestead and have access from Frederick Street. A more recent dnyeway was established from Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru dnveway with a circle. The applicant said this driveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowe^ vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985. The driveway n^as reestabbshed m 1994. The original subdivision shows an outlot with a drive circling around and connecting to the cul-de-sac, but the drive used as the connector cuts through lot 1. Weckman asked for direction from the Commission on what to do with the driveway. With the driveway serving lots 3 and 4 going through Lot 1, the requirement of 1/2 acre contiguous on Lot 1 with the principal structure placed on the lot is not met. An option was noted to end the driveway as shown on the drawings; or since Lot 1 is being sold to the appUcanfs son, an option would be to aUow the use of the driveway on a temper^ ^ basis while using the adjacent tw o properties and not adding an easement m favor of lots j and 4. *tr:r! '•"■I .1 4i 5 1 I « • •~-3. •* r» •ft ^.*-7 w *1 •I 4 ••j .•<«^ .t • ^ m ^ ’3 1 r.4 -• - =-. Fran t POWIS Q LcUY J»rHGS3 Kc. •* Si2 473 S352 E«p.l3 l9W 4;35Ft1^;p0t H ■ /9-I MOK!?IS G.LEVY, .IH. 2^23 North*hf>re D fIva Vnyzot*. MJJ 55391 -A (612)473 5223 > FAX - (612) 473 -3392 •*FACS I M 1 I. H TEA N S M I S •■«• 0 ‘ • DATES S»*pte!ii>er 1«. 1993 ^♦ ♦m 1 KAX TO ••PI aCf>Rnlas'! on 1 i t y «) t O r ',1 n o • KA a h’o••J13T2) A 7?. 0310 • 6 * i •-< :niMD OK iMf.:;;S:1 iaclinHiif; covur -• ’-Sft-i • •To i!ic PI ;inn j. iin Commi »iuIon f •. ft* •• M •« i.’c: Apiil i cat. Ion jf2n6*» fifotcli I’j no I.nno l/c’ nrc tlic ncitfilinr«; utuiijiig tt'ii ou!»J«ct pro;>rjrcy to ih« I'oSL tind iiii? I liorcforo diructJj* ’‘-'e ijivi/t * ‘s ao]»rovol of t.lii.*« nppllcatioii provlfl^nr thut tlic to J .lywii'i; .jnn ■‘'ffvvlAnp. otir properly mo t^atlaticcl: 1)Tlint no pnrt of rho i»ropo8o<l drivov/oy IcuuIliiM to t Ii* Tolcw property rtt Gcotcli Lane bo dower than 1 Iftern foot m. u uhiiinun) to our proporly Jtrie seporuting the two propoctles. 2)Thiit nny ■!:!»! nil utility oasciiumts lyJoi; within Mir* .nnhject j»ro;>crty wliJcIi tsxi.cud to our proporty line or lute our property renn^n lii ful* force .nod c*£i'cct« A« siattMl above ,If tboue condition#! arc onHaficd, wf fnvor yout f;r;iutinj;aj»provn1 of tl^io upp 1 icn t i on . •*. *v.: • -S »•« •• J m * 4i4 Nicoitot Man IMinnaapoHa. MinriMOta 55401-1993 Talaphona (612) 330-5500 Sept. 18.1995 City ofOrono Attn: Michael P. GafTron 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Vacation of utiitiy easement in Dicon Addition Dear Mr. Gaffron, I was notified by our Minneto»"ika office of Application #2065, a petition by Sam^l and Joyce Marfield, and H. Douylas and Cheryl Hill, and William M. Toles, for vacation of all that part of the right of way of Scotch Pine Lane, as donated and dedicated by Dicon Addition. NSP's Minnetonka area Distribution personnel have Informed me that NSP has Distribution facilities in the subject area, and will not consent to the vacation of utility easement In Dicon Addition, per Application #2065. Any relocation of NSP Distribution facilities will be at the requester's expense. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Sincerely, Aina Olson Asst. Real Estate Rep 330-5983 cc: Lou Howard SEP 1 9 c.. .>■WT<I •r InAw■■---- jmmnegasca o Scptcaabcr 15 f 1995 Micba«l P. GAffron Assistaat Planning fii Zoning Adniniatrator City of Orono 2750 Kallay Parkway, P.O. Box 6€ Crystal Bay, mi. 55323 BBt Straat Vacation of implication #2065 Daar Mr. Gaffron: Nitb rafaranca to tha proposad straat vacation aantionad abova, Minnagasco doas hava an existing natural gas aain, and natural gas sarvica linas, in that portion of Scotch Pina Lana proposad to ba vacatad. Sinca this gas stain and sarvica linas ara of tha custosMrs sMntionad in this proposal, wa this proposad vacation unlass suitabla aas rasarvad to Minnagasco, pursuant to MSA, 1C0.29. to sarva all anist objaet to ant rights ara Pleasa rasarva an aasasMnt to Minnagasco, craatBd bx B&d within tha doeuaant astablishina bbg ItHttJt YlCltiga and filad with tha Hannapin County racordars offica, ovar tha following araa of tha proposad straat vacations All of Scotch Pina Lana aantionad in this proposal. ms Tiwga»«f»n has no objaction to tha vacation of all of tha utility aasaaants SMntionad in this proposal. Thank you for tha advanca notica and plaasa sand ma a copy of tha "final action” of this proposal. Sincarely, T—Stavan Von Bargan Raal Batata Spacialist Minnagasco pc: R. J. Pllon, Minnagasco Ron Busdoart, Minnagasco fax #473-0510 SEP 1 8 r 700 West Linden Avenue PO. Box 1165 T.j:Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Nfembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date;September 14, 1995 Sulticct*#2065 Samuel and Joyce Marfield/Douglas and Cheryl Hill/William Toles, 2455/2425/2435 Scotch Pine Lane - Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and Easements Within Plat of Dicon Addition - Replat of Dicon Addition (Preliminary Subdivision) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Applications Plat Map Property Owners’ List Letters of Request 8/23/95 & 9/13/95 and Staff Letter 8/24/95 Existing Dicon Plat Existing Conditions Map Description and Map of Proposed Vacations Preliminary Plat Drawing Proposed Grading Plan City Engineer Letter 9/13/95 Air Pho* i Documentation from (Jriguial Subdivision 1973-74 and 1979 Variai Storm Drain Easement Sketch Private Driveways Moratorium Letter from Hennepin County DOT Summarv of Request Subdivision Background Dicon Addition, comprising Scotch Pine Lane, three building lots and a private lake access corridor, was platted as a one acre density PRD subdivision in 1974. At that tim^ tlm area of the City was zoned R-IC, Single Family Residential, one acre minimum lot sue. Basal on a gross area of just over 3'/t acres, the City apparently felt obligated to allow this three lot division with a ftill-t Jdged cul-de-sac being constructed to serve all three. Zoning in this area changed to two acre minimum in 1975. Under today ’s zoning, that V/2 acre tract would be allowed only one house. Under the one acre PRD standards in 1974, the City did acknowledge the need and did grant a variance for lot width frontage on a roadway for the easterly existing lot. 1 Zoning File #2065 Septembe r 14. 1995 Page: Scotch Pine Lane was platted as a public road and the City has mainuuned it as such ever since. Such a road in Orono’s rural zone today would be planed as a private road outlot. Proposed Vacation/Replat After many years in which onlv tw o of the three property owners in the Dkon Addition could agree, the new owner of 2435 &otch Pine, William Toles, has petitioned along with the Marfields and the Hills, to vacate Scotch Pine Lane. Their intent is to use a shared driveway over the vacated roadway for 2425 (Hill) and 2455 (Marfield). Mr. Toles at 2435 is proposmg a separate driveway access directly onto County Road 51, abandoning his use of Scotch Puk Lane altogether. Further, the property owners have agreed on a proposal to split up the vacated Scokh Pine Lane, which they have to do through a replat since their proposed boundanes do n^ follow the normal center line at which the County would automatically split out the ownership. Referring to Exhibit E. note that the Hill property includes Lot 4 with their house plus Lot 2 which is the platted corridor giving them private lake access. They currently cross the Scotch Pine I cul-de-sac in order to get to their lakeshore. Under the proposed vacation and replat, (see Exhibits F and H) Marfield will gain the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane; Hill will pick up the portion of Scotch Pine adjacent to their house, as well as much of the cul-de-sac, giving them a continuous single parcel from the County road to the lake; and Toles on Lot 3 wUl pick up the end A short (20’x90*) outlot is proposed for the shared portion of the proposed Marflcla/nUi driveway. Haniiing Commission b asked to consider whether the to « i^ "back tot" which won’t meet the 150% acreage or setback standards. The Marfield tot would appea** to become a "back lot" under this proposal. The property owners intend to remove most of the blacktop, do minor filling as necessary to essentially re-esublish the natural grade, and turn the area back into grass. They arc wiMing to grant to the City and the public all necessary drainage and utility easements, and have received preliminary verbal approval from Hennepin County Public Works for the addiuonal access location onto County Road 51. Easement Vacation Referring to Exhibit G, note that a significant number of easements were originally granted as part of the 1974 plat. These include utility easements along ^ ^t west boundaries; a 50’ utUity easement tuiining from the east boundary to the west bound^, ^ t^ road easement itself, as well as dedication for 50’ of County Road 51. The plat also a wetland to the southeast, but staff is unaware of an easement dedicated for that wetland, and no easement is dedicated in the plat language. Zoning Fite #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 3 Regarding the 50’ utility easement, that portion within oiiguial Lot 3 (Toles) was vacated in 1979 except for the southeast 10’ of it. At that time the City coiKluded there was no real need for that easement, and accommodated the previous owner's wishes to allow construction of a pool in the area of that easement. The portion of easement tabling west from the cul-dc- sac b still in existence. There is probably no good reason to ^in this easement within Marfiekl ’s property, except for the northwesterly 10’ along the lot line. Suff is unaware of any exbtii^ utilities within this easemeitt. Additionally, in 1979 when the City vacated the 50’ easement portion, it required the then property owner, Whalen, to grant a drainage easement for the catch basin and outlM pipe within Lot 3, leading away from the cul-de-sac. City files contain a survey and description for that casement, but suff is unaware whether it was ever filed. Applicants propose grading that would eliminate the need for the storm drain. In the early 1980’s when the City constructed municipal sewer from the center of the Scotch Pmc 1 jne cul-de-sac westward to Old Crystal Bay Road, a portion of that constructed under Scotch Pine Lane and part of it within the Marficld property . Staff antici(utes finding that this sewer easement was grained by Marficld, however, any vacation of Sc^h Pine lang right-of-way would have to be conditioned on reuining an easement for the exbting sewer lines below it. The City Engineer notes this should be a 30’ wide casement. To Summarize, if the proposed vacation of Scotch Pine Lane and its associated Dicon Addition easements occurs, the City should reuin or obuin the following easements (assuming the replat also occurs): 1.A 30’ wide sewer easemeitt centered along the center line of the exbting sewer in Scotch Pine Lane. 2.The City should reuin some easement for access for sewer maintenance along the driveway that replaces Scotch Pine Lane. 3.Sundard perimeter drainage and utility easements, being 10’ in width along the northwest and southeast lines of the plat extending from the County road to the lake; a 10’ drainage and utility easement along County Road 51 within the replatted lots; and drainage and utility easements 5’ in width either side of the new byjndaries between the lots, extending from the County road to lake. 4.Utiliiy easements should also be granted for any utility lines which may already be in place, including gas, electric, cable, phone, etc. L_______>^^at «I ii fT unn^ttlTn ■ Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 4 Property owners will need to grant casements to each other for their sc connections which may cross over what will now become private property. 6.Confirmation that the drainage easement for the storm sewer leaving the east end of the cul-de-sac is legally filed and in effect; as an alternative, the need for this storm drain system may be alleviated by the property owners regrading the entire site as proposed. Policy Is«ics A review of the extensive files attached regarding the original Dicon Addition approval and the later Whalen easement vacation and variance request, suggest that former City Councils and staff may have felt that Scotch Pine Lane should never have been built. Mr. Marficld s recent recollection of the extensive tree removal that took place when that road was built is confirmed in the City files. Apparently former City Planner Alan Olson, former Mayor Van Nest, and others are purported to have noted the road was excessive for serving just three lots. However, it is a fact that absent the lot areas being substandard, in the two acre zoning district under today’s Codes, these three lots would TPKM 19 ^ PlattftI wjtii a pygS nurinr mad heiny 50’ in width with lOO* plaHcd cui-de-$a£ and paved to a width of 24 . with 80 paved diameter cul-de-sac, similar to what currently exists. As Planning Commission and Council are aware, the City is currently reviewing the issue of the use of private roads vs. private driveways, and standards for their construction. Planning Commission wUl MtUinly recall the recent discussions with the Long Lake Fire Chief that lead Planning Commission to wonder whether current standards were not strict enough. Further, there may be an issue of whether the current moratorium which "prohibits the granting of preliminary subdivision approval or other permits and approval for private driveways which serve three or more residences", applies to the current request. It was not intended, m staff’s opinion, to necessarily apply to the case where there will be two private driveways, one serving one residence and one serving two residences, although one imght interpret it that way. Additionally, while the residents have pursued this application with much zeal over the last month staff has diligently attempted to make the applicants aware that there are policy limit die number of driveways, but to require that private roads be constructed to City stand^ whenever three or more lots are created as pan of a subdivision. Absent all of the compelling reasons whv the proposed vacation is a positive improvement for this neighborhood (and pertops will reduce^City maintenance costs), it stUI seems to be flying in the face of what has been consistent City policy throughout the niral zoning districts. 1 1.A ,i ITT ft 111 Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 5 Applicants* Basb for Vacatkm/Replat Applicants in their August 23. 1995 letter provide the following reasons for making the request: 1.It will remove several thousand square feet of hardcover and lessen the runoff of salts and oil from the street into the marsh and lake. It will save the City the cost of maintaining the existing street 3. 4. It will reduce the number of car trips to and from Scotch Pine by lost people. It will reduce the casual driver from mming down the street looking for access to the lake. 5.It will make the area safer for children. It will increase security to the existing homes. 7.It will improve the aesthetic view from the lake It is difficult to argue against these mostly factual justifications for removing the streM. However, while the vacation may be the most appropriate action for this neighborhood, the City has many similar existing situations involving short private cul-de-sacs which might make many of the same arguments. Approval of this request may open the door to similar requests by many similar neighborhoods. Comments by Public Works and Police Departments Public Works Director John Gerhardson has indicated he would suf^rt the proposal from the standpoint that it will reduce the City ’s maintenance cost of this significant amount of roadway serving only three lots. He notes that the proposed new driveway location for Toles appears to be a good safe location with adequate sight distance. Police Chief Gary Cheswick similarly indicates that he sees no safety concerns with elimin atin g Scotch Pine Lane and adding a driveway, noting that it is a safe driveway location and there are lo many driveways along County Road 51 that this one additional driveway will not have a traffic impact. While we have not discussed this specific proposal with the Lo^ Lake Fire Chief. PUm^ Commission will recall that in the discussion with the Fire Chief earlier this year, the Fire Department preferred the use of loop roads rather than cul-de-sacs, but was concerned about fire riB^irrn-mm-iimm itftiA t>rilr—Tb i Zoning FUe #2065 Sq)tember 14, 1995 Page 6 tracks damaging private roads and driveways, for which the Fire Department was often held responsible when damage occurred during a call. It can certainly be argued that Scotth Pmc Lane as it exists is a better situation for fighting fires than if we have separate narrow dnveways in place. ITO I . I M I I V IHcniiepin County I Dave Zctterstrom of Hennepin CounQr met with staff and the property owners on August 23rd. Zetterstrom verbally indicated that based on the proposed driveway location, and the poten^ benefits to the neighborhood, the County was likely to support the vacation/replai proposal a^ would issue a permit for a new curb cut for Toles. That has been confirmed m a letter received today (Exhibit O). City Engineer R Mi M •ids Denial He notes that approval could be considered precedent setting. Gustafson also notes that the wetland and floodplain boundaries sh^d ^ ^li^ted (aM easements granted), and that a grading/erosion control/drainage plan should be prepared (received from applicants on 9/13/95), if the proposal is approved. granted or utilities moved to match new easement locations. Staff Recommendation In order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to find that:The necessary variances involved in the replat (lot width/frontage/back lot issues) are clearly justified and supported by adequate findings. It is in the public’s best interest to vacate the road. All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. This vacation is unique and supported by compelling justifications that apply to this neighborhood but not to other similar neighborhoods, m order that a basis to deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (i.e. show why this vacation docs not set a negative precedent). Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 7 OpCkms fm* Actii 1.Approval as proposed, subject to: 4. Applicants obtaining formal Hennepin County DOT approval. Subject to confirmation of location of existing utilities, to be relocated or easements granted for them. Replat subject to standard drainage and utility easements. Subject to delineation of wetland and granting of conservation and floMrage easement over wetland. t. Subject to grading and drainage plan approved by City Engineer/Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. Specific variances to be granted in replat include; •Lot area and width, all lots. •Lot area and setback (150% standard), Marfield back lot. •Others as may be subsequently found during review process As part of any reconunendation for approval. Planning Commission should specify how this proposal for this neighborhood is unique as compared to other similar three-lot subdivisions, and defining why this one might be approved while others might not be. Table for further information (specify). 3.Denial (provide specific reasons) Other. « I CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATJIlJ^ %J ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ?/.Ug Property Identification Number (PID) ________ Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach le2al description to application. APPLICANT a-__ Name ^AMUgL g •t> « k «• *. 4,* ■*• V -• ^ *:• •W- *• V • Phone (home) <V > 3 A V*/Addre^«; 1 S ^ ^Cr^C/l tt Vi=: UAA^^l.___ ______ _ cTT..ArV^rA'^ ^TziFilZ/Pt^one (work) ^Tv^c^c OWTSTR (if different than applicant) Name Address City Zip Phone (home) F^oe (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential: no. of units 3 Other (specify) ________ PROPOSAL X Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes X \ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites)/J Subdivision for New Building Sites ^ 3 Existing Units ^ New Units 3 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential ____Other (specify) --- 2^0N1MUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPUCATION 1.Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below). 2.Completed q>plication fonn 3.Preliminafy plat infonnatioa oa Ceitiftcate of Survey. 4.Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 350’. labeh and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depaittnoxt of Finance, A-d03, Government Center, 348-3271). 5.As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ZtHiing Official ’s Signature ______________________________________Da* --------------------------------------------------- MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1.Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution acd 'ark. fees if appicable). 2.Sign- '‘e;..ficate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3.Title opinion. 4.Easements, covenants, etc. 5.Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official ’s Signature _______^______------------------------------------------------ —' I.APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (X) those which apply) A. ApplkackM Base Fees: _____ .Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & III) S2(X).00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearranj ISHli V «i**w*a w* MW* - --------------------------S ----- V Subdivision Application (Class 1 $3(X).00 1 Preliminary Subdivision Appl:catiorS335.00^ ____ Final Plat Application (Class III) S175.(X) ____ Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $73.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants rain. S200.(X} zToO/lot (Cla» III & all aon-rcsidential) Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change tom original plication) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application S 100.00 (No change from original application) B.Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads S600.00 + S.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineai ft.; lio. ft. X .50 ■ S, lin. ft. X .50 » $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mam Extension S250.00 + S23/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $230.00 + S25/smb Proposed Storm Sewer Svstem (excluding culverts) S200.(X) On-Site System. Site Ev^uauon Revirw (applicable to rural subdivision appHcations) S50.00/new lot proposed for on-site x _____new lots C.Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $200.00 ____ Vacation Associated with Subdivision $75.(» 'PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00/D welling Unit Owner’s Signature ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- Anniiranf muAt havc all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planninf Commission meeting. Planning Com^ion romniririon and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scb^uled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized ageT^d in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. a*- - CfTY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE .\PPL1CAT10N PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ Ste Address Ccorc»/ Type of Application to be Filed_____ Property Identification Numbei (P.I.D.) APPLICANT NameMame CA U d C S ^ Ay ^ ------^ e rcM >4 Z4.AT V Phone (home)_Ji_2jI Pt f woric^ C*-*' o A-6 c ^■ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip. DateProperty Acquired ________________— ■— I (do) (do not) also own me adjacent parcels ot lana. FFES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - fees ^q^est with CUP applicauon 5125.00 Residential Accessory Use 5200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments 5150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration « j i • --------Grading and fUling - designated wetland or floodplam ------- Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ------- Grading. scaw-.U, retaining walls within 75 of Ukcshorc PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from ongi^ application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER ^?y^™^eycial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) X‘ $250^00^acation ■5T75?00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERW . 7nnini? District L^JS__Present Zoning Distnet Present Use of Property Residential 1 —* 6 Other (specify). (month/year) ;*rrv T T -'rr'-lit ruerv !..l tv#' m tj 1 •'T,' ruAi.v VfV I ff w*w.*’ A '>ay i V'»>A-'t t H REQU] 1. ^ • 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. SUBMITTALS Completed Application Fonn. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Depanmem of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterauons involve changes in elevation (gr^es). List of the legal names (include marital saws) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include nameis) of applicam($) if not current ownerts). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11 ” X 17 ” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;__________________________--------------------- APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ • The aj-v cant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signawre roJL TH€’ Date y ^ .9^ Y >• ^ PoS OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date ADDlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planni^ Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicanu must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. PROPERTY OWNERS SCOTCH PINE LANE SAMUEL S KARFIELD JOYCE C KARFIELD H.DOUGLAS HILL CHERLY R. HILL WILLIAM MARK TOLES (A SINGLE PERSON) 08/24/95 THU 09:59 PM SSM 1 #2 .A ^ '{D 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE 2425 SCOTCH PIKE L^E 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE k. . .. . . ... _■a .. (9) 11/--1 >1-ov a,�� IO l 7 -Z-2.. 3> ooo 1/ C #0 ’ #2065 - CmtccIcO Property Owners list n s « s . . . 09-117-23 41 0007.0008.0009 Charles and Brigttu Schoen 2430 Noth Stwre Drive WayzaU. MN SS391 09-117-23 44 0002 Duane A. Luke 246S North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0004 Samuel and Joyce MarOdd 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata. MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0006 WUliam M. Toles c/o Tol-O-Matic 3800 County Road 116 Hamel. MN 55340 10-117-23 33 0001 Trust Real Estate NW National Bank 7th & Marquette Minneapolis. MN 55480 09-117-23 44 0001 C.Steven Wilson 2485 North Store Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0003 Dorothy C. I>evy 2425 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 09-117-23 44 0005.0007 11.DcHiglas and Cheryl Hill 2425 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 23 0004 French Creek Homeowners c/o William Donald Larson 1205 French Creek Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 'A V-- f* MPG 8/31/95 T Mailing List for Utility Companks Cor Appricatjon iRQ65 Triax Attn: Tom Wimler 2381 Wilshire Blvd. Mound. MN 55364 Minnegasco Attn; Kaye Skogman P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis. MN 55440 Minnegasco Ann: Bill Nord P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis. MN 55440 Northern Sutes Power P.O. Box 63 Long Lake. MN 55356 U.S. West Attn: Carla Stenzcl Room CO E2.36 700 West Mineral Ave. Littleton, CO 80120 If' :3.1995 D>-/ Mr MikeCai&cn City of Orcno POB0X66 Ciystal Bay, Ma. 55323 Rc: Scotch Pine Lsne Dear Mr GafOron: Per out coaversaticn with Dave Zccerst^a cx HKtsspm Ccunr/, Jeha GerhardsOT and yourself oa August 23, 1995, we the homccwcers rsspecAily request that the City of Orcnio vacate Scotch Pise Lane. Tbc rcMOM would liks to ihaIcs this rocjucst 3Tw* 1.It will remove several tbousand square feet or hard cover and lessen the rus off of salts and oil dom the street into the marsh and lake. 2.ft win save the City the cost of maintaining the existing street. 3.It will reduce number of car trips to and from Scotch Pin* by lost people. 4.It will reduce the casual dnver from turning down the street locking for access to the lake. 5.It win nuke the area safer for children. 5.It wiU increase security to the existing homes. ,6. It will improve the aesthetic \iew from the lake, •nicsc arc some of the reasons fer vacating Lhc street. We welccme the opportunity to make a verbal presentaticn. everyone. iThank you for your consideration. 1 Yours very truly. -^•"*^*-***“ uaj'■ll■l■llllil illli filUMirtlIIj DICCN addition J>- fflID B R W INC Planning Transportation Engmwnng Urban D?sign Thrfsher Square 700 Third Street So. Minneapoli!*, MN 53415 bl2/370-0700 Fax 612/370-1378 Denver Milwaukee Minneapolis Orlarido Phoenix Portland San Diego Seattle September 13, 1995 BSaD OSXtZVBafiSt Mr. Mike Gaffron Asst. Pl£Uining St Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 HSs pnaLnmBOtY submittal SCOTCH PZMB ADOZTZOM fk* DZCOM ADOZTZOH Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed are copies of the following materials for our preliminary submittal for the Marfield, Hill and Toles properties. Note that in our original submittal on August 25th we had called the replat DICON 2ND ADDITION, but have now decided to call it SCOTCH PINE ADDITION. Our revised graphics are labeled accordingly. 1.11" X 17" copy of the revised preliminary plat. Note that minor modifications to the interior lot lines have been made based upon input received from the land owners. Note also that we are proposing to dedicate a 20 foot wide utility easement centered on the in place sanitary sewer main which serves the properties. 2.11" X 17" copy o£ existing conditions map for the project. Note that from a building setback standpoint, the existing and proposed building setbacks are either identical or they increase based upon the revised lot lines incorporating the right of way being vacated. 3.11" X 17" copy of preliminary grading pleui showing proposed grading, existing and proposed hard cover areas, notes regarding utility adjustment and abandonment and erosion control. Mr. Jeffrey Sandberg is the engineer here at BRW who prepared 1 Mr. Mike Gaffron September 13, 1995 Page 2 this plan. Questions regarding the grading plan should be directed to him. His direct dial number is 373- 6362. If additional materials are required or you have questions please contact either myself or Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for your assistance in this matter Respectfully Submitted, BRW, Keith E. Dfehl, RLS attachments cc:Mr Scun Marfield w/att Mr. Jeffrey Sandberg File 3233 A 00 scotch.klO IT A ••f . - --------------- - - ----------..Ml III llilliriitd 11>lafctii Mfciiteit ■■................ :>v >\ 1 vV%. ilfe.*i-t Jr’/ ciTYor<noNO Mimidpal Ofliccs ' X Stmt AMms: 2750 Kelley Parn»ay Orono. MN 53356 MaOif AMrttt: P.O. Boi 66 Dystal Bay. MM 55323-0066 Ausust 24, 1995 Scotch Pine Lane Residents do Sam Marfield 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Wayzata, Minnesota ^5391 Re; Proposed Conversion of Scotch Pine Lane Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marfield, Mr. and Mrs. Hill, Mr. and Mrs. Toles: ^est^ This letter is to advise you of those possible issues as well as define the process for proceeding to accomplish your goal. Potent!^of lot size (your lots average about 1 acre each in a 2 acre zone) if you were to subdivide under current City ordinances and policies, a road identical to existing Scotch Pine Lane would be required to sei^e a three development. However, that road would be platted as a separate outlot to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. One of the goals of the above policy is to limit the number of curb cuts on our major roads. Therefore, your documentation that the actual number of trips will decrease as a result of the proposal may have a bearing. 2 "STSS-r ultimately will have to weigh against Cit>’ policy issues. There is a moruodum in effect as of July 24th, which prohibits the g^ing of request depending on how the City CouncU interprets the mtent of the moratqnum. TdephoM (612) 47»>73S7 • FAX 473-^510 Scotch Pine Lane Residents August 24, 1993 Page 2 The moratorium is intended to provide the Cit>* with the opportunity to review a number of issues regarding the use of private driveways and private roads. We are submitting your letter to the Council in their packet for this coming Monday night meeting, although this item isiwt intended to appear formally on the agenda. A copy of the memo to the CouncU is attached. Approval proces . , . „ Your request involves two defined applica ions which require review and approval by tte Planning Commission, including a public he: jing at the Planning Comimssion. These imiude a request for vacation of Scotch Pine Lane, and additionally a replat of the entire Dicon Addition. These two applications can be applied for concurrently and reviewed concurrently. The application packages for each arc attached. I have discussed with Keith Dahl of BRW the general requirements for vacation and replat. While the specific submittals are listed in the application packet, basically you must pro^de a detailed certificate of survey which includes all information shown on the original Dicon Addition plat, plus showing all improvements including house locations, existmg driveways, actual sewer '‘nd storm sewer locations, etc. Additionally, the dimensioned location of proposed lot lines must be defined, along with proposed location and layout of the new driveways. As part of the vacation approval, the City will require graoliog of the necessary uffliw easements, and likely will expect you to redefine the wcUand easement to match currem wetUnd boundaries. ..... n^view scheduled tor October 9th. and pot ential filial approval by the City cot^ on October 23rd. If vou can t meet the August 2ith deadline, me tKxt deadline date wouM rx September 22nd.’which would result in a Planning Commission public heanng on Oct^r 16*. wi* Council leview on November 13th and final Council acnon as early as November 27th. I am enclosing the vacation (general land use) application and the teplat (subdivision) application can proceed accordingly pet the schedule dependent on when your formal application is received. ~i iirii nn —■inrm 11 ~ n 11 i~ ~ i Scotch Pine Lane Residents August 24, 1995 Page 3 Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. DICON ADDITION F./ • scale INCH •90 ^CCT I I I I o OCNOTCS IRON MOMUMCKT •ASIS ^011 KARtNAS IS ASSUMED H(f|N J • • . •...^ -•, I .« • «• ••#•«« ••^■•■:- r- } ,A H t . .•. *1 ***• • ‘•ff %••r /-^jpvty u>.f //.' ‘I / f-;' /•> :) .c.' ? / ■ i • •••' F / / ' / / . :r X / V . j t i j7»5L “vJTe 2^‘m m58 IV WYE •\ •A \ X T0.5 ■ I ' ■ V;;"^V •I :. • . • •• •'•I ' * . ,rx;f ■' V/ /.V \ r-— \\ I 1 / \ I ** ' «* * * t / ». • *v ^ \ I4t59, WYE r m • |R-4?0 . •l; •'«-•». • \ \ \\7* 56 WYE rP — . V*vt*fr-. '- ;••' *. ••• i ^ 7 j s LL 'A -c-v»w>r i^ •*r*,/ . ■ .. 1 f'".;^AUGUST 24. 1995 RIGHT OF WAY & UTILITY EASEMENTS VACATION DESCRIPTION DICON ADDITION CITY OF ORONO. HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINTsESOTA DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY TO BE VACATED All that pan of the right of way of SCOTCH PINE L.ANE, as donated and dedicated by DICON .ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. .Minnesota, w hich lies southerly of the northw esterly continuation of the northeasterly line of LOT 4. BLOCK 1, said DICON addition . DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE V.ACATED All the UTILITY EASEMENTS in DICON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota. dicon.kd9 -- RIGHT OF WAY & Ulil-ill ^^»***^a* DICON ADDITION ORONO, MINNESOTA DENOTES RIGHT OF IVAY TO BE VACATED DENOTES UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED ORTHWESTERLY CONTINUATION OF NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 4 ^ LAKE lake elevation * 929.40 FEET(1129«tu) (0*Tt 2.21-7}) MINNETONKA CX5TINC SHQAZ LtNC 1 li >o I |5ssl O w M - ^ "• • • ITiesi iS2 ?? gats? \ V m Cs ss^sl e|S5OK K?Ht2 *555 J 5 r o r PI’ES b ? 'j pssir "s f f ? f II 8 8 • I •J# ^ t! C II ?55? SSii 8 d SJ 3|> 2 IIIil! .5 >■ ri U? jii ig* 554 2?»:il :!*1^ ^8 fl|& IJ i cr r T) J:0 t?d t-* :z; > J:d •-< •ntr* > -3 o woo O ^z: t?d >ao •-3 HH O ^z: 15> i: Sonestroo. ffcse^. Andertik and Associares. me. it an Affirmativc Action Ecmi Ooporturuty Employer Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects September 13, 1995 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Building and Zoning .Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Scotch Pine Lane File No. 139-2065 Otto G. Boneitroo. P £ ffooert W. ffosene, PE.* Joseon C. AneeriHi. P E- Marwtn L Sorvaia. PE. Richard E. Turner. PE Gierwi R. Cook PE. Thomai E. Moyet. p £ PoOen G. SctKimcm. P E^ Susan M. Eberttn. C PA * • Senior Contuitant Howard A Sanford. PE iceim A- Gordon.. P E. ffoDea R Pfefferie. P E. Richard W Foster. P E Oavid O. LcskoiJ. PE. Rocert C Russek. A i A Jerry A. Bourdon. P E Mark A Hanson. P £ Michael T Rauemann. PE. ’’ed K. Tieid. P E. *horhas R Aooerson. A I A ;ames R Rosenmerkei. P £ Donald C. Burgardt. P E Thomas A. Syfko. PE ‘^rederic J S:enoorg.PE .smaei Martinet. ® E Michael P Rau. P E *homas w Peterson. P £ Michael C. Lynch. P E James R Maiarnl. PE Jerry 0 Perirsch. PE Scott J Arganek. P E Kenrseth P Anderson. R E Mark R Rolfs. P E Mark A Seip, P E Gary W Morien. P E. Paul J Gannoa ALA Daniel J Edgerton. P E A Rick Schmidt. PE Dale A. Grove P E Phiiio J CasweN. P E Mark O Wallis. P E Miles B Jensen. P E L Phfiiip Gravel. PE Kare.h L Wiemeri. P E Gary O Knstofitt. PE Bnan E Gage. P E F Todd Fofter. P E Keith R Taop. PE Douglas J Bersoit. P E. Shawn O Gustaftoa P.E CeciMo Olivier. PE. Kent J. Wagner. P E Paul G Heuer. P E Jonn P Gorder. P f. Dan O. Beyum. PE. Jeffrey J. Ehiermger. P E. Joseph R Rhein, PE. Lee M. Mann. PX Charles A Erickson Leo M. Paweisky Hartan M. Olson Agnes M. Ring James P Ersgeihardt T Dear Mike. We have reviewed the pro|X)sal to vacate the right-of-way for Scotch Pine Lane, vacate utility easements and replat the area to the three adjacent lots. The proposed arrangement is shown on the preliminary plat of Dicon 2nd Addition. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. On all subdivisions or replats in the City of Orono we recommend the following easements be granted to the City as a condition of approval: 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines. 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all road right-of-ways, including county roads. A minimum 30-foot width for utility easements centered on all existing or proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water mains. Drainage easements across all drainageways. floodplains, ponding and wetland areas. The proposal to vacate the utility easements is not appropriate and wc would recommend denial. To facilitate discussion, all existing sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, electric, gas, telephone and cable television lines should be located. The wetland boundaries and floodplain contour should be delineated. A grading, erosion control and drainage plan should be prepared that would identify locations of drainageways on the property, should the roadway be removed. These utilities and features should be surveyed and shown on the preliminary plat. The proposal to vacate the right-of-way for Scotch Pine Lane and create two private driveways out to County Road No. 51 should be reviewed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works, Orono Public Works Director, Police Chief and Fire Chief for comments regarding access and public safety. The City should discourage an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such as County Road No. 51. unless there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to a property. This is not the case in this circumstance, and we would recommend that the request for vacation be denied. The City should certainly look at an approval of this request as a precedent setting decision and be cautioned that it would lay the ground work for numerous suiular requests. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D r.ustafson. P.E. / 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636*4600 Hennepin County ^ An Equal Oppominicy Employer / William Toles 2510 Crescent Ridge Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 ~-lii / » W Re: Scotch Pine Lane 0 CSAH 51, Orono SFP ^ 1995 Bill: As we discussed, Hennepin County will issue a permit for the new private driveway and any necessary revisions to the Scotch Pine Lane approach to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 51. However, the permit cannot be processed until the appropriate municipal actions are enacted regarding the street vacation, etc. Upon'achieving all municipal approvals the permit will be expedited. If there are any further questions, please call me at 930-2548. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator c: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Sam Marfield, fax 473-2363 OKZ/saa Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(6 12)930-2513 TDD:(6 12)930-2696 RecycUd Paper SECTION 3. Ressicrions on the Granting of Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Building Permits. No prelimiiiaiy subdivision approval shall be given by the Council for any subdivision or building permit for which application has not already been made for private driveways to ser/e three or more residences. SECTIO.V 4. Duration. This Ordinance shall expire on September 11, 1995, without Council action, or it may be repealed eariier if ±e Council determines that the requisite studies have been comoleted and adocted and the aDDrooriate evaluation and action, inciudins any necessary revisions of the zoning code, have been rlnaiized. The duration of this Ordinance may be extended by adoption of a subsequent Ordinance for a total of not more than 18 additional months. SECTION 5. Variances. The Council may grant a variance to this Ordinance if the Council finds after careful review of ail the facts that a proposal is not contrary to the intent of the comprehensive communir/ manage.ment plan, that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City, that it does not adversely impact the heaiih, safety or welfare of the citizens and chat it otherwise meets the requirements of the Orono Citv Code and state law. SECTION 6. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or pan thereof or action taken hereunder shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or pan. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be published in the THE PIONEER and THE L.AXER and shall be effective immediatelv. July .Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 24 th day of . 1995, cy a vote of ^ ayes and ^ nays. .ATTEST: lofothy Mt^allin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahmi, Jr., Mayor Page 2 of 2 o Hennepin County JL An Equal Oppominiry Employer / f iiiK'- M \ William Toles 2510 Crescent Ridge Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re: Scotch Pine Lane @ CSAH 51, Orono September 12, 1995 i »w w "StP 1 '4 3995 Bill: As we discussed, Hennepin County will issue a permit for the new private driveway and any necessary revisions to the Scotch Pine Lane approach to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 51. However, the permit cannot be processed until the appropriate municipal actions are enacted regarding the street vacation, etc. Upon'achieving all municipal approvals the permit will be expedited. If there are any further questions, please call me at 930-2548. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator c: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Sam Marfield, fax 473-2363 DKZ/saa Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX;(6 12)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Recycled Paper ORDES'ANCE = 13S . 2ND SERIES INTERIM ORDDfANCE PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 462.355, SU’BDIVISION 4, PROmBITING THE GRANTING OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR OTHER PERMITS .AND .APPROVAL FOR PRTV’ATE DRIVEWAYS ^VHICH SERVE THREE OR MORE RESIDENCES. THE cm' OF ORO.NO ORD.AJNS: The .\IuniciDal Code of rhe Cir/ of Orono is amended bv addins Ordinance No. 138, 2nd Series SECTION 1. Statement of Poiicv. The City Council finds that the City is presently faced with the potential of acpiications for private driveways which serve three or more reside.nces. Such applications may arise in the context of new development or of rearrangements of e.xisting developments. It appears to rhe Council that the consequences of allowing such private drives may be undesirable, and may generate future problems for the safety and welfare of the City residents. The Council, therefore, fmds that it is necessary to smdy the impact of applications under Zoning codes Section 10.02; 10.03, subd. 3; and 10.60. subd. 16; and of applications which may also implicate the Cit>’’s Subdivision Code Sections 11.03; 11.10; 11.32; and 11.33 that would allow such roads. The Council further fmds that if, as a result of this study, the land use controls and zoning provisions contained in the city code need to be revised, such revision is a process that cannot be accomplished until a study has been completed and a hearing held. During this period, it is desirable that the Council establish guidelines for the benefit of those who wish to develop property in order to bring about savings of public and private expenditures and to provide the public guidelines to fumre City acaon. Since enactment of an amendment to the code would undoubtedly modify e.xisting regulations concerning permitted land use and zoning performance standards, the granting of preliminary' approval of subdivision applications or other permits for private driveways serving three or more residences would be contrary to the purpose of the zoning enabling act, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351. et seq. The Council further finds that it would be unwise, improper and unjust to allow individual development to occur during this study. Therefore, the Council’s authority to grant preliminary approval to subdivision applications and for private roads and driveways outside of the subdivision context shall not be exercised during the limited terms of this Ordinance, e.xcept as provided in Section 5. SECTION 2. Study . The Council hereby refers this matter to the Planning Commission to initiate a smdy regarding the implications of its current ordinances governing private driveways to ser.'e three or more residences and the potential need for amendments to the city code to implement the results of that smdv. Page 1 of 2 i ! E xHisn DRAINAGE AND UTlLITlf easement NgC»r.9f LgU, it t*- ■•• A 20 foot draina<j« and utility eaaanant ovar, undar* and aeroaa lAt 3* A- .1 .t /v..r '•Triun* i'v i,BlOCk'l, DICOT ADOITIOH, countv. ftinnaso^^.Hannapin County* Jllnnaaota* ’ ^according €o tha racord*^'«j^ ^platAbaiag lO.Ot^aat-t*; !^;^*aach^ida of'.that follow lng^3 flaarrlhdiljllnif ■"—---- m ■i ?i «gatf*»tha*northaaat ’ cornar of Shot^^oCfibaldt Block 1} thanea ™ w an^aaatiaad baaring of ■^,Jsouth-34 da9raas 49 minutaa tP^SO saconds Watt along tha ^^aouthaaatarly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 20.00 feat; thanea South 21 dagraas 20 minutes 3S saconds East ' 70.00 feat to tha beginning of tha line to be described; thence North 21 dagraas 20 minutes 35 saconds West 60.00 feat; thanea North 46 dagraas 21 minutes 35 saconds East 95.00 feat and, there tamlnating. M/NNETom. ^^SOCyTES^INC. P/tEPAREO POP' CiTY OP ORONO 2!0€ .1*, «} RESOLUTION NO. 1057_ A RESOLUTION VACATING A PLATTED UTILITY EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, DICON ADDITION L^ER'^^S the Citv of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and listing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and '.fflEREAS, on April 25, 1979, the owners of Lot 3, Block 1. Dlcon Addition petitioned the City Council for vacation of an unused 50 foot wide utility easement across said lot: and '-vUEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the City Planning Commission on June 11, 197V regarding said vacation, all interested persons were opportunity to be heard, the only comments heard being in favor of said vacation; and "7HEREAS, the owners of Lot 3, Block 1, Dicon Addition, have granted to the City of Orono a perpetual drainage and utility easement over, across and under a portion of said lot which being used for storm water drainage; and ’^^R’^AS after due studv and consideration, the Planning Commission' recommended approval of the requested vacation conditioned upon granting of the new drainage and utility easement, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby grants said petition and hereby vacates the utility easement described as follows: That part of the fifty foot utility easement labeled "50.00 UTILITY EASM'T" within Lot 3, Block 1, Dicon Addition, according to the recorded plat, lying northwesterly of the southeasterly ten feet of said lot. Conditioned upon the owners of said lot granting a new drainage and utility easement to the City attached as Exhibit A hereto. Adopted by the City Council of the Citv of Ordno'/oh th July- - - -, 1979. William bT" Vancest, rayor day of ATTEST: Walter R./Benson. Clerk/Administrator iMINUTES OF A PIANNINC CO^!^^ISSIO^^ ?1EETINC HELD OH JUNE:11, 1979'PACE 2--K • • ♦ ♦V 8 * . Payment of park d<»Qic3ticn fee on the tvo n< ?ocs. . 4 3. Lot E it to be designated as unbuildable. Motion seconded by Hannah. V’ote: Ayes (6), Nays (0)»- LARRY OSGOOD 36i Wlllov Drive:No. SUBDIVISION' Public Info. Meatiat Cont. (M37) % ^ ■ i:.- •sa?.. m Motion, pessed unanimously. Ke e - . m __■ ■ - _ • r i' i V^J^HHALEN [2A35!^oteK'rPinetLane [Unurr EASEMENT^ rACATION/VARIANCtr^ lie-Rearing 8:05 T.M. - 8:10^P.M. >m^nnffoE^th^ iitilitv easementsU^andtHi^Ifand MreC!^/r^^*(^A78) ________Mrs. ’’■halen%iv«Mfi^^ its^vere heard. WiXson^BOC [ettars were roceivt fine-Lane, who had **ni tJeedTi^t^^j .*• ^Luka,'2A65^North Shore Drive, who •'have*no objection regarding the pool or vacation of the easamant • r<?.‘:• ••. * ■ V. ...• • .• Frahn moved to recommend vacation of the 50' utility easamant and approval of the 2A ’ front yard variance contingent on: g- s • • * 1. 20' drainage easement must be granted to the City and recorded in the Whalen's title. 2. Pool will be drained by tank truck when required. e •• • . Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously^ Mr. Hans Hagen. Ban“Con Corporation, presented a proposed townhouse project (38 units) for Long Lake. Xhe presentation was made because the property abutts a 3.12 acre parcel In Orono. The main disewsion pertaining to Orono was chat the lake access forthe townhouse project could not be provided by the Orono p4fccl, «• our zoning would only allow one reaidential dock serving a principal structure located on that parcel. APPEARANCE Ban*Con Corporation »;r*;; ^‘•■:. ':.. ;-ui^ j;. .' ' L««X• VhM%Mkr^ i-i«f «'r- “2433 Seoedi ?la«'i^M CondleloMl lto« F«nle EXHIBIT'*. —roiT WTE - KAr 30. 1070 #478sld and found no confltcc withStaff loeaead tha aziaclng dralnfleld_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ tha proposad location of tha pool. Mr. .Marfleld has written a to tha applicant stating that he does not oppose tha grantlns of a front yard setback variance for the pool. <'Clty has not raealvad a copy.) StMft raeomiaiids approval of tha front yard variance of based on tha following hardship clalas:1_ feat 1. A location In the rear yard would involve the renoval of tasny trees. 2. Narrowness of. lot with 2*acre ^LR-IA^ zoning setback requlremanra. rscocwanJs approval of tha 50* utility vacation bacausa It ***^** oo apparent purpose now or in future plans* Iha applicant oust furnish proof that tha 20* drainage easement Is r. 'iordad In title of their property (’sea Exhibit 8). If there Is no such record* a 20* drainage easement must be granted by tha Whalens filed as a condition of Council's approval. % .r- - 4 * ■sCV ' - • r -r- .. .-I V • rt i ..V- f •' ^ -A- • •;lA. M - ^ * ft- :rvv •r.*f f •I « ;»t L • -••.** ^ 0 .'« ••**■*®* city Comiii, city of Oreoo % ’*'•». I ‘ 1• fI • • • ••/V > - pl«t Um pool rmiiinail on tih.f raqulrad front ynr4 Irno P«rop«rty wiU bn In. nK> propoMd. P***po#« of thn zoning dlntxlct la «n.i^ • Propo^ that thl. -’• *rn* Inrpnly rnfornntnd. if iS,' *** *’^*®*‘ r««»v«d, aa« thn" • th«r« would bn no nnnd far • vnrllSji*^! T*” *® *’'*• ***^ WCdtla*, ’ currnntly proposn to. HonnI-r locatn thnlr pool wiinro thlJ^ F«»*Uc rtront, thn »UrflnidTIui^i?I?ii* r«ala^ ' *^*^^*^*^ ^ront yard antback for thn i ^ ®PP®*o *ny varlanen froi tbon-M ». “ini S m, f‘f®" ml•• Im •• muh Pin. tlLSl “ Imirr»o«l*II| for a privata pool. *' *PP»opriato jsjois! u ihS;!?brjpijLjL^ uu \•ufflciontly fanend for ttm vl«w ud opportunity to praaai.L thia iJfSSTfoI*.. VOU for tlio --in. wltb you to aoblav: ."^ir.^^JlXnToJlbirjrrSir ^ Slncaraly, **0«A*D OAMICRCH AfSOCZATBS, lac. • * / » • • JohnMl Shardlow-^ .. 4-<*o«NNtl : - '» *..4. ;** 'V.-;>.'‘ .1.. P0-S4’ -w - '4''4. mt •. *• * • • • "T. a IS. .. ■ :• % *. s :J90itlA^i •• • • aiMQfMit MMLtau atocumiCONSUkTIMO •*r.,rf- ■• a »*■ I• .»• 1^' . -- 21 H«y 1979 MDiOMMOtJt tOi City Courcxl, City of or< BMC ••OV«W*»iO T«****®^ - *jT •nf.-JoAn SlMrdlow .— V, -„ % •* .r ^ T Variancif Requested by WT. «ndlllr»« Hhaleii# * Dlcon Addition, for,Uy< ir Front ' f " I’lH' ' ^ .pf m of the Council|A ______recently been asked. ^dl^ofi to review the above V- 3i- I' • i'*- ' w ,***’vr ^•l£?L^l»liBlwk 1. 01eo« itiaMrfU|«ari«ne«''r«qttM^ and ad®!— hi« -^,.4^,^r«^dr»g it. affect on hla propart^Wia Narflalda mo^md to Orono toreeerniin its atiecc on nxs pre|p«%.jooijr-— —sms* tiko advantage of the quality of Ufa alfordod ^ Oto^ * ****5*-^^ and are very concerned about the effect of the Nhalen a piopoeil on their privacy and quiet life stylSe Ihe cooprehenslvc Plan for the City of 0to« ehlch ^ ^SU^dMiree 1974 recoqnlred the City's special attractive of Ite residents. The establlshoent of s«i«9 perforaance standards provide the neans of insurinq that the qoal expressed in the comprehr isive Plan can be oet. After revlewlnq the variance request and ^Sfrieelaiiee ehereeteristics of this plan, ve can only arproposed. is detrimental to Mr. Herfleld's interert®. Cjrteialy one o?the major reasons for this conclueioo is **»• Dubllc street in the plat. We noticed with interest thet this was the Slly public street between County hoed 15 end lohn'e P^t end we® cleerlTover-desiqned for servlelnq these three properties. to very frosi the purpose and/or intent of the Lh lA tiie n^u. to t»... lot., with th. meiM oh of seotoh tioo Lino u> TEMW ASWCIATES INC;IMMtfOMIA Avnwf ta • MtMRUriL Nay Itr lf7f Nr. 9mm Narfiald 24SS Scotch Pina Lmra Waysata# Minnaaota S53fl REi Utility Eaaaaant Otono, Hinnaaota Daar Mr. Marfialdt ? yji 7 In raaponaa to your quaationa coneai^nln? the future utilizatiea of tba utility aaaaawnt aaat of your property, I hava tha follA#- ing ntat 1.Tha aaaanant could aecouBBOdate sewer llnea aarvicing tha approxiauita aavan acra parcel to the east. With tha praaant two acra lot minimum there could ba two additional Iota subdividad in this parcel. Tha low area possibly would require a lift station which could accaaa through tha aasaswnt and serve tha rasidancaa on Scotch Pina Lana. H* . j v» 2e The casamant^alaoicottld^iaecosnodate a water main that would sarva.,tba. reaidant»\ on Scotch Pine Lane and a^o extend^tofaarv^thav propa rtyton the east. Thia ^thoffswja^' easement are ;upon.»tna aevaxopsMnc ot^ai;sawarrand‘.water system in . « * ,1 . *«*■ 3i •Y3 >ctani [Thai ^pos s i^lm^ttsaa v,i,;^WithOttt: a comprehanaiversewar^and water plan it is difflcoXt^ ;tha actual utilizatlonvof tha easement. However/ it appears that tha aasenant could ba used for either one ’sawar and watar.-., Xt is ny opinion-:that the easement a unless it can ba shown that future water and aawer^ design will not require an easement in this area. Sincerely, templs associates ihc Ouana H. Temple# P.Z. \ DBTlbjb \ — * * *■ • • ■'r.Xn •i X H I B I T C#rtlflc»t* of for Uvr»rc«» Vh»l»n 7, 51oo'n I, llcoo Addition nonnoplA County, >• !,---.<»so’-*/i / 4 ' » • • y-iT/i, \ 0|T» ^ retn —■oi C/ /> .2^>V4 o/ cn *tdco» ^4din tr •• y sv • *-r» I!'! f'lU* or 2unr#]ri : .-• Iv c*^rtify that .;; i •nd^Mrrtei ? t -r %jt,Jon of : V'.»^ ur. .«rl«s a; • L. Lt • on •^--::i * Si ?-'.3^’ : . <irt>-oi;. • rre^ '-ore Of. a IvIc < f I .-*r;c:c ir.,: rlinfiar* feif71S7 6064 IJ-*;. No.13295 r^ V S N Srali DkU 4 '• • : ..-LV.79 s Ifqi. rar/*rr •> «• >*• r ' . v«r/:'ir»W9-.a'lllllg.Ttlephon# 475*7357 C w - ' ORONO: CITY of ORONO p„, OfTic !V., 66»Cn^u» B*y. Minn..oU 5533 • M»nidp*l Offie- On the Xorth Shore of Lake Minnetonka rcbr'jary 15, 1979 w - • ir<* U*' I I -- * • •t' I’-T Mr. Sam Marfleld 2455 Scotch Pine Lane Vaysa ta, Minnesota 55391 Re: Proposed Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane Dear Mr. Marfleld: The fotmeX appXlcatlon co the City vlXX InvoXve. 1. a petition slcncd by aXX three owners I- : ji**::x^%c1ipaoi f£"h*:%ropo..d division of I^tJo^n ‘ :p%ni:o^^u^Vd%rrn:::ni^ may arises Sincerely, AJTa« P« OlBon Village Planner APOrkh ee:Mr. & Mrs. Hill Mr. 4 Mrs. Whalen fal re * . N '^.GULAR riEETlNG OF THE OFOMO COU^JCIL, Fi.3R0AR-_ * .A Page‘ ^ , their concernsSeveral neighbors fron the ^unwanted *loonentin, that this allow this proposal.The code should be enforced and noc __j «.vtA life PRD/SUDDIVIFI225 North Fer(Continued) w ;„a Horfurth, 63Sst>?e that would occur with this proi Mayor Van Nest: Maybe ?’^°:;^;^2/uirstyle'proposed Inappropriate !:^;'nroS^Jes are protected and to assure that values,so as not to allow dininution Issues are: 1 PRDp Conditional Uses units, oossibly seven) I- rtti:Sn’v:r.?s"ae?r=he^’JarS.. <«nsiaer a»andin, TOde R-IA District)code K-xr% - reasons for Jin Brucei "« variances to the City.variances table the Mayor Van Nest moved, ^“Ji®rth?^225 North Ferndale, SJve request ?%^!!^.”°^'is^;ailable. Motion, until further info^ation i Ayea (3) “ Nays (0). - - - - -SCOTCH PINE lane REPU-.^. Letter - Pages 24-27 ^ d that he would support«»niTtSr«nrt'"nf «««f«“ srprSl.“? I A petition 1: property owh.r. > •/ y • i TO;Walter R. Benson FROM:Alan P. Olson. Village Planner DATE:February 7, 1979 SUBJECT:Scotc'* Pine Lane rhm •tt«ch«d Infomtion was ragsrdln* hi* tentative proposal to vacate scotcn rui I think the Council should take rabUc note of this idea with uny p#irtln€nC* cotiin€nt3 • 1 would note ttat ^*‘'^jf5“J“e,“*ed'^'regerding the ebout Jenuaiy 30, 1979 to. Mertle letter. In response to his ”„£ but thet the sdght In feet look £“''<>”^'•5; * ohrslesl wo?k. He wes told City would moat likely not do y P y . e__»—- pay ioprovenientSS the City P«uey require, prlv«e^d«.l^«^ coats and that the -Ity has " char^he could make such a request assesanent basis. likely this would not be approved, of the Council, but that most 1 y policy. The Council may want to comment on this assess «- M Mawffdsld was advised that a formal I would also note that Ar. M yhat a hearing must be application, including affected property owners must hSd, that most likely ?S«cil vSuld consider theapprUe of the vacation before the uounc proposal. [. !; ■ f - t d ‘ - r • » V I * • 1^' k.'p..n* iA«i •;V.ir<- * t:: 7 | v„. • wi f • >•* • r: t. ' ■>. • « I '-m. •Sr • V.-.' r.-d4- • I > }.•. I.a» I* . •K- fe' i C'^a*« K ft ll- % ' I-*- a*f f- f • « r: i • -I . . - •• •-------'r • . -• . %.^»- —• •.*. ‘ ^ • ~ '-.•'■t' ■*•*•" i-'.''^rv^ ..■:•■•“ ' » • < M.. .' * > •* ■*•• !!•• • • Here 1? iiy plan: A. Petition tiie City of Orono to v«cot» the street. . *• •- •A': .; UTV ^ Z . w ’-• ■"rSrjX*- • ^. V* '*• ‘w***. *• •-^ •• -•. ", .K •?3.Remove most of yie fcUcktop and replace It with grais, land­ scaping and gravel. - V ••* . " * -.. *M • ♦ ..W “■• •* '. • - •"» • * V # •C. *'"^'** Pushes. Try to.replaee 'soae of'the woodi that '''^;^^^’: to cccuoy Scotch Plne Lane. This street used to be'a dense-:.f*>;' Divide t/ic street up as seem fair to each of us three h owners.t.. 7V • V •••..• *•.■"■ V— ■: r-.V.- woods that you could not seer'tnreugh. Let's do a little s ...thing to bring soae.ef.thfMvegetat1pmbe 30 .- lv«. V'-X ■ ■ » Put a decorative en i^to North Shore Drlmj ?^*the word "PrfvaU*4'j [ V»* Hon will this be paid for? ..». j.9etesf«t*our:acccss '.v ■?rlgr»'along iHtfi ' ■'** , m . •• ^ JSKii- . .. J.». •• . V •> <Vsww'o«-» j »Vfc“-.«* • • • - • U.. k*.*-•. A. I asked A1 Olson, City Planner, If the City would treat It as a public improvement project, do the work, and assess It back against the benefiting properties. Ne said this aright be difficult, but that:* the City might want our street ellelneted badly enough that they night do the work. He suggested that we at least ask. He thinks the City would really be In favo** of the vacation proposal. .!*•■ .ne. 0. Each of us tf. ee property owners pay our share fh cash.:*■ •#* m ' iunrtary It would, I feel, je good for our three homes to be rid of our street. The val.« of our nows would inciTu^e by several tims the cost of the project. We could cnen have houses that fit Into the life style of Orono. It would be good for us, Orono and Lake Minnetonka. 0 lOOS H- CAIL5 c>,Se- STRe^ AT* «AA W“ Tl Af If (Q 300 rf?6ei/ /lusnei CAsr A J 2, have little orivacy. It setns that the rural style of life In Orono conflicts witli the running of herd-surface-i streets In front of our houses. If our street were not In existence now and the City asked to blacktop our little private area* we would be ROst upset, we cannot keep the public out of our little area; It should be private! Look at the nice prlvaqr the Lukes and the Wilsons have. • * a: i. L r-‘ J. City's Error. ... ‘Fhave spoken to some-ofrthe cowdl^and'plannlng eo"«1$$lon"ii«e6ersr ' . 5 why this street went In. 7T»ey»^a1d It slipped bjrtho*^because of a ’li. MIS planner's error. .-TheyeiHslijtfyhe#notSgoweiin:HtOur*closernelghborr,y (t*lIke. this street elthurJnSbtl^tfMl^ bA^can get good ag^'r oerenberg Gardens ThL-county plans to int)rove*th1 br^cotch Pine*Lane. hat5f1ve*-ton ‘ S 1 n the* near future. Pa rk 1 ng 1 ou** ^*^T^'bu1ld1ng$, walkways, etc. Here:are*$owe*erpts fro« their proposal; . I . . . "This site is located within the estate area of the Lake Minnetonka Region ..." . . . "Travel to the site from other parts of the Metropolitan Area Is by private auto and public bus transportation.* . . . "With existing bus service to the sit" from downtown Minneapolis* this site will be readily available to all population groups.* m a Scotch Pine Lane is the only public street between County 15 and the gardens where "all population groups" can view the homes of *The Estate Area". I feel we night be on display during the warn months once these gardens arc inprovod. That does not appeal to me. .V'"' I 5. Too much blacktop . I would like to remove all the blacktop from this street except for the area between Hill's driveway and North Shore Drive. The City constantly discourages hard surfacing near the lake. Here Is a chance to get rid of most or all of this blacktop that sends water running Into Whalen's mrsh. The access from the bottom of ry present driveway to Hill's would be replaced oy gravel. I also suggest that t'le JHveway next to Whalen's bh removed and sodded. r OiMne and '^ancy Luke Steve and Su2y Nflson ilihSW^Sred Van Nest 1 Olson MHirflcid «T^' lecatton of Scotch^ w\ •nuiry 30, 1979 ?. .^-,,, g f . . - i HI v t* I Vy1 I ■V \yt- K ^r> -• TT, r* -- - V . r-.V *r •• V. ' . . •• '1^‘Vj **** ke to vacate Scotch'Pf -v;.-' »«»« • •■ •• t « • /VVjk;r 1. Quote from the City of Prone; <j' • ■ '- »• •WT'--" *fonQif1ng to offerr --.- .V *Why do you choose to live on Drone? Niny people sey they do becauso of the lifestyle and quality of life available here. They describe uncluttered views of woods and hills, quiet lakeshores. narshes full of wildlife and iiobby fam acres with cropland and horses. For many, the large lots offer a feeling of Independence .freedom and a place- to get away from the pressures of the wor*»a>d^ world." THE VILLAGE PLAN * • f • .» * i- • . .i* r ttf - ••» » •.• -to* "Tlie City Council has recognized the special attractions of Orono and the special desires of the people who live here. In 1974. they pre ­ pared a Comprehensive Guide Plan to establish goals aimed at preserving this quality of life including the preservation-of lakes and wetlands and the maintenance of open spaces." I feel that our street is inconsistent with the "Village Plan" and with our noighborhood. We'have the only public Street between Comity Road 15 and Bohn's Point. There ts no need to have a cul-de-sac capable of serving 20 homes for our pretty 3-home area. W/ • W.’• W/ . • 41 ‘ L .1'■-'X'-V.' •• ; .V.•-..V- • ;• • • • : » ■ J \ 1 ^ tt i 4 j TO: FROM: City Council Dick Benson, Acting Administritor July 17, 1974 Mne — CrvutAli.]^^ »^ - r------- con ****** *** r-. ' ■•'3S ±c»d. that 'thflt^wis CrystAl B«y ---- Itxoos on thm riLdovolopod for tho DiCon ss «.i- gfot jt^o :*tr«ot. «* “y »-‘y. .ding th«^ StL.1 -______ ._v ;-. - » 0# V . V I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1973 Mayor Oberhauser offered the following notion: Oberhauser noved, Butler seconded, to give conceptual approval of the transfer of residential credits fron the IDS property, east of Highway ^19 into a single tabulation and apply then to the IDS property on the southwest corner of Higliways ^IS 5 ^19. This is with the understanding that IDS will donate their renaining property that is east of ^19 to the Village for park and recreation purposes. Motion, Ayes (2) - Nays (3). Councilnen Butler, Massengale, and .’/elsh Nay. Motion defeated. Page S IDS PROPOSAL (Continued) Council deferred action on the Hill Street vacation until June 11, 1973, so that all Council members can go and look at the property concerned. Massengale moved, Butler seconded, to accept the preliminary plat of Dicon addition along with the utility easements and subject to the Village Attorney review and approval of the home oxmers association agreement. Tne owners are also required to pay 5% of tne raw land value for Village park purposes. Tnis approval is being given in view of recognizing the unusual shape of the land and the .lardsnip involved in trying to plat under normal procedures. In view of the nardsnip, the Council is allowing the use of a PRD this time for this small acreage proposal. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). •- I. L, ■" STREET VACATION Hill Street |r“ the property is not a marshland as defined in Village Ordinance No. 125, the property is not listed on the geodetic map as marshland and the Village Council did visually inspect the property. The granting of t.iis aporoval is subject to the six conditions listed in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District s of April 23, 1973. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) . Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve the variance for Mr. Coakley subject to reiving approval from the Hennepin County Hichiay Deoartment concerning the relocation aid width b£ the driveway. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). DREDGING PER/IIT Sweetser VARIANCE 2166 Shadywood Road ' .1 Jia Cosby Dexter *>’arston May 2^, 1973 Division • Dicon - PRD ft Thrft have been softe fuK??*!^*”^e”chL»ge* have ^.ccordln* to^S«t*.»bdl^^lon r,« *r\J .*: ft .*>. IS; si«s:«5” :j:^cuuon“]:',?ee««"siJ SrS”i*rs"?hr;«pS^.d )ios6S for Council rovicwal# «. ,.vv..,;-' . * • . 1 ••«i, «. .ee.pt.d by the Council at the May M, l»7Jj!^i«9. t4*. « • 1 , J . •. •ft • t #lv Ae^-Nn rSji?:-' * * •a %- i. ■ « i* ■ W, ‘ c- 1 !: VILLAGE OP ORONORegular (eeting of the Planning Coanisslon,May 21. 1973 The Planning Connission net on the above date with the following nenbers present: Acting Chairman Searles. Gasch, Kuilberg, Guthrie, Paurus, and Ryerse. Absent: Elliott, ilays, Kokesh, Poisson, and Van Nest. 7:40 P.M. D Guthrie moved. Ryerse seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 16, 1973, be approved. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0), The Acting Chairman announced that this was the time and placo for a public hearing concerning the vacation of Hill Street from Parcel 2100 to Tonka Avenue. The Zoning Administrator presented tho Notice of PuMlw Hea.lig, the Affidavit of Publication and the Certificate of Mailing to affected property owners. The Raastads request to vacate Mill Street was inltated because of a need for an additional 10* to build a garage. The Planning Commission members were in agreement that Brook Street, to the north of Hill Street, would more logically provide access to the property west of Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka. Ryerse moved. Kullberg seconded, t.hat Hill Street, between Parcel 2100 and Tonka Avenue, be vacated, with the Village retaining a 20* utility easement down the center of the street. Motion, Ayes (6) - Nays (0). MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Hill Street r Gasch expressed a concern about the applicability of the PRU ordinance to this particular .<iriotion. Gasch also felt that other people In similar situations had not been informed of this alternative. Paurus moved, Guthrie seconded, that the Conry PRB application be approved with an easement to the east as was desired by Orr-Schelen» Mayeron. as well as a utility easement to the west, ffotlon. Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Gascl: abstained. - inv zoning Administrator reminded the Planning ?nMdj2%i!l*JorJhJIS%n'‘thr5!s!*Je2d!tlc map. will be S* pltis. Mr. Sweetser assured the Planning Commission that because of the cost, he would go no deeper than necessary to prevent th. r.i».wth of DIVISION Conry-Dicon VARIANCE • ORDINAWCP Sweetser !•. |. }t- » • r* . i*' f ♦ r r., »f .. - •« • f Ui .iI>iI» ’ « *1 . / rHr. Bill Dickey May 14, 1973 Page 2 ■w « » “1 J d- LIM cmpttr 505 of Hinnosoto SUtgtts In » •dditlonal lot. solo. Lot 2. to ««"?>"> i?‘J ,. S”s:i:.“.r; ........ rae a cill. 4*^ * rjrs:*:.- . •f* V «0SLr M OLSF]^ •• • ' .* *4 ^ 1*1 i '• % 4 • loerhave, RLS JEB:sa I ^ • msminc Stil «#ft^i ret^vilU , 111^3 pK«r%« «1S May 14, 1973 icmwi #• b^rhow fil*i r»iI Mr. Bill Dickey ■«t^|rtSfrtMry Plat of 01 CO. Addition Dear Bill: It 1i oy Iindnrstnndlno Pj‘*r^J*j3 ’of*15S» nddltlonnl Infor-sit?s: pr.i.»in.ry .i.t. list revised May 8, 1973. The plat as we have U street right-of-way. Internal street as a ?!?lfsi5n Htabllshlng three lots Also, the plat sets out * *“^1 •.■ji--. is apparent In to accommodate single the^tract, we have somethingin, «nfl9ur.t1on of the lots In the trnct. different then is ""Ijllj.!',,' ts 131 .»00 squire feet .ore exclusive of road >^^9hts of better than one acre or less which 1< Kith the thought In mind that TuVii juiJi u tT!!i!irS!!.M’wrf«rtSe 'ost r«son.l.Ie distribution of the land Involved. Oith this l«‘/".n,ejent « ere^jetin, ^ \ \ . . T plmnnlnf U ■f Public Works PMf»93S-338i 320 Washingson Av. South, Hopt'ms. Minnesota 55343^ HeNNGFIN COUNTY MW 1 cs oBotia^ MjJy* 2. '.973 Oaxtar J. Marston Zonirg Administrator ?VIIInga of Orono P.O. Box 66 ;^Ocystol. Ml r^sota S5323 : - .. -.o " - 24 *■ . Hennepin County Plat No. 203 Review and Recotmendatlons Thank you for submitting the above referenced plat for our review. W* have reviewed tha proposed plat and have the following recommendations. 1. Dedicate an additional 17.0 feet of right of way - a toUl of 50.0 feat from and along the centerline of CSAH 51. 2. Access to all lots should be from the proposed street rather than fj^ CSAM 51. Streets and entrances from CS^ 51 will require permits i^lch must be obUlned from the Maintenance Section of the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. 3. All proposed construction or alterations witnin county right of way must be approved by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. If there are any questions please contact Craig 0. Spencer at this office* Very tnVfy yours, Hei^rt 0. Klossner, P.E. County Engineer I * V •tINJTIES OF A REGULAR ‘-lEETIN’G HELD APRIL 2j, 1-'- Dutler noved, V/elsi'. seconded, to approve t.ie variance reauest of ??r. Crist wita , condition that no dock can oe built on and no Rioarian rig.its are to be conveyeci Outlot 4.‘ Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays COJ* 3utler noved, Massengale seconded, tiiat^a oubiic hearing on t;ie special ^use pernio ^ Torn Jack for May l-i, 19"3 at o:00 - .M. -* Orono Village Council Chanoers, oe caixea. notion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0)^ Dorn noved, Butler seconded, to grjinz j conceptual approval to the Conry . • a Planned Residential ^^^elooment prelininar/^^ nlat in accordance wita Section jS.60 , 3 to tnc road way with a ^O; easernent aeveloned to Village specifications .he .i of a performance bond or casn with Administrator and that tne • compiied"with° the Planning Commission will inf . y 1073 ;ronosai at its work session of tay 15 1-/3 and'will foreward its comments to t.ie Viiiag Council No area variance is requireu out a Council. t27’ on frontage on FriTli rof-M:sf “recno^-i.|r.:nr^ I abstained. Oorn departed the Council_^Cha=ibers at 10:- returned at 10.5b ... Massengale ^'1" ^,r°"tnt«s°a"u%'e®division anci variance or . • ia 197*^ CouirU'e next regular neetrng of .lay 14, 197e. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Massengale fun“! Wagener ^reguiar miet?ng of ilay 14, r^73"““orion."“«^-(i) - Nays CO). Councilman Massengale P.M. Chambers at 11:19 P..i. rnA Welsh seconded, to approve the Butler moved, Ueisnse^^ street plans and . -q authorize the advertising Sealing ‘^.^Ss C5) - Nays (0).for bids. Motion, Ayes y.^j / Page 3 VARIANCE Lvdiard Avenue SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3330 Shoreline Drive division 2425 North Shore Drive mf »•^w. DIVISION 5 VARIANCE Tonka View Lane VARIAiNCE - ORDINANC NO. 125 V/agener STREET SEALING PROGRAM I• I * :■! fmi J ♦ 1 I TO:James Cosbv FROM:Dexter Mars ton DATE: SUBJECT: April 20, 1973 Division • Richard Conry - 2425 North Shore Drive The Plaaaing Comnission approved this >«t h.d . good ch.n«.to „ ’Ins'*!”'m firivate drive, it'would be built to ...—»- -r ---------- , . w _ thS .dJolalBg.eprop.rty owners «Sld beot Md aolauin the roe.l. If thls^Wd occur, every loc oo■'•’Z ;!!hSJ b«h:“fhr;.;»n--for thi di»cr.p.ncy ?s.Ts." 3id • rr w#re to allow the applicant to use the eascinenc in itsi™«e £«5*i:i«ntiSnl, rio- iJ'^Lt width v.rl«.ce would be needed Sd.«lo^3 irJ. such .s this, y.rl.nce. of this n.ture «.y be setting a dangerous precedent Hennepin County has been notified regarding this division but we have not received a replye JiV MINUTES OF A REGULAR lUETING HELD APRIL 16, 19731Chairman Poisson felt that this was the most logical development pattern for this particular piece of property. Because of the street pattern around the laVc and the shape of some of the old nlats, it is difficult to avoid some variances according to Poisson. Ryerse felt tliat it would be^ difficult to deny 3h acres as tlirce building sites. Xullberg moved, Ryerse seconded, that approval of the subdivision be based on the condition that a 50' road casement (rather than the 40* easement that is shown on the plat map) be provided for. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (3). Hays, Gasch, and Searles Nay. Elliott departed the Council Chambers aV 9:50 P.M. / >fr. Winters owns \ 50,000 sq. ft, tract of land on Tonka ViewUane, He would Tike to create two buildingxsites on the five lots that he owns. Since*, the lots are-narrow, Mr, Winters felt that, a variance-would not be unreasonable, A variance of approximately /' '^10* per lot would be necessary for the lot ^ width requirement Searles moved, Ryerse seconded, that given the amount of undeveloped lAnd and the sire of the variance requested,' this request should be denied. Motion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0)* Chairman Poisson moved, Ryerse seconded, taat the Alan Sweetser request for a wetlands variance be tabled until more information is presented to the Planning Commission, Motion, Ayes (6) • Nnys (0), Hoys abstained. The staff will consult with the Lake Minnetonka onto the County Road #15 right-of-way. Poisson moved,, Kullberp meeting be adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Motion, Ayes (7) - Nays (0). \Respectfully submitted. Dexter J. Marston Secretary Page 4DIVISION(Continued) DIVISION 6 VARIANCE Tonka View Lane i • VARIANCE Sweetser - ORDINANCE N012S TANAGER LAKE DOCK ADJOURNMENT © MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 16, 1973 Pape 3Mr. Stone of the neisjliborina Dairy Queen, expressed a concern over problems that night occur because of the lock of parking. He felt that any establishment t.iat woiUd have customers stopping for any length ov tine would not be able to survive because of the limited parking. SPECIAL USE PERMIT (Continued)L-\ Chairman Poisson expressed the desire to table this natter until the Planning Comnission iiad received a statement frora the owner of the property that adequate parking would be available for Mr. Jack's operation. Kullberg noved to deny the special use permit because of the parking problem that would undoubtedly be created. Motion died for lack of a second. Searles moved, Elliott seconded, that approval be conditioned upon no full-scale kitchen for the serving of food be established and the serving of food should be limited to reheating pittas, sandwiches, and serving soft drinks. 'lotion. Ayes (7) - Nays (1). Kullberg Nay. ^ The Planning Commission felt that there should be provisions so the patrons will kjiow that there is parking in the rear of the building. The Planning Commission questioned the street vacation procedure which limits vacations to situations where there is a public purpose. The Rams tads explained that they would like tiie Village to vacate Hill Street west of Tonka Avenue so they could construct.a garage on their property. The Ramstads explained that tiie present Hill Street runs directly into the home on Parcel 2100 and so it would notXbe feasible to ever extend tlie street. \ KI..L f TAEET vacation Chaiyman Poisson moved, Searles seconded, tiiajr a public hearing be called ihe next remlmr Planning Commission meetiieg on Mortday, ffay 21, 1973. Motion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0)/7 Hr. Richard Conry requested n division of Parcel S600, which is 3.48 acres, into three for one of the lots. Casch felt that granting variance In an undeveloped area might set dangerous precedent. (Continued) DIVISION Conry242S North Shore Drive a a a To:Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cirv Administrator From:Michael P. GalTfon, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 11, 1995 Subject:#2066 Robert and Iris Waadc. 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acres Application: Revised proposal for additions to existing residence List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Revised Site Plan/Survcy Revised Floor and Elevation Views Revised Hardcover Calculations Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/25/95 Planning Commission Minutes 9/18/95 Memo and Exliibits of 9/8/95 Revised Proposal In the revised proposal, af^licant is omitting the additional story, while proposing a 12:10 pitch roof to replace the existing flat roof. Additionally, he proposes four relatively minor additions (see Exhibit B-3): +. 250 s.f. addition near entryway. +. 30 s.f. "bump out" behind existing carport (carport converting to living space) 316 s.f. addition to garage. +. 12 s.f. angle on lake side. The entry addition and the bump out are in the 0-75’ zone; the entry addition is substantially below the existing overhang, as is the bump out. The proposed garage addition is in the 75-250’ zone, and is offset forward of the existing garage, over existing concrete or bituminous hardcover. The garage addition will be approximately 16’ from the side lot line, about double the setback of the existing portion of the garage. Additionally, the driveway proposal has been further revised to eliminate encroachment of the drainfield area and reduce hardcover. L Tvivii r •‘I . t • , -- Zoning File #2066 October 11. 1995 Page 2 Revised Hardcover Proposal Referring to Exhibit C, d-75' hardcover decreases from 39.18% to 36.14%. Excluding the driveway area serving the neighboring property from the calculation, in the 75-250' zone hardcover decreases from 15.96% to 9.25%. (Note that the driveway serving the neighbor will remain in place, ami the net hardcover decrease on applicant's property is 308 s.f. in the 0-75' zone, and 1,108 s.f. in the 75-250' zone, or a hardcover decrease of 1,416 s.f. overall). As a percentage of the entire lot, including the neighbor's driveway, overall hardcover is decreasing from 8.433.5 s.f. (29.6%) to 7.017.5 s.f. or 24.7%, as compared to DNR's 25% overall hardcover standard. E.xcluding neighbor's driveway, it decreases to 19.4%. Lot coverage by structures irjcreases from 13.14% to 15.37%, just over the 15% limit (15% = 3,993 s.f.; the proposal is for 4,093 s.f.). Per Exhibit C-6, the net reduction in roof overhang by revising the roof line is nearly 1,000 s.f. The overhangs were not originally calculated as hardcover, but were, for the most part, over landscape areas that were calculated as hardcover. Also note that the 13' average setback encroachment of the house is not changed from the original proposal nor from the existing house. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is requested to consider whether the revised proposal is acceptable. The variances involved are summarized as follows: • New roof structure in 0-75' zone and less than the required 30 ’ from side lot line. • New garage addition 16' from side lot line (30' required). • Carport area "bump out" approximately 19' from side lot line (30' required). • Entry way area addition within 0-75' zone. • Small triangular addition within 0-75' zone. • Average setback encroachment of 13 ’ for new roof over existing house. • Lot coverage by structures of 15.37% (15% allowed). Zoning File #2066 October 11,1995 Page 3 • 0-75’hardcover: 0% allowed; 39.18^ existing; 36.14% proposed. • 75-250'hardcover: 25% allowed; 15.96 % existing; 9.25% proposed. • No height variaiKe required (defined height 18.0'; peak-to-lowest grade height 35 8"). In any reconunendation for approval. Planning Commission should detine which variances are to be aranted, and indicate the specific hardships and justifications for the granting ot said variances. Any approval recommendation should be conditioned as a minimum on the following: 1 . Protection of existing septic system during construction process (there will be a tendency to have traffic in the drainfield area given the limited area of the site). 2. Removal of all hardcover areas not approved to remain in place, prior to the footing inspection for the new additions. Options for Action 1. Approve variances as proposed, with conditions. 2. Table for additional revisions. 3.Denial. 4.Other. iiill t iiih!i III MIirii k Hi li ■‘1!as: §f H:; 4t 'S'ss tvD £ 3D gm XI H u iimu i- 4jm C/) I >om Jbc 379 - 4947 cradit and aasociafoa, inc. a? Mghm nm n^. rm AMO WAADE RESI O% 00 I -\ \- >1 7' hardcoverx ^culation worksheet SETBACK ZO.NX: (CIRCLE ONE) VYT<rriN<^ H.\RDCnVER IN ZQIjE A. House --------------------- 75-:50*25-500’500-1000' c S.r. u=ra U”id±i X X X S.F. S.F. S.r. B . Gara|e S.F. X Zoo S.F. C. Driveway X X w • A • D. Sidewalk X X S.F. ^ S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Undcriain Bv Plastic s X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other tot.^l h.^rdcove .r in zone total PR0P£^TY^ARE.A in zon e ^ , o. <yf 6. A N ——^ X ICO S.F. A<?./)? ppnpndFD A. House __ S.F. Ltnctfi WidCi X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. 3oo.S.F. 3. Garage S.F. C. Driveway'X X S.F. D. Sidewalk X X 537..^ Sr. ---------------^S.F. d/2,7 O S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X n • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A 'h(^<4’SX S.F. S.F. 2 B /O Q*Tg, X 100 = m % A 3 A B %» • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) tv N tstin *^ flardcove ^ in zone A. House_______________ Lesfta 0-75’25-500’ Vidtl X X X 3. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck: F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X X X X X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total f'^OP^RTY AREA IS ZONE ^ , ,oo PPOPnSEP H a RDCO ^'^R !>■' ZONX A. House______________Widti Length 3. Garage C. Driveway D. Sicewalic E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X S3 S3 total H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ joO 500-1000’ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. li., cjZf.q__S^^.r« /*/• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. <9 S.F. /Z/'^. ^ S.F. ^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Q _S.F. lU.e;V4 ’.0 _S.F. <9. 2-^/o .A B A B ^^\yrwtujrxox \. i\T WAiUV- ■« 'I, ?>a vJtkU‘-j 7itv'- »• 10TA.U n a 4^.0 '?jOO«b IT-l <) ^.-S'7(^ t^UC[\0^ ?.. uai'i^-Kpoii' * i5Toot» *1. -TC^^u Z79I^» '^=bib in<-]i\ p- \- Z^?o ^. tn^vnOiAX • \2AC» ^vx 0-. tt»\'JCJMI^'^ ' VyO t, PtMOtV)^’^ * JOjbjO ^ kPP\T\OKiC;» f. t>n^»ir;oJA*{ ' \fco^ c»p^^vicy !■ iMd V\. i?\revV'U<- r \\9«^ I. ''^iL. A'Voxn =• ‘^\Q7A> tct (T nL 9451^ VJ^'t ac I5UCT/0.4 36£) [p m£ t N i>■■CT/o. t a C.CC'Ui-'hi- ■“* i C>^ ^ f)f>y tf) CAi-C..^ ________ >✓ X fvJ </V>. y } !0S> up«-;^c ‘r7--'^- r ^v HAIOCOVIX CALTCLAriOM sumuT Lakcsbort S«cb4ck ZotM A.s.C.0.t.r.•>1. LoC Ar<4 la Zoti« Zxisclog •Urdcovar lo Zo«M ZxisClag tiardcorar ParcaaCJga (B/A)xl00 Floal Propoaed Ktrdcjrar la loom HardctTvar ParcasC4«-« (0/A)xlCO All<»ad Bardcoaar PareaBCat* f. aVA»«3i6 '»♦• P*^« |t^rL«caa<sn.01/n r o 3 '^ / S ^0 ^3.0 4 75 - 250' /C/ C/ 'r CO J J 42^77 ”tCa.o4-•'4, S.f. 1'Sf ,f -----------------------jf w,%n ,( .. •/. !St1.o l.t?LS •#0.11 if. ^ A-ruSA 5f U>T c>pioeWA^ AR-CA V xl-ra ir 1 * Ar.eA tf’ff tot focTT t?fUo6wA^• / . il i y fo.C'^ f -c- \0' 2, S’ tor cc^otS^i^Mj-c- >rtX|>c>A--T tj^jruxc^^ ve^c. S‘TAJuertov^^ “^luS e.i&. 4o*Z- •jj.-p. p \'v.e,'»c I vr y 54*^2? 3^. 3,p. ® [ t^'l4"^o 'xn- <>^0 t€^2» lS-»0 5.^, ('Pmueu^A^ A»l^ y ^)= 5.f. A LLol/ jATTb lb tixnjooT on>e ^-oue«A>e '5% .^p ZC^/^ZO 5.f. - ^IMAL tor €xtsT 3iruxnurte co^jeoAc^ STfiJOcruurie* uoote AUDlfo?, 1^1 ^^i 4 ij) (>*20> t “ IS.VT jt 5.f. d? - 'tofoS :Trujv:rTL>A<e Coi/erLAoe =>f- vioos»c. J >Zo 5.^. ^15T. '. 6^. (___ ^■» •i'“*r\o «2>\d»p>*T l^|uC? ^04-1 ■ Vcor a'll/^H'-'-^'- a r-'lU'''^'' # Ift" 'Z.O-'fi- f* •/''///// C>-1\vr./^‘:o (T-mot 'T'U'i'<>T' ov>A^*'* o'*’4 ^ I L<ro5 ^a<A s Qv*••;>.'• —l.S'il-fjpvAi \'i o'ViA*-Jc. • /54c? •S u(b • ‘f1 ‘"'“3 Kjn.T ar'OOdt/oJ or OUlfivJCa l<B* MC (' (u: t«’Uf •r/c'i> -•■»^ <^ ’ (-i-C-i-'Cj* t-At^ n? ^ '^VCt iAC^ e>cts^. '>uc{ivv>e^ v: 'ZO • > u> CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cnstal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE <?‘20o6 NOnCE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; September 25, 1995 TO;Robcn and Iris Waade 1487 Shoreline Drive Wavzaia, MN 5^391 TYPE OF APPLICATION; Variances DATE OF MEETING; 09/18 95 VOTE; 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons nc'ed below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to revise proposal. Planning Comnussion gave the following general direction:Proposed third level nukes smicture too high; third level should be omitted. Soften the impact of sinicmre as viewed from the lake. Consider making carport area into useable space. Other additions are ’iffy'- ^6: 1995; meeting staru at 7;00 p.m. If vou desire cenifted copies of the officai Planning Commission minutes *ey are available from ihe City Recorder after review and approval by the Plannmg Commission. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS. 1995 (#8 - #2062 Ted RozebooraJosephine Kaudson - Continued) Comrrrissicners noted they wouid not want to see any outward evidence of a business or anv' parking. Vote; Ayes 3. Hawn. Sniith, Rowiene. Nays 3, Petersoa Schroeder. Lindquist. Motion fans. The applicant asked if it wouid work if his wife owned the property Peterson said that w'ould set a bad precedent. Smith said specific ground rules need to be laid. Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to table .Application #2062 to ailow applicant time to consider other possible solutions .Aves 6. Nays 0 (#9) #2063 GERALD A.ND CANDACE ROWLETTE. 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD- V.ARIANCES - PUBLIC HfLARLNG Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table .Application #2063 at the request of the applicants. .Ayes 6. Nays 0 (#10) #2066 ROBERT .AND IRIS W A.ADE, 1487 SHORELINE DRI\T - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33-10:59 P..M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. Gaffion reponed that the application is for a number of variances for a 3rd-level addition to a lakeshore property located off of Shoreline Drive in a 2-acre zoning district. The house currently exists at 21* from the shoreline with the deck 16' from the shoreline. A bituminous walkway’ is located under the deck near the lake. There is an S.j side setback where 30' is required. The average lakeshore setback currently encroaches 13’ for the house and 2#' for the deck and would remain the same under the proposal. Hardcover in the 0-75’ exists at 28.1*}o for structural and 11.1% for non-structuraJ for a total of 39.2%. The lot coveraee by structure is proposed at 13.8% meeting the 15% allowable. There would not be much of a change in the footprint of the house. The proposal is for what IS by definition a tkree-story home by eliminating the existing flat roof and adding another level over the main level and basement, which is considered a story with its 18 courses. The street side of the residence is a walk-in with the proposed story to be located above that. The floor plan shows a car port on the main level, open with a roof, and proposed with a second story. The pitch of the roof would be 10; 12. The height of the residence meets the ordinance ai 28-1/2' as normally defined; but the house is 46' in total ground-to-peak height from the lakeside view. 20 ^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNDSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS. 1995 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waace - Continued) The variances required include iakeshore setback, side setback with no proposed change, second storv- 25 3' from the side where 30' is required, average setback encroac en wi no change, and .hardcover m the 0-*5’. which wiii decrease wiuh the remov. or t e bituminous walkway Pea gravel w'ith no hner :s proposed to replace tne a loco drive and an existing portion or me dnveway wiL be removed \Vhii wt remain allow a car to back up and e.ntcr the street as well as an apron lor the garage. wn need to be redesiened to avoid encrcac.hing the drainneld. The septic SNSiem serve this 3-bedroom home. There is no cnange to the number of bedrooms but a change to the bulk of the residence. GaflS-on asked the Commission to consider the issues The proposed third level is questioned due to its dose proximit>- to the shoreline Stajf questioned v^ether the replacement of the waikxvay was an acceptable form of non-hardcover neighbors are currently aoie to view the lake ever the home. .\s proposed Staff questions wh^cr the house would tower over and impact the neighbors to the north. T c hardcover would vieid a decrease but are the additions and removals a reasonable trade for the 148 s f. of stiucTuraJ hardcover It was noted that the existing overhangs avCTagc 4 m width and are proposed at 1S" The rock and plastic between me dnveway an^ont entry have not been listed as hardcovc.-. a portion of which is below the overhangs^ The back-up/parking apron will need to be relocated as it encroaches the existing drainhelff The removal of the concrete driveway is seen as a positive improvement, however. There are no feasible alternate septic shes available on the propertv'. The area is bemg considered by the neighborhood for sewenng Staff questioned whether enclosing the carport and changing the roof pitch would be a viable alternative to the ihfrd story proposal. Staff is asking whether the hardships or justifications arc enough to support the proposed changes. Peterson clarified that the house wiiJ siUI have three bedrooms but the common rooms and master bedroom will be enlarged. Lindquist was concerned about adding to the structure when it was located so near the Iakeshore. Hawn questioned whether it was possible to enclose the carport and add a story above the camon to open up the view for the neighbors and not present such a massive smiaure. The appheam said he had considered lowe.ring the struaure by adding dormers and burvina usable space m the roof Ime. which would reduce the height by 7-9* to soften the look. Peterson said the home was already subr^dard by its location encroaching in the 0-75’ setback area and did not see how the applicant could ask for an even greater impact on the property. 21 MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLNHSSION NIEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#10 - =?_066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Rowiette said the basemem consists of 18 courses and considers the home now too large. It was her opinion that no more can be added to the structure. Gaffron asked if there was any logic to changing the roof pitch ffom rts present tlat look. The applicant said tne roof was old and a tlat roof was not conduave to the .Minnesota winters It is his intention to redo the windows and plumbing. The roof does not present any curb appeal and a iow' pitch roof would not help to improve the look. The applicant telt the high pitch would aid in setting the second story into the structure and is currently proposed at 25' in height The applicant said the original house had the boathouse in the lower level, but now houses the utilities, and that is the reason for the IS course basement. The rest ot the house h.as S' ceilings The applicant said the height would be 24' with the use of a different pitch. Rowiette said she could not approve the application as proposed. The applicant asked for suggestions. Rowiette said the applicant needs to soften the look, and she would be open to enclosing the carpon area Lindquist and Hawn agreed. The applicant asked w hat the Commissioners opinion w as of an addition of a 2-car garage with a rambler style home, while maintaining a regular roof pitch Commissioners said side setback and lot coverage would be issues in that scenario The applicant was told to come back with an amended proposal. Rowiette moved. Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2066. GafS-on noted receiving acknowledgement forms from the neighbors on each side of the property. The applicant asked for an opinion on w hai could 'oe done to the property. Most of the Commissioners voiced that it was their belief that very little could be done to the property. Vote. Aves 6. Navs 0. (#11) #2067 BRUCE AND TERRY CL.\RK, 625 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:59-11:00 P..M. The Ceniheate of Mailing and .AfBdavii of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. Gaflfron displayed a survey showing the proposed side setback variance for extending the existing anached garage. TO Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning &. Zoning Administrator DATE: September 8, 1995 SUBJECT: 4^2066 Robert and Iris Waadc. 1487 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Ukeshore Residential. 2 acres Application: Request for side setback lake setback aiKl average setback variances to construct third level addition with pitched roof over existing two-level residence with flat root (additions are above existing sirucmre). Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.22, Subd. 1/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56. Subd. 16 (C) - 75’ lakeshore setback required for struemres. 2. Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed io 0-75’ zone. 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 - No average setback encroachment allowed. 4. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 - Side yard setback required = 30 ’. Building height maximum 30 ’ or 2‘/» stories. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - SurN’cy with Proposed Additions and Removals E - Staff Sketch {Site Plan Before and After) F - Hardcover Calculations G - Structural Coverage Calculations by Applicants. H - Building Height Ordinances I - Construction Floor Plans Pertinent Facts 1.Lakeshore setback House Deck Existing 21’ 16’ With 2nd Story Proposed 21’ 16’ 75’ 75’ Zoning File #2066 September 8. 1995 Pace 2 2.Side setback Existing garage (attached by rooO Existing house Proposed 2nd sior\7roof Existing 8.3’ 25.3’ Proposed (no change) (no change) 25.3’ 30’ 30’ 30’ Average setback encroachment Existing and proposed house: 13’ Existing and proposed deck: 24’ 0-75’ hardcover (0% allowed) Existing Proposed Structural Non-structural Total 2.832 s.f. (28.1%) 2,932 (29.0%)* 1 124 5 ni.1%) 564.5 (5.6%) 3,956.5 (39.2%) 3,496.5 (34.6%) 75-250’ hardcover (25% allowed): Structural Non-structural Total Existing 684 s.f. (4.2%) 1.953 s.f. (1.8%) 2,637 s.f. (16.0%) Proposed 732 s.f. (4.4%) 1.059 s.f. (6.4%) 1,791 s.f. (10.8%) Lot coverage by structures (proposed) (15% allowed) House Garage Deck 2.205 s.f. 1,032 s.f. 427 s.f. 3,664 s.f./26,620 s.f. = 13.8% (No variance required) Building height (30’ allowed, maximum Vh stories): • By definition : 28’2": • Lowest walkout level to highest peak (for illustrative purposes only ): 46’9" • However, because a portion of the lowest level is 12’ in height, it is considered as a story by the Building Code, hence the proposed house will technically be 3 « • » * % ^stories in height. Summary of Proposal Applicants recently purchased this one story walkout residence which was built in 1959. He proposes to eliminate the existing flat roof, and add a third level to the main portion of the house plus 10:12 pitch roof overall. The addition and roof expansion adds significantly to the Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 3 bulk of structure within the 0-75* setback zone. Virtually the entire house is within the 0-75 ’ zone, portions of it being only 21* from the shoreline, with deck only 16’ from the shoreline. Likewise, the proposed addition is entirely within the 0-75 ’ zone, and will raise the lakeshore facade from its current approximately 20’ height to approximately 46 ’ height at the new peak. Clearly, adding this much mass so close to the lake will have a signiticant visual impact as viewed from the lake. This 0 6 acre lot is subject to the 2 acre standards, i.e. 75 ’ setback from the lake. .30 setbacks on either side, and 50 ’ setback from the County Road. If the house was to be tom down and reconstructed, it would be further limited by location of the existing septx ystem south of the looped drivewav, the drivewav serving the iKighbor to the south, and the purponed Indian mound between the driveway and the County Road. The septic system is conforming but there appears to be no location for replacement if needed. This property is within the Bracketts Point area for which the Citv is being petitioned for municipal sewer. However, at best mumcipal sewer would not be available to the propertv' until late in 1996, if that project goes forward. There is no proposed change in the defined number ot bedrooms, it will stay at three. Planning Commission is advised that Mr. Waade realizes the third level addition may be too intense, and is willing to consider other alternatives to yield some additional living space, with the intent to end up with at least three garage stalls and converting from a flat roof to a pitched roof. He has indicated that he is interested in removing driveway hardcover and is requestmg direction from the Planning Commission if approval of the third level proposal is not acceptable. Issues for Consideration 1. Is addition of a third level as proposed, justifiable given the close proximity to the shoreline? 2. Applicants are willing to remove the biniminous walkways on the lake side of the house, and would like to replace them with pea gravel with no fabric or plastic underliner. Is this an acceptable form of non-hardcover? 3. Will expansion upward of this house lakeward of the average setback line have a negative impact on views from neighboring propenies*^ Additionally, will the additional height within the substandard side setback encroach on sunshine enjoyed by the neighbormg property to the north? 4 Are the proposed hardcover additions and removals (yielding a net hardcover decrease of about 460 s.f. in the 0-75 ’ and decrease of 846 s.f. in the 75-250 ’ zone) a reasonable trade for the approximately 148 additional s.f. of stmctural hardcover? Note that the existing overhangs averaging 4 ’ in width have not been factored in as hardcover but Zoning File #2066 September 8. 1995 Page 4 comprise some 1,400 s.f. which would be reduced by approximately 60% with the proposed 18" overhangs. 5. The area of rock and plastic between the driveway and the existing tront entry has net been listed as hardcover by the applicants and a portion of it is below the overhangs. This area is approximately 400 s.f., of which about half is below existing overhangs. 6. While removal of large portions of concrete driveway is positive improvement, the proposed backup/parking apron (item G on the survey) needs to be relocated, since it encroaches over the existing drainfield. 7. Knowing that there is no feasible alternate septic site, what degree of improvements to this property are justified? Should any improvements be allowed until/unless municipal sewer becomes reality for this property? 8. Would mere transformation of the carport into an enclosed garage, and conversion of all roofs to pitched roofs, be acceptable as part of a remodeling of the existing house within the existing footprint, as an alternative to the applicants’ proposal? Further, what is Planning Commission’s view of changing the carport to living space, adding one or two stalls to the end of the existing garage and placing a pitched roof over the entire structure.’ Clearly there is an issue of additional side setback encroachment, but at least the additions would be in the 75-250 ’ zone . . . 9. Are there specific hardships or justification that support any of the above scenarios which add to bulk ot structure in the 0-75 ’ zone? Is it reasonable to allow the creation of a pitched roof to replace the flat roof, justified merely by the aesthetics, or can applicMts provide technical reasons why the flat roof is unacceptable (is it leaking, is it a maintenance problem, etc.)? Options for Action 1 Approve all setback variances as proposed, including proposed hardcover removals and additions (subject to relocating backup apron out of drainfield). 2. Approve only placing pitched roof over entire garage/carport/one story house structure, with propos^ hardcover trades. 3. Table for applicants to bring back a revised proposal (give applicants direction as to what additional information or parameters are required). 4. Combination of the above. Zoning File #2066 September 8, 1995 Page 5 5. Recommend that no changes be allowed that require variances (i.e. only allow interior remodeling). 6. Other A ' ' ^ * D CITY OF ORONO - V.\RL\>*CE .APPLICATION ,v N \ ■» y ? « • «... ■_ - r-v Iruiiai AcDiication Fee 52CO.CO * ^ (S50.00 per each acdiLioiiai variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 fno change from original application) \’ariance for noa-confcming saaicnires S2C0. .Arier-the-Fac: Fees 'Double application fee) PROPERTk^ DsTOR-ALATION 1 / 7\ ^ i ' ; . /U Sice Address iIt IC _i_____[A ^ i_^ / O Propertv- IdenoTication Number (P.l.D.)^________________ Attach leaal descriotion to application if not included on required survey.wDate Prcge^v .Acquired (.< dL ■ (^4 _________ I t do)(^o nocTyiso o.vn the adjaci»t parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___other (specify) Zomna District: _____ (month/year) .APPLICANT^ . xName Kobcct L- L _________________ Phoney work) ^ ^ g>~~ S 3^3 Address: i M-^^ >3>hovt*. 1 /ru. D Y'- Cicv’: [a Zip: 3S 3^ I OWTsER (if different than applicant) Name Phone(home) Phone (work) .Address:City:Zip: DESCRIFriON OF RE-^UEST:.ov,xvAjr Aiv/ii V./1.-, Estimated Constructio.'i Cost S ^ i CCO. Describe request indetail: AcldLiflC^ Dl - j i _______ Q ; C/ri/I'XLig: Ary;^/^ jArCi (attach additional sfleets if necessary) cdhxch^<^\V.ARLAJNCES REQUIRED Lot .Area >^OL Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Averase Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION of UNX'SUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditioi^ preventing compliance with Zoning Code reouirements: l^iC^ \xVuV , Laa^ LH S / L i ^ . f (ZZXjdLTTj (XYy:|6Nj^T^ c h rn>ur\L. ny^i^jj Vi^ri A/-,Kfs A- ^7^ CUtt J \(^rn~hr^ -jftTLLA. • J\ . . n (attach additional sheets if necess^) . <J j COiMAlOX: W.5af I <v-k^.'YY-S 'l T\j I *' ^ "ij, \^i^T\At\kJo ikht J )t>rodru^ IdUional she^ > Also, Cid^OJXyJc T'C^n ciao -^j^ijOt^yTUAct Ccyiov-^AjD, ^ '"to OLCCJL^ 0y'fyU^ -. I 1. 2. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf ,h, fnlln»in. infnmi...tion must b> <..hmitted bvlh- -ipplic^tion deadline dat^ in order for vour aPDlication to be considered complete: Hennepin Count>- Depanineni of Finance. A-oOj, Govt Center. .-48-J.71). Plat Man (obtained with property owners list). hirrtcnver — Ceniftcate of Survey (signed by a ----calculations as tequired. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2 x 11 ?opo^a'phic'sutvev (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.xisting grade - Iro ^ropLed. In iddition. provide one (1) copy 8'A- x ‘ V,!°:o"v'’?^Tri-) Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SA x 11 ). ----List of the leaal names (include mantal status) of all persons with an interest m the ----propeny This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). _ Addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any oUier persons you wish notified of this application. __Additional items as may be requested by City statf. The Applicant and Propettv Owner must sign this application. Please remember ^t vtlUI v..ri,nr> annlicwtion is not comnleie if the ribove infopnation has not been mclW>qL Thtfappl^^ hereS^agSs to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng ILiSsLtor. agrees to pay additional fees (staff ttae not covered '’5' and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this app^ation and certifies that the information supplied is irue^ correct tojhe_^st of his/her knowledge. Date ^ 0. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s Signaturec^ ^J^Mr^here^y tS^edges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasoMWe entry onto the propertv by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of^tigation and ver^tion of this request. Date ^ ^Owner’s Signatufe .. » ^ Applicant must hav?^i^t^iA^?^^ 25 days before the Planning Co^ission “tave“tu'tho^ed%ent anend in your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ^ data «*»637.0^ 4*Mri6* T* 161 47 OlEiM TREES OR TAHACER LAKE GOVT LOT 2 • • »x L£b.^L DCSCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CUDE 103 PROPERTY ID ll 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ t earliest delinq vr acreage .50 OWNER D M & E A SCHMITT .! _ PROP ADER 1475*^ SHORELINE DR TAXPAY M/A DOUGLAS R & ELLEN A SCHMITT 02/18 1475 SHORELINE DR UAY2ATA MN 55391 PAGE I 23 0002 HUNIC 38 PLAT 41311 DIO STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN t LOT PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT » PSC C PARCEL 4417 OERF legal BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR tram TiATrQ n->/o«/o'^ LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 23 0008 SCH DST 278 UIRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ » EARLIEST liELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER C MOORE IND SPECIAL TRUSTEE PROP ADDR 1491 ‘ ‘ SHORELINE DR~ RICHARD HARRY EOANS C/0 CELESTE MOORE 13325 SOUTHRIDGE RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 PAGE 1 NEXT » PSC C 4J340 PARCEL 1010PLAT VERF LE3AL * BLOCK TAXPAY N/A 05/15 05/17 MUNIC 38 DIU STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN # LOT PREVIOUS OUNER R H EVANS APPROX PARCEL SIZE Ul75X245XL1H5XIVO TRAN DATES 11/01/94 02/08/93 / /:d legal DESCRIPTION lNf>ORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID ll 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER ELMER S CONOVER UIFE 'PROP ADDR 1489 SHORELINE DR TAXPAY N/A ELMER S CONOVER 1489 SHORELINE DR UAYZATA MN 55391 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID 11 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER R L UAADE 4 I L UAADE PROP ADDR 1487 SHORELINE DR TAXPAY M/A ROBERT L & IRIS L UAADE 1487 SHORELINE DR UAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE 1 23 0009 MUNIC 38 PLAT 43340 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN • LOT PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT = PSC C PARCEL 3025 VERF LEGAL BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SUE Ul 30X245XL1 32X245 -4u PAGE 23 0010 MUNIC 38 PLAT DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG CONDMN • I PREVIOUS OUNER 1 NEXT « PSC C 43340 PARCEL 5200 VERF legal OT BLOCK APPROX PARCEL SIZE Ul30X210XL120X243 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID ll 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ t EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE 00 OUNER D L ll M H VERGEYLE PROP ADDR 1405 GREEN TREES .RD TAXPAY N/A DAVID & MARGARET VERGEYLE 1405 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 legal DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID ll 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DSI IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER C 4 S PLATOU PROP ADDR 1480 GREEN TREES RD TAXPAY N/A CARL & SUSAN PLATOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 LEGAL DESCRIPTION INFORMATION INQUIRY CODE 103 PROPERTY ID ll 117 23 SCH DST 278 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ • EARLIEST DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER C 4 S PLATOU “PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TAXPAY N/A CARL N 4 SUSAN PLATOU 1480 GREEN TREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE 1 NEXT • 23 00 U PSC C MUNIC 38 PLAT 01128 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHO 04/10/81 VERF LEGAL CONDMN I LOT OLl BLOCK 001 PREVIOUS OUNER APPROX PARCEL SIZE S485X240XL180X196 TOAM TIATCC 1 1 /A1 /QA O'^/AA/VT / / PAGE I NEXT ■ 23 0016 PSC C MUNIC 38 PLAT 01128 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 VERF LEGAL CONDMN • LOT 006 BLOCK 001 PREVIOUS OUNER APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR PAGE 1 NEXT * 23 0017 PSC L MUNIC 38 PLAT 01128 PARCEL DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/81 VERF LEGAL CONDMN • lot BLOCK PREVIOUS OUNER APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR f * f-: r., I. !•: I . legal description informatiun INQUIRY CODE ;03 PROPERTY ID ll 117 23 23 0018 PAGE 1 ‘ : IT SCH DST 270 UTRSHD 3 SUR DST IFPROJ « earliest DELINQ YR ACREAGE .00 OUNER GREEN TREES HOMEOUNERS ASSOC PROP ADDR 30 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TAXPAY N/A GREEN TREES HOMEOUNERS ASSOC C/0 JACK Q rOST 1515 GREEN FREES RD UAYZATA MN 55391 ADN GREEN TREES ON TANAGER LAKE MUNIC J8 PLA! 01128 DIV STATUS LAST STAT CHG 04/10/01 CONDMN • lot PREVIOUS OUNER NEXT ■» PSC C PARCEL VERF LEGAL BLOCK ..4 - r- •I ' METES / BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OUTLOT B APPROX PARCEL SIZE IRREGULAR TRAN DATES 02/08/93 ADDN DATE FILED 11/17/1900 B 4 rr. ; ‘CREATED BY DIV PREV PROP IDS •;f- •11 B01290 DATE 00/12/01 11 117 23 23 0003 11 117 23 23 0004 It 117 23 23 0003 11 117 23 23 0006 11 117 23 32 0012 SUBSEQ PROP IDS pn . ‘!i 0 } It on ii -I 5Pp ul III \ I*- i*s *■1- 1 = I T» i % D m "D i> 3)mo •n O 3J C\ I \ rvi I 5 C :^'; 'S # CU "" FL\RDCO\Ti:R C-VLCLXATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-:50’250-500’500-1000’ EXTSTTNC. nARDCQVEtt IN ZONT A. House______________ Lxngin Wyih X X X B. C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic .X X X G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE ™TAtPROP^^TYAREAlN20NE_^ , .qq ppnpn^FD H^^nrnvrn IN ZONE A. House ------------------— Length Width X X X $ . • B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. SE S.F. S.F. 'loO S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F, S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'M .If*% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Azr\.<^ S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F ~\0.0^1 (<* S.F, ..*T/?• X ^ •V ^ >• - t- x.a. Kd ' =it A B A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250.500*5XM000* KXisnsG r\rdcovi :r in zo.ve A. House ____ Leniih Width X X X B. Garage/ C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A - B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ •' Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total proper ^ area in ZONE B \(o I SlAno X 100 13 =S.F. S.F. ...'N%s S.F. rs S.F. • "X.. sc S.F. S.F.••w sc S.F. S.F. sc S.F.t S.F. --------------- / s S.F. S.F.->3 'L ss S.F. a S.F. S.F. S.F.A luSt4-.c>S.F.B ki» ^% S.F. S.F. a S.F. sc S.F. S.F S.F.• a S.F. S.F. a S.F. S.F. a S.F. =3 \S.F. =S.F. SS S.F. S.F. • mio S.F.A fC»3Z^.O S.F.B I • • Cp- n«^ z^ro^ t5Tr^crrvj\ze pfz^fvjT <=»f uim€: qc\^, C5»ZO 4n p \cyV\ p ^6t/>N)o pc£5cn2- ' 4^*2^ ^ tzcx?f- ^fWCTurL€> 0-^*7 Z^/o€^ -f' t^ePp^ o‘v+A^^J<5=^ • ^ zolue f 4’* POC>p- C>’vVA^^ • Sr-'2-/'ij^ !.! i • :WAA>De ^ * *-% >-’7* ' 6'*^ &'«>''=JS «»I iLOT cov/eMic^e e=>'^ sri^crruRje. (cxi'sr.') !*•* I I j M< la » !^i i'l« 1*1 ; ' . •I Hoote (2^b.PA«l& 9 2^lOS ^ 40*2. t{3 4] 4--zn t}> 54^2? li? -»•t£>,C=ZO Lot &\7^ 1. I* I (t«> (4C?o L€«y;> \2>4o (p««ew6»< Mxti. V") *20/ fcto') AUU?VJA<ft7L6' STOocrcuEje. cooei2A&,e .' V57o ^ ZjQ>, laZO » I « I .4 ’ l^oof- : \4Z-Z^(.e>c<suut>iNj&. MSs606t*c. t.. !• ill ,;4 ■:i I I** i” i‘i i: Ji} • I ' i.; s 10.23 Subd. 2. Lakeshore_ Set Sack, Hard Cover, and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). e wj •» oo.'Tit'-od Uses. Within the "LR-IA” One ramily Lakeshore no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses. A. Any permitted use as regulated in the ’’R-IA'' District. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any Family Lakeshore Residential District, °/ permit:be usid for the following uses except by conditional use permit. A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-iA" District. subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IA- Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be oermitted accessory use: 4» a \w accessorv use as regulated in ^ District and 'pr-lvate docks', subi^ect the^ C^ty ^Code^ ajid^^ot^^^ apoiicable regulations ^ inc^udin<^ boat storage qe,i54.iiYMiikmH^fe —ii ^ ”bd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requlre.ments. A Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 Stories or th'ilty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. --------■ be observed: rocs. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard 30 feet Side Yard Adjacent to Street 50 feet Rear Yard 50 feet2 acres 200 feet cO reet SEC. 10.24. LR-IB ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. •dentia!“Distr\'ct °”\ntMderto «o‘v\de a"dis?r"lcV whicrwill may * Because of the location of the district ::i:r\°a" e °«\n^°e"?ontr-or"loirg“L°ake, special regulations are ho ocotcct these natural resources from the etreccs u denirXvelopLnt. This district shall have immediate access -o highways and public sanitary sewer. ORONO CC 284 (4-1-84) ?araily e used ’R-IA" /' One shall ’ainily be a R-lA" other shall § 10.0211. "Boardinghouse" — A building other than a motel or hotel where, for compensation and by prearrangement for definite periods, meals or lodgings are provided for three or more persons, but not to exceed eight persons. 12. "Building" - Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel, and when said structure is divided by party walls without opening, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. 13. "Building Height" - The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series 14. "Bulk Station" - Distributors warehouses for materials which are stored in tanks above ground in aggregate capacity on the site of 6,000 gallons or more. 15. "Carport" - An automobile shelter having one or more sides open. 16. "Cellar" - That portion of the building having more than one-half of the floor-to-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground. 16(a). "Clean Fill" - Clean fill shall consist of all native soils as described in the Unified Soils Classification System. Organic, man-made and reprocessed materials, topsoil and rocks larger than 0.25 cubic yards (2.9' diameter) shall not be considered clean fill. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 17. "Commercial Kennel" - Any premises where three or more domestic animals over six months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. 17(a). "Commercial Operations" - Operations where business is conducted by the sale or exchange of goods and/or services on site for money or other valuable consideration. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 18. "Commission" - The Planning Commission. ORONO CC 243 (.4-1-84) 1-84) jVlA/Ai f^iM>i^ w - ; / I ** f! li ■'ih. fiiVT fXtfOt- pUH^ W IT p(ex>PbSe^ F^ooi^ % ir I •‘I* ] i % jOOTB ^ N » I •M* • I tMT 4 ♦ *r* k)€(^ l/fFtdd#e lAi^fe<^T'/oi^( i>ee7~. k^uL. e t?y^/Aj G r<s>i/A)bA-r/C)AJ /4i7~ OF AC"^t»2 ceiyet- •vl 0^ 9 > .•' 51 air ’- * 9mm. ss •v 4 r-’ /r"^> # •^•V ;t ^'e>' V . V ' <■ / . a ^ .:.*;• J#' / H i/ \//^6o fri^^ 4 I •• T - -T ' •>,v -r# r/,-. • •. U^v\r i •5!’ T^e-r i^-p: ■' ■»■ |r.’ /.->v<‘ <.# i-« -« •<i" ■» ‘^” ■•- 2S»'?'' /1I<^ frF fi TO: FROM: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit>- Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 11. 1995 Sl’RIECT: i^2074 John N. and Kristin R. Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street - Conditional Use Permit'Variance - Public Hearing Application: The applicants propose the installation of 2’ timber retaining w'alls approximately 4-5' from shoreline where no structures are allowed. The application also involves the installation of a 20’x35’ accessoiy structure that meets all required setbacks but propert}' has excessive hardcover (24.21%) within the 0-75 setback area. Zoning District: LR-IC Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 4 - Prohibitions. It is unlawt'ul to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the zoning chapter. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (E) - Accessory strucmres greater than 750 s.f. are subject to more restrictive setback standards. As structure is at 750 s.f., the structure need only meet the 10’ side setback. The proposed accessory garage will be located 10 from north and south side lot lines. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) - Detached garage will have doors facing street. Structure must meet a minimum 30’ setback. Required = 30' Proposed = 51’ No variance required. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Lot area = 13,090 s.f. Allowed = 1.964 s.f. or 15% E.xisting = 1,423 s.f. or 10.9% Proposed = 1,922 s.f. or 14.6% No variance required. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Hardcover review. A. 0-75' setback area = 3,747 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 907 s.f. or 24.2% Proposed = 907 s.f. or 24.2% No reductions are proposed. Zoning File #2074 October 11, 1995 Page 2 B. 75-250’ setback area = 8.743 s.f. Allowed = 2,186 s.f. or 25% Existing = 2,124 s.f. or 24.29% Proposed = 2.162 s.f. or 24.73% C. 250-500* setback area = 600 s.f. Allowed = 180 s.f. or 30% Existing = 156 s.f. or 26% Proposed = 120 s.f. or 20% D. Total hardcover area = 13,090 s.f. Existing = 3,187 s.f. or 24.3% Proposed = 3,189 s.f. or 24.4% Section 10.55, Subd. 8 - Code specifically prohibits structures within the 0-75' setback area. Applicant proposes the installation of a 2 ’ retaining wall approximately 5' from shoreline. Section 10.56, Subd. 13 (A & B) - Conditional use permit within shoreland protected area. Evaluation criteria/recommended conditions of approval. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants Addendum C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Elevation - Retaining Wall F - Elevation - Garage G - Photos - Current Shoreline and Example of Similar Retaining Wall H - Survey 1 - Gustafson Report 10/9/95 Jl-3 - Hardcover Inventory K - Hardcover Map - Proposed L - Letters from Adjacent Neighbors M - Topographic Map - Watershed/Drainage Area N - Future Hardcover Proposal for the Year 2000 01-3 - Future Hardcover Inventory Year 2001 P - Topographic Detail of Property to North, 1685 Concordia Zoning File #2074 October 11, 1995 Paee 3 First Part - Conditional UseA^ariance The eastern shoreline of West .\rm is severely impacted by ice mo\ ement in the early spring.^ A ridge has been created adjacent to the shoreline for several properties along this stretch of shoreline. The bank is at a 1:1 slope and unable to retain ground cover and is subject to severe erosion. The neighbor to the immediate north has installed a similar 2’ timber retaining wall, review Exhibits E and G. The City has no record of ever issuing a conditional use permit for the wall. As Gustafson's report advises (Exhibit 1), this is merely a temporary solution to the problem ^ the ice movement may damage this wall in any given year. He also asks that the wood used in the construction be treated wood. Upon your site inspection, note the second property to the north. This property owner has attempted to solve the problem with riprap. Another property' owner to the north (Application #2075) proposes regrading the ridge to a 3:1 slope to allow for the installation of ground cover. The more graduated slope allows for ice to ride up o\ er the more graduated elevations rather than against the vertical bank to the shoreline. Riprap placed at a minimum 3:1 slope would also provide less of an obstacle to the movement of ice at the shore. Applicants should be encouraged to consider a more permanent solution. The City will require the placement of a silt fence along the shoreline during the period of installation until all disturbed areas are restored. If a timber wall is installed, the City will ask for planting to lessen the visual impact from the public water. Joe Richter of the DNR has also noted if improvement involves a structure, plantings should be used to minimize visual impact. Second Part - Installation of Accessory Structure As already noted above, the 25’x30 ’ accessory structure requires no setback variances. Although structure is to be placed within the 75-250’ setback, a variance is required as excessive hardcover exists in the 0-75’ setback area (24.2%). Applicants propose no reduction of hardcover improvements within the 0-75 setback. Review Exhibit M, topographic map that defines the local watershed and existing drainageway within neighborhood. The majority of runoff of the properties along Concordia drain to this property and the property to the immediate north that contains a drainage swale that eventually drains to West Arm. Based on the 2’ topographies it is difficult to determine if applicants ’ garage is located above the 931.5 elevation or floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Staff has asked Mr. Gehring to provide an amended survey providing spot elevations within the building pad of the garage. If any portion of the floodplain is to be filled, both the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Corps of Engineers would require permit review. Zoning File #2074 October II, 1995 Page 4 The City Engineer and staff have reviewed the drainage area and the location of the garage. The garage will be placed in a low retention area that currently serves as a ponding or retention area along the shared lot lines of the propertv ’ to the immediate north. Drainage then eventually flows to the drainage swale along the northern lot line of 1685 Concordia. Any filling within the low area may have an impact on adjacent properties specifically the garage at 1685. The City Engineer would recommend the creation of a retention area within the area of the shared lot lines of both properties. The applicants claim that certain paving/curb improvements directed the runoff to this area. John Gerhardson has met with Mr. Gehring at the site and advised my office that even if the curbing was removed, water would seek the lower elevations and eventually end up in this yard area. A storm water retention area and swale or tile to drainageway would reduce potential flooding of new construction and existing improvements. Staff has also discussed the need to address drainage issue with the architect for property at 1685 and he has concurred w'ith the engineer ’s recommendation and has agreed to talk with his client, Mr. Palm, about the improvement. The City will encourage both property owners to work with the Public Works Department on a solution to the potential flooding of properties. Issues for Consideration 1. j. 4. As excessive hardcover exists on this property, should either existing hardcover improvements be considered for removal or new improvements be reduced in size? Refer to E.xhibits Jl-3 and K3. Applicants shall provide spot elevations for garage pad to determine if there is floodplain encroachment (elevations either at or below 931.5). If there is a floodplain involvement, the City would recommend that garage be located out of the floodplain area. Members may wish to discuss more permanent solutions for lakeshore erosion problems. As principal structure is located 41’ from the shoreline, there is not enough area or width to propose alteration of the lakeshore bank. Applicants may wish to consider installation of riprap at a minimum 3:1 grade. The timber wall is acceptable as proposed although it will be a temporary solution of the erosion problem and unsightly condition of existing bank. Applicants have provided additional information concerning proposed improvements for the year 2001. The City cannot take any action or make any recommendations concerning these improvements but will accept as additional information. Based on the location of the garage, it would be possible to install a residence conforming to a 75’ setback from the lake and still not encroach within the utility easement for the sewer line located within the street yard. Zoning File #2074 October 11, 1995 Page 5 Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions: 1. J. 4. Silt fencing to be installed along shoreline during the period of installation and until any disturbed ground area is restored with natural ground cover. Suitable plantings are to be installed adjacent to or at top of wall to minimize visual impact from public water. Garage structure shall be relocated if found to be located within floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Applicants are encouraged to work with Mr. Palm, the owner of the property located at 1685 Concordia Street, and the City of Orono on storm water improvements to prevent the further flooding of these properties. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION • ♦ : * Initial Application Fee 5200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION crvc^r Site Addrecs CcNCXi' ft , I ■ ^ Jj J J PT Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)__\1 \\1 . J___^nniir-iHnn if not included on required « •• - rrh%g“d«c“p.io:; to application if not inched on required survey. Date Pro perty Acquired A uni Z1, If iS__Pro perty ~ < =—— I (do) (fdo not ))also own th^djacent parcels Present use of property: tP residential Zoning District:-------------------------- (month/year) other (specify) BDi T/-AMT Phonefhome) mi --- N^me Tonpl fl. A!n.f>-7 sTa^s^i— oty: --------Ztp -»s>cyi£ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone(home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip^ ------------------------------------------------------ ^ ^ DESCRIFTION OF REQUEST Estimated ConstrucUon Cost $ ^/0,OOQ. Describe request in detail: (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: Lot Width Front __Side \y/^Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) “^cribfundw^h^^Sdp Of “mtsoo' Pf°P'"y oonditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) 'x:' T.i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS A.. „f ,h. f.n.win, infnrn,..inn must be hv th^ ;.pplici,tion »a j|jnt in for vour application to be considered coniplgt^ 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Certfied Propel^ Owners List of owners 34 “^2n) Hennepin CounPr' Depanmeni of Finance, A-603. Govt Center. 348-3271). calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 A x 11 for ?o'pCpW='survey (existing and are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A x “ f®/ Sketches or plans of floor &. elevation views (provide one (1) copy * * >• Ust of L legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest m the Loerty TOs would include name(s) of applicani(s) if not current owner(s). rfnTddendum to this applicauon. please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. Th LrebTat^^ provide all information required or requested by the Zoning information supplied is true and correct to the^st of his/her knowledge. ^ ^ J • i\ n , Mt n ^ / Applicant’s Signature i^Date ^z4/\ n'^MSy t^edges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasoiBble entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Co members for purposes of investigation and verincaiion of this request. Owner’s Signature Date A 1* r vra.icf hfivc all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission M^ee^r ptnTnrCoSnT^^^ held on the third Monday of each mo^_ must bt present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planiimg Commission ^*!?rminca If an applirant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arra^^ents “to"tlJo “ed'^a^^^^^ m your place and to advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ■f 8 I We arc proposing to implement the attached plan in two phases; Phase I (Fall 1995) t • 4T 4 i• Remove shed • Remove concrete pad adjoining shed (kennel) • Remove entire current driveway • Build a detached garage, including a concrete pad for the kennel • Locate a new driveway, limited to the area leading directly to the overhead garage doors from Concordia Street Phase II (Fall 2000); Remove sidewalk leading to the lake Remove current house Build a new house, centered on the lot, at the average lakeshorc setback John and Kristin Gehring GOVT LOT 2 O’-GOVT LOT 2"^i :2 1 () 1 s »!•0 i1 ; 1 • ;i3 '(r?);(7o 1 69)<63) 1 ^.-- 1 < 6' • • - r T9 !0 '40 3 1 ' ' !o J ■*y '.34) i%?JT 3 < 35) 4T m 1 1 1 i 1 .....f - “ ' ■'!)■ ■ ■ ■1 !1 ’*7 ’4 , '9 i :o 1 i 1 :» i/? ; ia)( 4Q) f 50)1 ' \ (60) iO ■■‘^7 '9 *i V) ! ^ VI 1 ;o ' 1 V.C •, j )i — >--- ! '■h: I 53) ( 54) ( 55) ji :v %7-:« »^HC5AH-N0 rtAH»3)7I ><» _ L !0 '7 1'*^^.5 .S mu H etORC ^'A J.cic4l5 r iV 1 (7', 2 ?! - '6) 1 AX ? (?9) 1 ji of 1 f2'?K? • ■04 3 1 <A 1' C7 1 1 1 1 1 yj' ?? - o I7-//7-Z5-ZZ (ID • • •• • • s. ••* • • •; . • . ••• /.•• !.. '»*a A (<0) I • j* * / 9 NO 1 il2@ » ^ 'o' m M j ’(Si (21) <2 i m " ■> 'jl •t '* » ro. *9 «4st 8---^ m i<:o. ;7 JJ4 :o5.4» ir» (34) a (35) ■« 3? 3 (4) i9i i6 ;t!MIPLie »miE RO R L S MO iai9 ^ • i • HUN DATE 06/24/9SHATCH SISPROP ADDA C»t€fl NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODk PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR Sa 17-117-2S 22 0007 0S925 NORTH SHORE OR LAP CHRISTINE LYNN R CHRISTINE S92S NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN S5SA4 SO 17-117-2S 22 0017 017A1 COrfCORDIA ST MARCARET L ANTOINE DAVID A MARGARET HOLSTE 1741 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA m ssin SS 17-117-2S 22 0020 01725 CONCORDIA ST CHARLES N 0LS0T4 CHARLES. N OLSON 1725 CONCORDIA ST S NAYZATA HN 55S91 SS 17-117-2S 22 002S 014W CONCORDIA ST D J A D R ..ELAHSKI DONALD JOHN DELANSKI SS19 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL MN 55422 Sa 17-117-2S 22 0050 01740 CONCORDIA ST D J BELAHSKI ADC BELANSKI DAVID J A DAYNA C DELANSKI 1740 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 sa 17-117-25 22 0040 016S5 CONCORDIA ST HOHARD R ALTON III HOHARD R ALT0r4 III 1455 CONCORDIA ST ORONO m 55591 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY tNEORMATlON SYSTEMowers ustsa 17-117-2S 22 0004 0S445 NORTH SHORE OR H RICHARD ZUCKMAN H RICHARD ZUCKMAN 1019 DUPONT AVE S MPLS m 55403 sa 17-117-2S 22 OOia 01755 CONCORDIA ST GERALD N RLECKNER GERALD N KLECKNER 1755 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN 55591 sa 17-117-25 22 0021 01705 CONCmOIA ST JANET JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7545 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD HN 5542S sa * 17-117-25 22 0024 01407 CONCORDIA ST 0 E I N BENNETT TRUSTEES GLEN E BENNETT 1407 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55591 SO 17-117-2S 22 0051 01495 CONCORDIA ST P HERNOON/K ORTHEIER-HERNOON PAUL L HERNDON 9557 NESTDURY HOODS DR fC CHARLOTTE NC 20277 50 17-117-25 22 0045 01675 CONCORDIA ST HELEN K TRAINOR HELEN K TRAINOR 1475 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA m 55S91 REPORT NO. PI4S54DI PAGE SI >5« l7-117-tS It MIS01$45 SHAOYHOOO M RALPH HARVEY ETAL RALPH HARVEY IMS SHADYMOOO RD NAYZATA m B5SP1 M 17-U7-ZS it MIS 017A5 CONCORDIA ST JAMES T NYSTROH JAMES T NYSTROH 17AS CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA HN B5ST1 sa 17-117-2S n 002t 01685 CONCORDIA ST T L PALM ANA PALM THOMAS L PALM 1685 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA m 55391 SO 17-117-2S Zt MAD 017BD CONCORDIA ST PMiL J BOZONIE PAUL J DOZONIE 1755 FAQERNESS POINT RD ORONO MN 55S91 S8 17-117-ES A2 MS2 01680 CONCORDIA ST LAD SE8Ql( LINDA D SE50K 1680 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA IM 55S91 TOTAL DATCH SIS 0D017 •i'; 4I 'J-.*f I1«*4 • ^ OV'la. r-i ‘Tv 9, * .1 • ..-rf-' i '» • « ^ *4/ J<K.; • r VfV... J<-< • ^ , V *.t - i*'" •' RUN DAT! Oi/24/fi• (J.' iATCMill lC\ *’•• •**• ; V • * S ' ' i * "lt I • V 1 i (i •ii »HENNEPIN COUNTY PMPillTY INromATlON SY$TEH PHQPfRTY OHNiftS LIST j»«»•m REMIIT MO. K4SSM1 RAOt St X CERTIFY TMAt THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARt AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORNAnON AS XT APPEARS THIS OATS ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE^l4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRUpERTY TAXAnSN* TO THE REST OF Hy KNONLEdOE AND BELIEF. DATE < -i ..■*"* 4t ^■'.m - •. '■‘••ra.v . > . . It,,' ' - V - ■ 'i '* ■■C'ii! • : ? Iff, ' ’’,v ' -v-iit' r ■ • : ^ ! i i | J • J? ' ■ . i'-i!#, i.'• v'lV ^ S' *■ ' • '* i- ' -J '■. -• . . v' ,•?^ t K V ; 'V'. ‘yt"' ; ’ - • ^ r Hh ’ I, I-- ■ ( \ f • ,r / I it • / I 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects October 9. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Bonestroo. ffosene Anderuk jnd Associates. )nc is an Action Equal Opportunity Employer Otto G. Bonestroo. P f ffooen ar ecse^^ PE* josepn C Anoeri'H. P C Marv n L Sorvaja. P E Picnard E Turner. P E o<e*w P Coot P E •homas E ^oyes. P E -Pooert G Schttfucht. p E. Susan M. EOenm. CPA • • Senior Consuiiant Howard A Sanford. P fi. < eitn A Gordon.. P E. Pcoert » Pfefferie. P E Pichard ar Foster. P£ David O Losftota. P E Poeert C Russet. A.I.A .frfy A Bourdon. P E. Mart A Hanson. P E Michael T Rautmartn. P E Ted K. E.eid P E Thomas R. Anderson. A i.A James R Rosenmertel. PE Oonaid C Burgardt. P E *^homas A Syfto. P E Preoenc J Ster^rg. P E ifmael Martme* P E Mic*iaei P Pau. p E •homaj Peterson Pf. Michael C Lynch P E James R. Maiarsd. P E jerry D Perttsch. P E Scort J Arganet. P E terwseth P Anderson. P Mart R. Rolfs. P.£. Mart A. Seip. P E. Gary W Morten. P E Paul J Gannon. A i A Daniel J. Edgerton.t A Rict Schmidt. P.E Dale A Grove. PE. p^idip J Caswell. P E. Mart O Wallis. P E Miles B Jensen. P E L Phillip Gravel. P E Karen L Wiemen, P E. Gary D Krutofitt. P£ Brian iC. Gage. P £. P Todd Poster. P £ Keith R. Tapp. PE Cougiai J Benoit. P E. Shawn 0 Gustafson. PE. Ceciiio Olivier. P E. Kent J Wagner. PE. Paul G. Heuer. P £. John P Gofder. P E. Oan O. Boyum. P E. Jtf frey J. Ehiermger. P E. Joseph R. Rhein. P£ Let M Mann. P E. Charles A Erickson Leo M. Paweisky Harlan M Oiion Agnes M Ring james P Engelhard! Re: Gehring Shoreline File No'! 139-2074 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed shoreline grading and retaining wall at 1687 Concordia Street on the property owned by John N. and Kristin R. Gehring. The applicant proposes to grade the shoreline to flatter slopes and install a tw foot tall timber retaining wall. The plan is acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval. We offer the following comments: Silt fence should be installed along the shoreline prior to grading. The timber wall should be treated wood. Although this type of wall is acceptable, it should not be considered permanent and will need to be replaced in the future. Ice movement may damage the wall in any given year. - We encourage the planting of vegetation along the shoreline. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK &. ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E.p p / 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) f 0-?5’ hardcover calculation worksheet 25-500*75-250*SOO-K EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Leofth 30 loA X X X Width 223 I7A B. Gange . j ”'C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk .'1 2.^ ■2.U> X X /3 5^ V.. ■ E.' Paiio/Deck X X / F. Landscape Uoderiain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A ^07____ * B 3741 907 X 100 ^ fgOPQSED hardcov er in ZONE Lenfih Width 22.3 173 B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 2-(b X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____ 907 1b 3747 xlOO z4.2\ 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. 3747 S.F. 24.2^ * S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B I hardcover CALCULATIOfiLSJ'OR^®®®^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________ Length X X X B.Gange C. Driveway IQI X X .. .. D. Sidewalk X X r.ili<><T>tr'r-X X R Landscape •. Underlain • *1. By Plastic X X X Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 2jl4 B - tlU ti^prv-ftVER IN ZONE Lengib l4.^ B. Garage C. Driveway 3Q 20.X X D. Sidewalk E. ,£aiia®«efc X X X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 2,\(jpZ> B 75-250’25-500’ Wridi ttjL It.!? i4 Ji «too € 500-K S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. \^l S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. si S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2-1 Z4__ Tth5~ .14 S.F. S.F. Z4.Z^ * .S.F. Wid* Vl.'h 2.50 S.F. S.F. ■■Ml S*F* *•7SQ_S.F. - \C^ 540 S.F. «l^O_S.F. a 33 S.F. Z-a TZlXfi S.F. n S.F. a S.F. S.F. aM a S.F. a S.F. S.F. p ■2.10.2- • S.F. X 100 » A B A B hardcover calculation works heet SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ f vySTTNC gARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________ Lcoftb X X X B. Garage C. Driveway iz^X X D. Sidewalk X X E- Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other 15^B I^^^^JpwOPOSED zone Length X X B. Garage C. Driveway [V X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Dedc X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other 75-250’ Width total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPaTY AREA IN ZONE _X 100 Width lO total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 120 - ^ ® -^cb X 100 SOO-K I Scp I5U> L>Oiao \to 120 (acC> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.mo A B A B a ^ ' ‘ aooi # O P'\ V •■*m ^ “ -‘a*-' f * -j#-' (i .i •': •*V*V“;:v< a- • •’•*;: 1 *; 1 .;»♦ *•/ . • ’ \ I* ■.*. '.1 10/02.-95 0S;3S FAX 612 593 TlSl MiRTHRUP KIN«;[?; IHI2 y/ ' ' ' • pool # ^ ? i; j J '•i i**' (1 ;-\ -• Jii i;>"’ . . .•’.'V ^ ■* . . . I.. ‘ •*’.■ ‘ ft .^< « ■•. : .1 ,1 hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) I 0-75’75-250*25-500* y YISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lniftli X X X B. Ganfc C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk Zuf X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B A. House Leagib:^o B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X S' E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ 2>l4'7 B X 100 500-11 •S.F. 22.3 S.F. «173 S.F. «S.F. S.F. *S.F. ai S.F. /3 S.F. m 32.S.F. m S.F. mm m S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. c 907 S.F. c 3i^n S.F. 3-7 ‘fl X 100 -ft S.F. Widtt 30 900 S.F. ■i S.F. ai S.F. S.F. S.F. - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ‘?/3 S.F. S.F. 24. 37 ~ % 0 A B A B hardcover CALCULATIO^^’ORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING hardcov er IN ZONE A. House ____________ * . .. -4 X X X B. Garage * C. Driveway D. Sidewalk tCrincX Eati»<Bect icT rt , ^ F. Landscape ' *'• Underlain ®y G. Other X X X X X X X X PARPCOVER in ZQK E House Leiifth ___________X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Eaue^DeCk F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic JQ___ 20 ^ JB.____ n__ G. Other X X X X X X X X X Width Z2.A lO.i |4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PRO^ AREA IN ZONE ^ ST43 Widdi iOL 2-b Z1 25-500’ la 7 X 100 - TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROP^AREA FN ZONE ^ ^ 500-1000’ lu>7 1491 45 S4 HZik 4^ 35 51 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. z4.£q ~ % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7SQ__ S.F. 6 40 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ZiS2^_ S.F. S.F.KSEK 0' • A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ FV1ST1NG HARDCOVER IN ZONE House-------------------- Leogi^ X X X B. Cange C. Driveway w X X D. Sidcv^^alk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X • • •\ ^ :F. Laodsrapc Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other W-t ^>pnPQSED hardcover in zone '"a. House_____________ Lenfili X X B. Garage C. Driveway 12 X X D. Sidewalk _X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other 75-250’500-l< WidCl TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER^ ^ a (^oo X 100 Widdi ID___ total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ (^jO 120 -r B % 100 l5<o (tCQ. 120 1 ZO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % /• - U'' A B A B i • * f i f . //• To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 10, 1995 Subject:#2075 Howard Alton, III, 1635 Concordia Street - Conditional Use PermitA/ariance - Public Hearing Application: Applicant seeks approval of a conditional use permit and variance for the alteration of a 3'-4' high bank located approximately 5*6' from the shoreline. The purpose of the application is to alleviate erosion of bank and to allow for the restoration of grass groundcover. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J-2) - Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Minnetonka designated at the 929.4 elevation. Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 (A & B) - Evaluation criteria and conditions of approval for conditional use permits. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - Application Applicant's Addendum Plat Map Property Owners' List Lot Survey Gustafson Report 10/9/95 Existing Shoreline Elevation Proposed Shoreline Elevation Description of Request Applicant proposes the removal of approximately 17 cubic yards of soil from a 4’ high lakeshore bank for a distance of approximately 90' along the shoreline, refer to Exhibit G. The bank is a pressure ridge created over the years by the movement of ice similar to the condition of shoreline to the south on both the Palm* (Application #2009) and Gehring (Application #2074, October Agenda) properties. Upon your inspections for Applications #2074 and #2075, view the east shoreline of West Arm Bay. Note where the slopes of the shoreline are more graduated at 3:1 or 4:1 there are no visible signs of any impact of the ice movement. Zoning File ;?2075 October 11, 1995 Page 2 Refer to Exhibit F, the City Engineer approved the proposal but notes that if bank is to retain a minimum 3:1 slope, bank would have to be cut back 5-8' and would result in the removal ot approximately 34 cubic yards rather than 17. Applicant would then place 8 cubic yards ot clean soil to be cov ered with sod. A silt fence will be installed along the shoreline to prevent further erosion .nto the lake. Fencing shall remain installed until groundcovcr is restored over all disturbed areas. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the proposed land alteration project and the conditions under which it is conducted conform to criteria set forth in Section 10.56, Subdivision la (A)? 2. Will the installation of a grass groundcovcr address the concerns ot the view from the public waters? 3.Review Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 (B) - conditions attached to a conditional use permit. Planning Commission should determine which of these conditions are appropriate for the Alton conditional use permit application. Note no structures nor the removal of trees are proposed. The banks have no grass cover and consists of exposed soil and sand. The Eneineer's report encourages the planting of vegetation along the shoreline. Will additional plantings in addition to the grass cover be required of this applicant? Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit and variance application of Howard R. Alton, III for the property located at 1635 Concordia Street that would allow the removal of 34 cubic yards of soil from a 4' high bank for a distance of 90' parallel to shore and the placement of approximately 8 cubic yards of clean fill to allow for the restoration of natural groundcovcr finding all pertinent evaluation criteria of Section 10.56, Subdivision 13 (A) have been satisfied. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Erosion control shall remain in place until natural groundcovcr is restored within disturbed area. 2. Banks are to be installed at a minimum 3:1 slope. 3. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant and owner to contact the City offices to arrange for an inspection by the City Engineer of the finished grades before groundcover is installed. 4. Will additional plantings be required along the disturbed section of the shoreline? r / CITY OF ORONO • GENTR-YL LAND USE AP PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1535 .'nncoroia Streej^ ^crrioN ;o SKS—: SETFjSffisagiSs applicant Nrtine -Qi.'J r*-i ... Address •n.3c :onc:r^>1a Srrg^^ Phone I home) i7'^-?QgQ Phone I work) *4P-0696^ Ctv ~^3vz3ta_______Zip 0'\'NER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address CitN'Zip. Aucust 199ADate Property Acquired----------------------. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels or .and. wch C.T application 5125.00 Residential Accessory Use ^ ” 5200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments 5150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ^ 5250.00 Commercial;Industrial Use 5200.00 Land Alteration -------- Grading and filling • designated wetland or Hoodplam ------- Grading and fUling - 101 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ^ -------- 5100 00 Renewal Fee (no change from onginai application) --------After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER Site Plan Review consultant fees) 5250.00 Vacation ~ S175 00 Easement Vacation --------S 75 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ■--------S3C0.00 Rezoning (PUT) - refer to fee schedule) 5300.00 Comprehensive Plan .Amendment 5100.00 Appeals --------Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Prei.mt Zoning District --------- Present Use of Property Residential x Other (specify). (month/year) • • I * •n .y REQllRLD SUBMITTALS 1. ____ Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3. Cenified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat nMp (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Fmance, .A*603, Government Center, 348-3271). ____Cenificate of Sut^ *v (signed by a licensed sur%eyor) - refer to haiidou: lor -urvey inlonnation. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey Topographic survey (existing ana proposed contours) if land aiteratior»s involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an interest in th property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SLTPLY 30 COPIES OF FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMEN SUBMITTED. (Staff will requi'^e to scale drawings ot all documents, plans, e c. submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Und Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:________________________------------------------------------------ 4. 5. 6. /. 8. 9. The applicc. ’ v.eby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Admuhstm^r agrees to pav additional fees (staff time not covered by ongina fee payment) ^nd/or un aai e.xpenses incurred in review of this applicauon, ana certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signanire _Date f • /a • ?s hfmbv acta^ a.nd agrees .o this application and further entrv onto the property by City saff. consultants, agents commtsston members, and Counctl members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date /»-9SOwner’s signature___ A I v-sn, have^l^mmals into ihc City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Applicant m Monday of each month. Applicar.ts must be p ’^escni at all sched ed Commission i Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetmg, j;r^e'Slnttr"LTthonzcd agent anend inyon, place and advise the Budding dc Zoning Otflee of this change prior to the meeting. I; ft /-i - ■■%N .•V 9/15/95 CITY OF ORONO - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - APPLICATION Owner/Applicant: Howard R. Alton III Site address: 1635 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Request Detail: Applicant respectfully requests a Conditional Use Permit be issued for the purpose of grading within 75’ of the Lake Minnetonka shoreline. Of the 280 feet of shoreline property that the applicant owns# approximately 120' has a gentle slope to the sand beach which will remain unchanged. The next 90' has a steep drop off of as much as 4’ to the beach and the remaining 70’ has a gentle slope but is very overgrown. Applicant is requesting a permit to grade back the steep drop off to match the slope of the adjoining land grade. This would prevent what is now constant soil and silt errossion into the lake. A more gentle grade would allow for the planting of grass and proper lake shore maintence to prevent the run off from every rain from further eroding the shoreline. At the same time grading of the the overgrown area to the north would clean up a rather unsightly area and prevent errossion by allowing the planting of grass and a lawn to be maintained. The project is designed to eliminate a safety and environmental concern as well as improving the esthetics. An estimated 17 yards of soil will be removed and approximately 8 yards of clean soils brought in to finish off the area and allow for planting. A silt fence will be installed on the shore­ line to prevent errossion into the lake while grading. Sod will be immeadiately layed following preparation of the sight to finsh the area. k. . MM DATt Of/15/95 MtNNEPlN COUNTS MKJPCOTY FORMATION SYSTEM PROWRTY OHNERS LISTBATCH £05 PROP ADOR 0»tCR NAME- TAXPAYER NAME/ATiOR 50 07-117-25 99 0005 09005 NORTH SHORE DR SUSAN H NALKER SUSAN OILOER 4005 N SHORE DRIVE hound m 55599 50 07-117-25 99 09009 NORTH SHORE OR H L TLECR AST TLECA MICHAEL L PLECK SUSAN T PLECK 9009 NORTH SHORE OR mound MN 5S599 SR 07-11/25 .♦ OOOD 09017 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN P THEOBALD ETAL JWN P THEOBALD 4017 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND 194 55599 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADOR OPMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADOR OMIER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR 0»«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 50 00-117-25 55 0052 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 0 R LANDBERG t M R LANDBER6 GALE R A MARIE R LANDBERG 1595 MAPLE PL MDUND Pt4 5S599 5B OB-117-25 55 0055 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIG?4E0 B R LANDBERG AMR LAN0BER6 GALE R I marie R LANDBERG 1595 MAPLE PL mound MN 55599 58 08-117-25 55 0050 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO D M EN6LUN0 ETAL COL A MRS D M ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROCK COURT PAIRPAX VA 22052 58 08-117-25 55 0097 05950 NORTH SHORE OR AMY L A WEINER AMY L A WEINER 5950 NORTH SHORE OR mound rt4 55569 58 08-117-25 55 0071 01570 NORTH ARM DR gloria HAGEN KLINGELAHTUZ CONST COMP P 0 BOX 89 CHASKA MN 55518 58 08-117-25 55 0055 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 6 R LANDBERG AMR LANDBERG GALE R A MARIE R LANDBERG 1595 MAPLE PL HOUND »t4 55599 58 08-117-25 55 0098 05898 NORTH SHORE OR ROGER GRANNIN6 A NIPE ROGER GRANNIN6 5896 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55599 58 08-117-25 55 0055 00058 ADORESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN PORPEITEO LAND CITY OP OROND PARK 9/15/79 ST DEED 159759 58 08-117-25 55 0098 05970 NORTH SHORE DR TIMOTHY L ZHART TIMOTHY L ZHART 5970 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55599 58 08-117-25 55 0080 05890 NORTH SHORE OR NANCY E KRAUSE D H HANDLIN JR A N E KRAUSE 5890 NORTH SHORE OR mound MN 55599 58 08-117-25 55 0059 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 6 R LANDBERG AMR LANDBERG GALE R A MARIE R LANDBERG 1595 MAPLE PL MOUND MN 55599 58 OB-117-25 51 0099 0005B ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 0 N ENGLUNO ETAL COL A MRS 0 H ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROCK CT PAIRPAX VA 22052 58 08-117-25 55 0059 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO IffNNEPIN PORPEITEO LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/15/79 ST DEED 159759 58 08-117-25 55 0099 05980 NORTH SHORE DR R H ANDERSON APS ANDERSON RICHARD H A PEGGY S ANDERSON 5980 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55599 58 17-117-25 22 0001 05895 NORTH SHORE OR LOREN R FRITZ ETAL LOREN FRITZ 5895 NORTH SHORE DR hound in 55599 ir- •I. mm DATE 0f/iS/9S ; MTCN MS PROP ADOR ONNiR HAM TAXPAYER MAME/ADM SR 17>117-2S 22 0002 0SR4S NORTH SHORE M H A i N A DORRATZ HARR A A HARY A OOBRATZ SR«5 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND M4 SSSA^ NEftCPXH COUNTY PROPERTY tNFORNATlON SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST SR 17-117-2S 22 MOS OSROS NORTH SNOM OR DALE P RERRUIST DALE RCRQUIST SR95 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 553M nPORT NO. PXASMOl PAGE 10 .* . SR I7-117-2S 22 0004 000SO AOORESS UNASSIGNED LYNN A FAITH CHRISTINE LY7f4 A FAITH CHRISTINE S925 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND 104 5SSA4 '« I mm Aom ONNEII NAME TiU<PAYER NAHE/AOOII PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR M 17-117-2S tZ 0007 059E5 NORTH SNORE DR L I F CHRISTINE LYNN R CHRISTINE l^ZS NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 553A4 Sa 17-117-23 22 0013 014A5 SHADYHOOO RO RALPH HARVEY ETAL RALPH HARVEY 16A5 SHADYHOOO RD NAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0009 03995 NORTH SHORE DR N RICHARD 2UCRMAN H RICHARD ZUCKHAN 1619 DUPONT AVE S MPLS m 55403 36 17-117-23 22 0019 01745 CONCORDIA ST Adames t nystrom JAMES T NYSTROM 1745 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 22 0012 01A35 SHADYNOOO RO RALPH E MILLER ETAL RALPH E HILLER 1635 SNAOYHOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0020 01725 CONCORDIA ST CHARLES N OLSON CHARLES N OLSON 1725 CONCORDIA ST S NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 56 17-117-23 22 0021 01705 CONCORDIA ST JANET JACOBSON SACHS JANET SACHS 7545 17TH AV SO RICHFIELD MN 55423 36 17-117-23 22 0022 01665 CONCORDIA ST T L PALM IMA PALM THOMAS L PALM 1665 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 22 0023 01695 CONCORDIA ST D J i D R BELANSKl DONALD JOHN BELAHSKI 3619 COLORADO AVE N CRYSTAL MN 55422 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 17-117-23 22 0024 01667 CONCORDIA ST G E t N BEM4ETT TRUSTEES GLEN E BENNETT 1667 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 22 0026 01750 CONCORDIA ST PAUL J BOZONIE PAUL J BOZONIE 1755 EAGERNESS POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 36 17-117-23 22 0030 01740 CONCORDIA ST D J BELAieia IOC BELAHSKZ DAVID J « DAYNA C BELANbKl 1740 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 17-117-23 22 0031 01695 CONCORDIA ST P HERNDGNylC ORTMEIER-HERNOON PAUL L HERNDON 9337 HESTBURY HOODS DR iC CHARLOTTE NC 28277 36 17-117-23 22 0032 01660 CONCORDIA ST LAD SEBOK LINDA D SEBCNC 1660 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 22 0034 01735 EAGERNESS POINT RD TONEY J NILLIAHS TONEY J HILLIAMS 3719 GERLER LA APT 44 BOIS ID 63706 mu HATE Q^/U/fSMTCH SOSmw Mm ONNIi NAHi TAXPAYER NAMi/AINNI SO 17-117-2S 72 0055 01729 FAGERNESS POIKT RD D EVENNOUSE A J KRlhMEL DAVID EVENHOUSE/JILL KRimEL 1729 FAGERNESS POINT RO NAYZATA MN S5391 HETMPIN COUNTY PtOPERTY INFOmATION SYSTEH PROPERTY 0M€RS LISTSO 17-117-2S 22 0057 0174S FAHRNESS POINT RO J G NENSQN JR A C C CLAROS JOHN A GENEVIEVE C HENSON 17AS FAGERNESS POINT RD NAYZATA m 55591 REPORT NO. PIAS5A01 PAGE 11Si 17-117-2S 22 0059 05905 NORTH SHORE DR HQHARD R ALTON XII HOKARO R ALTON 111 1A55 CONCORDIA ST ORQNO MN 55591 PROP ADOR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 17-117-2S 22 OOAO 01555 CONCORDIA ST HONARO R ALTON III NONARD R ALTON III IASS CONCORDIA ST ORONO MN 55591 Si 17-117-2S 22 OOAS 01A75 CONCORDIA ST HELEN R TRAINOR HELEN R TRAINOR 1A75 CONCORDIA ST NAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL DATCN 505 00041 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE 0N THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE BEST OF MY RNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE • ^ r* '! !iN * »' rt !•A% ii \ . *4 1 •* iM A O o 7» V 3 fhn U cn oi ui t:* jr s 3 <» «/» C »? ns o § M O ►*1 CO d §n ^ • S' •>«: , .r*'” ✓ / • V /vA^- ' j _ > •‘U - - „ ,< W.*N V <(./..*» V>' V*.'•r.\\ V' ‘' V .W . ' V ^.‘".•W \ I , \ - 1 ' / \c ' Vi .vC* / \t^ ?s t«. \& / /VVv T / \r\ Ns%/ / / / »•••'>* iJ ...-/ /' \- -© '3^1 -• I \% ' : ^ 1 L UiS p ______________ n -h ItOQ i /«4» V* ' -11.: .. ? isi F-'X I-Jjy u>\ r \-i_y ' <■ t c\ if I Bonestroo Rosene Andertik & Associates Engineers & Architects ionestroo Ana#rkk and Associares. :nc s an Affirmanvd Action. Bausi Opportunity Empiovvr Otto G donaifoo ^ € »o»err dr •!* joscon c Af»ue»'i't • E >aar\ .r 4. SofvAS. ^ £ ’ cr^arcl £ *^rr*#r £ G*«nn M C oo« * £ •'hornai £ >io»es ^£ *ooarr G Sc*Hjn»cm. ® f Susar M £he^*»n CPA* • Senior Conioitant October 9. 1995 •«o**ara A Santera. PI •.e»m A Gordon « £ •oaort t P^etferie ® E e cnara ii^ fot^rr P E Caw 0 O Los«ota p E ?ooe'i C »usje« ^ eery A Bourdon ® E Mam A Hanson P £ Mtchadi T Vautmann PI *’ed k p e'd p F ’'•'orras P Araerson. A i A .amos P Posanmcfkei. P£. Oonard C Burgaroi. P £ '•'homas A Svtko p E F-eoe'C J Stenborg, PE smaei Mart net p E Micr*ae« P Pau P £ *Homai *' Peterson P£ Micr^aei C l^nch. P£ -jmes t Maiand P £, jerry D •erti'ch. P £ Scott J Arganae, P £. tenneth P Anderson i Mar* » Poiti P E Miffc A Se»o. p E Jary <a/ Morten. P £. Paul J. Tarmon. A l.A Carwei J Eagerton P£ A a,c» Stnmtot P E Caie A Growe. P E Pn**Hi J CasMreil P E Mark 0 draiHs P£ Miles S Jensen. Pf L ’niiiip Gravel. P E karen ^ \iricmeri. P£ Gary O Knstotitl. P £ inan A Gage PL P ’’odd Poite' P E Aeith ft Tapo PE Oougiat J ienoit. P £ Shawm O Guttaf ton. P £ Cec !»o Oiiv.er. P£ «ent J A'agner PE Paul G Meuef. PL John P Gorder. P £. Dan O Boyum P £ .etfrey J Ehlermgef P£ ^oseon ft fthetn. P£ Lee M Mann. P £ Chanel A £ncftson Leo M Paweeiiky Hanan M Oiton Agnes M- i»ng James f Engeihardt Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning .Administrator City of Oreno Post Office Box 66 Crv’stal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Alton Shoreline File .No. 139-2075 .OCT. 1.0 J ^ Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the proposed shoreline grading at 1635 Concordia Street on the property owned by Howard R. Alton III. The applicant proposes to install silt fence, grade the shoreline to flatter slopes, haul in 8 cubic yards of clean soil and sod the area. The plan is acceptable from an engineering standpoint and we would recommend approval. We offer the followine comments: We encourage the planting of vegetation along the shoreline. The area should be over-excavated to allow for the 8 cubic yards of clean soil and sod. We estimate that the amount of soil to be removed may be more like 34 cubic yards. This material should be hauled away to an approved disposal area. The flatter slopes will not be affected as much by ice movement. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter, Yours verv truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612*636*4600 L.. 1 9- To: From: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commissio:} Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 10, 1995 Subject: #2079 Rick Perry, 440 Willow Drive South - Variances - Public Hearing Application: Variances are sought by applicant to allow an addition to a garage located in a substandard side yard and located in front of the front line of the principal structure. The addition will create an oversized accessory structure requiring a more restrictive side setback and building size limits. Zoning District: RR-IB, Two acre minimum lot size Lot area = 27,338.5 s.f. or .62 acres Pertinent Ordinances . 1. Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (C-2) - Variance to allowed area for oversized accessory structure footprint on a property less than 1.99 acres. Allowed = 1.000 s.f. Proposed = 1,077.09 s.t. Variance = 77.09 s.f. or 7.7% 2. j. Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (A-3) - Side setback variance. Required = 30' E.xisting = 5.2' Proposed = 6.4' Variance — 23.6' or 78.6% Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Structure will be located 55' in front of the front line of the principal structure. Code would require that a detached garage located no closer than the front line of the principal structure and to be located within a side or rear yard. List of Exhibits A - Application B • Plat Map C - Propert>' Owners' List D - Survey E - Floor Plan F - Profile G - Front Elevation H - Neighbors'Acknowledgement Fotm I - Planning Commission Minutes 11/13/78 (Application #435) J - Council Minutes 11/14/78 (Application #435) K - Septic Map L - Topographic Map Zoning File #2079 October 11, 1995 Page 2 Description of Request Applicant proposes a 24’ x 22.3’ addition to the west side of the existing garage located in front of the front line of the principal structure. The structure at 1.077.09 s.f. is now classified as an oversized accessory structure subject to more restrictive standards. The required side setback is no longer 10 but 30'. Based on the area of the property at .63 acres, applicant seeks a variance to the allowed maximum footprint for an oversized accessoiy structure proposed at 1,077.09 s.f. where a 1,000 s.f. structure would be allowed. In 1978, applicant received approval for a side setback variance of approximately 5' for a 24’ x 22' garage placed in front of the principal structure. The as-built surv ey shows a 5.2’ setback for the existing garage and a 6.4’ setback for the proposed addition. In the 1978 review, the issue of the structure being placed in front of the front line of the principal structure was not addressed. H^dships dealt with the naiTowness of lot and the steep topography commencing at the front line of the structure to the west street lot line. The garage was placed close to the side lot line to allow adequate room for backing out of vehicles. Applicant ’s tuck under garage within principal structure was to be converted to additional living space. Applicant should provide clarification as to status of that portion of structure. The propert>' is not located in a shoreland area therefore hardcover standards are not applicable. The 27.j38.5 s.f. property would be allowed 4,100.9 s.f. of structural coverage. The applicant proposes a total of 2,404.09 s.f. or 8.7% structural coverage. No variance would be required. The Buildmg Inspector has reviewed the building plans (Exhibits E, F and G). Lyle Oman notes no problems with the plans as proposed. Review E.xhibit K, the septic system is located to the rear of the structure. The area to the rear of the house is the only gentle-sloped portion of the property and should be retained for future septic expansion if needed. Note the lower, flatter elevations adjacent to street is a fill area and could not be considered for septic use. Issues for Consideration 1. Should there be two separate detached structures rather than allowing applicant to create an oversized accessory structure? The second detached structure would have to be ai least 10’ from side lot line and 10’ from existing garage structure. What would the visual impact be on adjacent property owners it structure is moved further west to the lower elevations? Would the siniciure continue to be functional in use if relocated? 2. If an addition to detached garage is preferred, should structure be allowed to exceed 1 000 s.f.? Zoning File #2079 October 11,1995 Page 3 3.If addition is placed at the proposed substandard side yard setback, should year-round plantings be required along the south lot line? Note the existing tree line to the west side of the existing detached garage. These will be removed with the proposed addition. Should additional trees be planted along west side of garage addition? How does applicant propose to deal with power pole? 4.In the earlier variance review, narrowness of lot and steep topographies to west of residence were noted. Staff would add this still holds true. Note also on your sight inspection how existing improvements limit access to the rear of property. Outline of Issues 1. 2. Should applicant be installing two detached structures? Should the oversized accessory structure e.xceed allowed 1,000 s.f. in area? 3. Need for additional landscaping based on substandard setbacks and size of structure. 4. Other issues raised by Plarming Commission. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICA i ION JSInitial Application Fee S-00.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 ^ * (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucuires S200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application ree) !:. - J. w'WVA.V . . < I .^n’ . ^ m I. nZil PROPERTY' information Site Arlf1re<:s ^ HO U) • !ICJ.Q ----i-i Property Identification Numoer (P.I.D.) Zch kga, de^npuo^ :o appUcaPcn if no. included on requ.ed sun'ey. Date Property Acquired -----------------^----__-----—--------------- I (do) ri^ also own the adjacent parcels ot land. PresentO^property: J^residential -----odter (specity).------------- Zoning District:_----------------------------------------- (nionthyyear) applicant Name tc £rtrr^. Phone (home) V i • 9 "? T ( Phnne(work) V D T ~ ^ f ^ A.idress: L>.||eu>__City; -------Zip: OVVTsER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phonahome) Phone (work)_ Address:U;tv:Zip: description OF REQUEST , y Describe request indetail: CLrLft^ —rit ^(anach addiliontfi sheets if^ecessary) VARIANCES REQLTRED Lot Area _ Setback:Front Lot Width Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore \/ Other (specify) compliance with Zoning Code requirements:,, (attach additional sheets if necessary) * **% * V' • • * * . -fi REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. n 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners w ithin 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hermepin Count)' Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Cenificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/2 ,x 11 for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVz" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the properry. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. .Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not corriDlete if the above infoi luation has not been includ^^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATTJRE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e,xpenses incurred in review of this application, and cenifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date (o " S Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applic^ts must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I 1.nUN OATS 09/20/95 BATCH 510 PROP AOOR 0»fCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SO 0S-117-2S 23 0014 00400 HIUON DR S ARTHUR A EDITH NELSON ARTHUR A EDITH NELSON 400 HILLOH OR S LONG LAKE HN 55354 30 03-117-23 32 0012 00450 HILLOH OR S ANN L HHITE ET AL ANN L HHITE 450 HILLOH DR S LONG LAKE MN 55354 • ^ . ^ HEfPKPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY 0»tCRS LIST38 03-117-23 32 0004 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CHRISTOPHER J KELLEY CHRISTOPHER J KELLEY 347 LAKEVIEH AVE N LONG LAKE »t4 55354 30 04-117-23 41 0001 00505 HILLON DR S NILLIAH G ROBINSON HILLIAH G ROBINSON 505 HILLOH DR S LONG LAKE HN 55354 •IREPORT NO. PX435401 PAGE 2636 03-117-23 32 0011 00440 HILLON OR S RICHARD JR A DEBBIE PERRY RICHARD JR A DEBBIE PERRY 440 HILLOH DR S LONG LAKE HN 55354 TOTAL BATCH 510 00005 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEM4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. 9-2DATE Q^VilCrw. •'A'*-' ■ *10 • ■ ■■ " ! ; ■v^ .. i1'-‘:u ■ ‘ ' «• 'I ’-*1 ' f• . V ' l •- «■* 'tt-''* l! inin Certificate of Survey for Richard W. Perry, Jr. in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 3-117-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota “fir IJJ O 33-00 of */ of M of A/Or n>h of A/UtVy foe. J‘/f7*l3 } i 306.BJ 7^ I'v <1,1r . fiw //* ' of ; AJor^A »A of Arfiir/4 Vi\ct A/urVtrof rt /'/V •7' '/Is 1 /b •a N »: / t‘7 . / / Vi' 1 A/$3 •^7'I0"0^ / Ou 0.7 0 1 4^. rorAL a.fJtoc. fte.os. 28 -I 97,70 w* n. 'TAtJ S’ \2i^ /foutt Sf.9 ■wfjrr/#./ 29,0 A4040J00 ,^SAi»or i - 4 ^7.72 •JO.0O V •y .K A JTtf. 5: —o—90. oo -ff A/SJ*S9'30**1^ 22% 95^ IS04L ^frcAf/r/aA4 IPARCEL B ■ llhat part of tho Vast 76.46 feet of the Morth half of the Mirth half of the Mirthwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3. Township t17 North, Range 23 West of the 5Ui Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the following described property: Beginning at a point on the West lino of Section 3. Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5lh«Principal Meridian distant 3l chains South fro« the llirthwesl corner of said section thence South 24* East a distance of 5.26 chains; thence South S* (test a distance of* 9.09 chains; thence South 30* West a distance of 3.08 chains to said West line; thence North on said West line a distance of 15.92 chains to the point of beginning. PARCEL C ( Perry’s description minus Parcel A) iThat part of the Ibrth half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter; thence North along the West line thereof a distance of l98 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said North half of the North half of the INorthwest quarter of the Southwest quarter to the centerline of the former County toad; thence Southwesterly along said centerline to Its Intersection with the South line of said North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter; thence Mest.along said South line.to the point of beginning. AND ALSO that part of the North quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3. Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, describ^ as follows: Commencing at the point of Interse.tlon of the South line of said North quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter with the centerline of the former county toad; thence East along said South line 247.5 feet; thence North a distance of 115.5 feet to the point of beginning or the land to be described; thence continuing North 82.5 feet; thence West parallel with said South line to said centerline; thence Southerly along said centerline to a line drawn West through the point of beginning parallel-with said South line; thence East to the point of. beginning,EXCEPT that part of the follwing descrir ^^^^Bwlnning at a point on the West line of Section 3. Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 31 chains South from the Northwej corner of said section; thence South 24* East a distance of 5.26 chains; thence Sooth 5* West a distance of 9.09 chains; thence South 30* West a distance of 3.06 chains to said West line; thence torth on said West line a distance of 15.92 chains to the point of beginning, lying East of the West 76.46 feet thereof and South of the North line of the South 115.50 feet of the North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 3. V Coins k CRONBtRG, I.NC 1 hereby certify lhal this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super­ vision, and lhat I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. Mark S. Cronberg Minnesota License Number 127 9 •17-70 DATE 9-22 •?! t»*tr fdttorr 44rrr*\ SCALE / ''r 90 ' lOUNC) '>r t 1 .1.1 11 ‘' j • 11 (. .> _(1<.____.f 11 1\\1 1 ..1.i•f YM 111 1 1 !’ 1 11 1 II I I I I I I I I i I I I I I III .Ml II I I iI ' I .• I I I I I i I I I I I I H 8 I i • I ■ i-' ' ' I : fV'. . i I V..!r ' i i I !-i^1 I I I i\ I 5fT A I i\ ! I L/l I I I I fyiSTlHC-r Grl^tMA(3-er y i i/i / \ / M I ■ I r*—1——1—r ' I ^lu \ \ \ •1— S I > •II.: I \ f » I I i X \ V I I I I FFW I / ^^olpol$eC> I ! y I I I I ! I I ! /I kill IMJ ! Xi ! I I I I i I I i ' a'% I I ill) I !\ ST I i I III • ' i • I I !i I I I i fe/^HG-er I \Z\zi 2,^ I ^ < I f I I I ! f h I <I I I I I I » I 1 I < ! * I i ! I I ■ X' V''\hMl I ‘ Cjl ' 4-'.:. ’-i 1 W •••1■y ***** . • ••1-b«. «m ■ ••v> ( ——* "——1 »1 —... .«•«. •» t 1•1 1 ' 1 1 «1 .1 1 : ' I I i U3l(rl S’lG^V /1W 1^ FeuTrJ'2.<{6\ * I III cbfeMic.el TD ^W HI 'o. '2i'2^' i i . J I '. i^icltio. LU h a's ? I I ‘ I —r L (ii)* ^ m R.IOill<L~»y//l I t I I I Fioolz. * t I lRlo«i.K i : o&rt^ 7 ■ • u I (we) 4r ^lt , Adjacent Property Ouners^ Acknowledgement Form rA J'. AJ^Can^ [prim name(s)] of P>^' • [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the properr/ located also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------. Il(we) understand that in e.xecuting this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propeny or use but merely to confirm for |he City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s nmiect or use reauires Council approval. 9-4- <?S- Date *l#**ni***#*****>l.*******#*»********** I (we) [print name(s)J [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located jjj also referred to as Land Use .Application No. -----------.. I (we) understand that in e.xecuting this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not afked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm tor the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner 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 & Zomng Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. -tr •--■■;»'/ ' ■ '•^' 'I ♦•«*^,..f -•;• ..-o ;•'■ -Kv;.* ^ ’ • f “'v * * “* .■ '. • * • • • * < V. •.♦ j..*• «'■1: Z'■. i-w*'VJL^•->lil.ll TES or A FIABimK::SS10N MEETING BELD ON NOVI ER 13»^497t !• i: • — 001 ' , > . 4 •»,- >r^ Mr* RinelfjM ststcd that nost of houio locatlooi had boon dotorslnod and that thay vara vorklng with tha City to reaolva^tha rcaalnlng probl( Akt aovad to add tiia raqulraaaant of no variances baing grantad for eonatruetlon on tha tvo lots (lot 2 A 3) aa tha varianea for lot area has already baao grantad* Mstion seconded by Bannah. Vote; Ayaa (7), Kaya (0)* Motion passed unanlaxmaly. Baaaal aovad to approve tha raaolutlon, vltL \e addition aada in Burr's aotion, noting that the Council grantad approval to divide into 13 lots including two substandard lots (85t-98X) which have already bean granted lot area variances by the Council* Motion seconded by Baanarel. Vote: Ayes (7)f Mays (0). Motion passed unaniaously. Mr. Perry was present. Msbusdi briefly explained tha request. Tha hardships ar* the narrow width 4md the extreae grade of the lot. Conditional Ose Peradt - of tha proposed work* he has alreac^ brought in approxiaataly^tan truckloads of fill, but at the..City'SjXeqoastjhas removed about half of tho|fill».J^PMrt»g;*H«.w*y^Yy,i ^ detar«inedithat4aFstBdj^fiMhaMaffei^ the fill on the wetlaads^iaowld^be^iaede%fro^a^engineer hafftre rfharTlannfns‘ rnMfasliiii vnwia#—«xky I - il !yrr^irrr^:{:y- ,-r—ttT r 'ir^rr^Ifl'UlUllibostl^aai _______ dated October 17, 1978, stating: "Ve hav'z no objection to his erection of a garage or filling in and leveling off low spots adjoining our property line." Variance - It was noted that Mr. Perry had already excavated for the garage. It was questioned whether or not the hardship was valid since he does have an existing garage. Mr. Perry stated that in the future he would probably need the existing garage space to add on to his In the intarisi, be stated be needed a place to store several old ears. f»8* 2 ■ 00LP1PFH u 40 SUBOmSXOB (#306) Ckmt* RicBAiDnjir 440 Villow Drive Good* use PstBit #435 a lb* V f ^>> f Good. Om tadt #433 <Oeat*) Oood. XJ»m Vmit #436 It ms ootad that dua to aaay traas in the area ITIHII tha garaga would not eauaa any eight problems 440 Willow Orlwe to tha nalg^hbora. Wilson novad to approve tha variance of the side yard setback dua to tha narrow width and extrema grade of tha lot as wall as the difficulty of entering tha new garage. Motion seconded by Hurr. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (U). Notion passed unanimously. a Mabusth pxplain<£d tha request. Due to the complexity AUXA of the applleatli^?. tha Planning Comnission decided 2677 Casco Point that tha purpose of this oweting would be to sort out and clearly define the violations and the requests of this application. Iha violations are: 1. Hardcover 0-75' of lakeshore • 75-250* of lakeshore 2. Fence height over 6* in side and rear yard, the requests are: 1. Variance for hardcover from 75*-250'. 2. Variance for fence ^height on side and rear wall» 3«SiiGonditiona^flsar,FanBit for .grading and filling.jgi^i^rrir;t; Comments;wera^heard.;£coi^llr»-^fiolzcr. Hr. Gronberg (civil anglnaar working for Bolzer). Mr. Smerllng, Mr. Nekich (Smerling's attorney), and Mr. Downey (a:tBaighbott oa that otheir side of Holzers). Althouih Mrs. Bolzar, Mrs. Smerllng, Mr. Oberhauser (Smerling's attorney) and several neighbors were present no comments were meda by them at this meeting. The Planning Commission felt the following Issues must be addressed before they could make any recoomendatloos: a 1. Written datamlnation of front yard by die <M.ty attorney. 2. Eaasonlng behind tha height restrictions. So, Rd. .AXSOOLM MBBTZHO OF THE OftONO COUNCIL* HOVTMBER 14* 197§ Flaimiag Comiaaion Maatlag - Oetobat 23. 1978 19Flayiiitg OoaMiaaion raroiwanda approval of tha "v- •PPlJcatloB for lot araa* lot width and * g*raga. Hardship ^ availabla and topography *00000 road to bo reviewed by SiSi?* . auat enter into a HoldHjxalaaa Agreement wJth tha City before construction VMIZAIICt1121 SlMood Avenu (Continued) i. * 0 ^0 Council Meeting - Noveaber 14* 197^ Butler moved* Peae)c aeconded* to approve the variant-XvenSi*^Plying Commiaaion recommendation a of October 23. m2nt't^“th^*^^^^® Harmless Agree- te. Alan Olaon* City. Planner* entered into the record l/^aTamne November 1, 1978* which atateas • * j» Variance - Side yard aetbaek (Zoning District RR-lB) •5[* Pj“» ^ construct a 22* X 24* garage five ^ aouthem lot line. The hardship (82.5») and extreme iSt^iSf.*^®^ of lot to the western Conditional uae permit - Work Seas ion ■2* .... on^gram witt.an.estimated: 200 cubic yards of clean ®^**^^**g- a.*level;^area', for driveway, lawn and plant^s»^vHardship claims are extreme slope and con«»itiona in winter mon?ha. riSfls applicant fumioh an engineering proposed grLea ®.2*? tbe effects on wetlands to the west and drainage area to be reviewei* b/ the city Engineer. Planning Commission Masting - Ho'-amber 13 197R (Variance request only) ' PlAlindjI^ COHSUlSS^OH X#COBB0lld#d ADDirOVal Qf rj^L ***^*"*^^°**^° ”mv. fcit“id“ bl^LSSiSiSu »tated that it wouldSLlsjiij; closer to the side lot line. •435 Richard Perry* Jr. (Continued) »i •. •• ■sii-P ■';«• • "ii. ^7'. v‘^ V..^^, , - •; ‘-V'^ -V^* **^'-^.itJrtE!E‘*%' •>'V # • MGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, N0VCKB8X 14, 1978 % - The hardship clains w?re the narrow lot width and extrena grade of slope to west of lot. •Plannings Conralssion requested Council action on the variance application at the Novenber 14, 1978 neetiag because of the inclenont weather. Page le . ' ■ ‘-.s VARIANCE ‘ 440 Willow Drive (Continued) Council Meeting - November 14, 1978 ««*• .r»* » *>F>v ,• '.s* .. •r -. • .i . ■utler BK>ved, Pesek seconded, to approve the varlaaee^^ request of Richard Perry, Jr., 440 Willow Drive, for construction of the garage only, at this tiM. per Planning Commission recoimandations of- NoveiW>er. 13, 1978. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). . ii-l v' • *■»>!•- <r T' ew -v>n 4 % • e • Nr. Alan Olson, City Planner, presented the City Council with a status report concerning the West Shore Lafayette Bay dredging project. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, presented the City Council with a report from Michael Gaffron, Septic System Inspector, concerning the status on sewer hookups. ^iiyiesT sRORB 'iuun^im iAT= RBPORr:-:''^^c’.- .a. ^ > \*• \ • - ocuf ntOKt ]• V Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the following nemo concerning e sewer connection for Joan Bloom# 1399 Perk Drive# deted Novenber 8# 1978# which statest Mrs# Blooei is requesting reimbursement for tlie coet of a pump required to connect her house to the 1970 Saga Hill sewer project. This property le oee of a few which were to require pumpa as part of the overall project design. Orono ik>llcy# dateniined at the tlsM the project was ordered# has always . been to reimburse the homeowner the extra cost of the pusgis These costs have a\ MOO to : 95S0 over the last three y-ars. s connaotion was made in October. Tha conasetion - aheuld hava bean completed by January, 197S, according to State law and local ordinance. Obviously# connection years ago would have been at leas cost than now. A pump has bean Installed which is apparently under- sited to handle the job. The cost for ^e inplsce 1/2 hp. pump (typical of other such instsllations) is $613.20 including labor. This may have to be replaced by a 1 hp. pump which would cost epproxlaately SBWBR COmiKTXOlii;} 1399 Perk Drive .. > . i -rv- \ i. .ae .Cr w;v. > * * .v ^ .? . »* . ’ ) • * )*•**, * 1 It* •e % •l . .1--: Fa /VlH OS I S3i'is«'6 qr^S?'6 >. •• • / *• % * .*•. *• ^ # • • , . . ... - ■ ’ • •.. • ••“'••• ' • •• / . . j . - . . ■- ..• ‘ . ••'.1, •. *.■ .■ •....Vi' . . . .. . ^ 1 939.8 s1ji/j./ y 9 '/)/ / ; o. TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 11, 1995 SUBJECT: ^2080 Greg Kellenberger and Dana Kdlenberger. 4045 Watertown Road Variance - Public Hearing Application: Applicants seek approval of setback variances for two development plans for additions to the existing residence. Option A proposes a detached garage along with major additions to residence requiring street setback variances to the 5 acre zoning standard. Option B proposes an attached garage requiring street setback and side setback variances. Zoning District: RR-IA Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.27, Subd. 5 (.A) - RR-IA Zoning Standards A. Front/street setback. Required = 100’ Existing = 51’ Proposed deck = 61’ Option A Garage = 58’ Option B Garage = 52’ Variance - Option A Garage = 42’ or 42% Variance - Option B Garage = 48’ or 48% B.Side Required = 50’ Existing = 47’ Proposed with Option B = 26’ Variance for Option B = 24’ or 48% Section 10.03. Subd. 15 (F) - Required side setback for detached garage. Required = 10’ Proposed =15’ No variance required I Zoning File #2080 October 11, 1995 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Request by Applicant to Appear at the October 23 Meeting with Variance Application C - Hardship Statement D - Plat Map E - Property Owners List F - Neighbors Acknowledgment Form G • Map Locating Well in West Yard H - Topographic Detail I - Septic Report J - Proposed Septic Site Plan K - Lot Survey L - Site Plan Option A M - Upper Floor Level N - Lower Floor Level O - Elevations P - Site Plan Option B Q - Lower Floor Option B R • Upper Level Plan Option B Description of Request Applicants have provided two options for improvement of residence. The only difference between both options is the issue of attached versus detached garage and final placement of interior drive. Option A requires a single street setback variance. Option B requires a street setback variance but now as garage addition becomes part of the principal structure the side setback of 50’ is required. The existing structure is located 47 ’ from the east side lot line. Applicants’ hardship statement reviews reasons for locating additions and garage structure within east side vard. A new curb cut will be created further west on the property. Gerhardson has approved the new curb cut finding that sighting distance is greatly improved. The east lot line curb cut will be removed. Option B will allow for use of the existing drive along the east side of the residence for entering rear yard improvements. Option A shows a new roadway leading to the rear yard at the west side oV the residence. Staff is concerned that this may create problems based on the location of the well and the future septic site. Staff prefers Option B (attached garage) that would allow for the continued use of the existing drive at the east side of the residence and further insuring that construction and vehicular traffic keep away from septic test area. The mature birch tree within east side yard cannot be saved either with Option A or B. Greg Kellenberger, a landscape architect, has advised that there are very few years left for the tree. i Zoning File #2080 October 11, 1995 Page 3 The property is not located within a shoreland area so hardcover standards arc not applicable. As property well exceeds 1.99 acres, there are no structural coverage issues. .Applicants have .asked the Planning Commission to consider the two options tor development as they are not decided yet as to what plan is best for their purpose and needs. Staff has advised that both options require the granting of different variances by the City. The Cit>- cannot be expected to grant variances for multiple options of development. The City shall act on a smgle plan once the applicants have made their decision. Planning Commission members may have other issues they wish applicant to address. Hardship Statement Review Exhibits C, G. H. I and J, hardships are reviewed as follows: 1, Location of existing residence on 10+ acre parcel. The only suitable soils for septic disposal systems is located within the higher and gentler sloped elevations to the west of the residence. a.The location of the well in the west side yard also forces septic further west on property in order to meet the required separation setback from well. 4.Southern portions of the property have been rendered useless for septic development because of the historic horse use of the property. D.Whether Option A or B is chosen by applicants, both development plans will result in the loss of the mature birch tree in the east side yard. Review applicants’ site plan, an ash tree will be relocated as a result of the new construction to the south. 6.A major stand of trees and plantings along the east lot line will minimize any visual impact of the expansions within the substandard side yard. 7 No other variances will be required with these improvements. Options of Action To either approve (in your approval you must require applicants to select their preferred option for development; staff strongly encourages development under Option B) or to table providing applicants additional time if unable to make a decision concerning the development plan. .1 ft ^ ■'9 i N X y I • Iniiial Applicaiion Fes S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional varianc Renewal Variance Fee S 100.00 (no change from original application; Variance for non-conionning structures S200.00 Arier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •.I WWM • • • r . APPLIC.A^ “ J Name ^ w AddresTi iH Phone (home) ~ 4^41 Phone ( work) 4 U> <ri r^QjCw; Ceg-City: _ Zip:*^*^ OWTS-ER (if different than -------------------------- Name (SZge=a.V < . V'-=i t SNfifc'X^S.M’hone (ttork)--------- ------------- Address: PANJA ^ ■ lgt=J t ------------------------- P description OF REQLTST Describe request in detail: ^ y^^'^'^ch additional sheets if necessary^) Estimated Construction Cost S ^OO. PCO VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width y Setback: E ront Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specif)’) WAnn<;HTP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^nrino ^erSf undue h^hip or practical difficulty or unusual property condit.ons preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary ) .• t \ 4 REQUIRED SUB.MITT.\LS All of the following information mu^ he submitted bv the application (jeadhn^ d^te in ord^ for vour annlication to be consiriered complete: 1. 2. / Compieted Application Form " Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you mus rtKf^;n thic licr lahek and man from Hennepin County Deparnneni of Finance, A-603, / 3. 4. Cenified Propeny Owners List of owners witnin lou . «uiu p.a. v/-- --- obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, j'fecmed surveyor) and include calculations as required. In addition, pro\ide one ( ) copy x / topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes In ,dd;rmn nrovide one (1) copy 8'^" X ir for reproduction. 5. 6. ■^are'^propored.^^In^^^^^^^ 0) ^opy x 11" for reproduenon. / Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provi I let r.f th* Uoui namp«; tincludc marital status) of a 7. 8. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/: x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mtetest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As LiTddendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Please remember Uut vour ..riuncp anniicaiion is not complete if the above information has "Pt been inoldtted. ^ applicant MeS agiWmtXb-prbvidi Admij^straior agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coven4,^-^cm^l..^9 fndTo“ ;tam expenses'incurred in review of to application and cemfles that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature ^7- ?h'e wne’r^ftoy ^ «> >“5 aPP«““0" “<* “*ori2es reasonable Owner’s Signature ^ A I Vrant miKt havc all subiiuttals’ into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission »g!L-S5 this change prior to the meeting. 8 .N to:Ji ^ -77* C^A a - o"^ I*. O. DO>X V r55 ‘2-3 I'-Vt- ^(Zi^JsiL^itflii +0 4o oAfr'v^ uatia.w:«. oAtJii-Wow ov^ Ov*.^ V j»vn ^ 4o4C lO0±2feJ«»J'— “baAd . o? I oCoAixi Wc 4 IJI voouV^i UW- • ov^ 'PBSUI[^ Kfl-cV 1 - -fl ft r^Qov <A0u'^f<^fe>^•t^^^ - fv^Ajc4>Ul C)c4oWfl^ pQft>«p<g4- p! Q^X*^ c Jmv .62^1 t Ucus-Ac»^C.\-l . Gusm^ laWi-^anyiL. October 10, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth - City of Orono Building and Zoning Administrator Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Jeanne: The purpose of this letter is to state the hardships (or constraints) associated with building an addition on to the existing house located at 4045 Watertown Road in Orono, MN. We purchased this house in late January, 1995, and our intent is to remodel it prior to moving there in the spring of 1996. Our purpose for remodeling this home is to update it and provide room for our family, horses, and home office. We’ve chosen to remodel the house in its present location to utilize the first floor of the existing house as our office per the code that requires a home office to be part of the primary structure on the site. Adding onto the existing structure in its present location preserves the existing open areas for pasture and views for neighboring homes. It also helps to minimize tree loss by preserving the numerous existing trees along the north, west, and east property lines while still providing the required area for a new septic system (see report by S-P Testing). Because of the heavy clay soils and perched water table on this site, the septic system will need to be located to the west of the house (and north of the barn) in an existing lawn area (all other areas are too low or con pacted to provide a suitable site for this system). This lawn area is the only other area close enough to the existing house that would provide a suitable building site for an addition. We realize that a variance is necessary to remodel this house; however, the actual footprint of the new addition will be no closer to the road than the existing house and will improve the least desirable part of this structure in it’s existing location rather than disrupt another part of the site. Thank you for your consideration - if there is anything I need to do prior to the meeting on October 16.1995, please give me a call. Sincerely, \ZJLO ^ Gregory S. Kellenberger IT ■% i*• • * - .•VC •• •. • <« .•*.••• rr^ •• - • •'V « - ••^- ■* • • •••.*%« •• • •#» •• • .•• ;• • * • •- - IW« 4« MI*(M'0^*ff -r •• / '/’X :/ ' ^ • •^-* ■ •' •V / i /•4»*r*r*is_____4 ' rail<....... IO*«4 4f SI*»F< P *'* ih'iv/ ----------------------------" -------------------------X 3/-//5-2 5-V// ^ Ife - - .- •» _ I ^ I -,■ • •••>••..-••• '• .•••• - I ♦- ^ 4ip.. #*.• •• ^••* i ( i -•ar ff/7- 7 / J- f i « 7// f7/-y = 1 III2.M HO’^T'irt ' ^e^ARB PARK-^W- •. ^ •md'rni. ai' m.. *. a**.- .* . .. • • * . . . • .<v>« • *y\* % t ^ . • ,^ . • I ., . . •• • • • •..• *• 4 T I • - V .. • »t r* •-« • ^ ♦ ..• • • • •• • i**-. ,• ' *• •. • •*. ' ^ * '• ♦ %'I** •»' l. •' r*#* » ,'•••♦ •* • •% • I- *..' * • .*;' \ V'.., .. • . .. .•* * -..**-vl •‘ #4 •w«7»i .'.» > « •.. tV.r T • V J; • ■• • • ■% ••* ‘r. ?1 .* i ? V V.;;. ... ;./:v r-v;.-j-i-a A.* :v*r October 10, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth - City of Orcno Building and Zoning Administrator Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Jeanne: The purpose of this letter is to state the hardships (or constraints) associated with building an addition on to the existing house located at 4045 Watertown Road in Orono, MN. We purchased this house in late January, 1995. and our intent is to remodel it prior to moving there in the spring of 1996. Our purpose for remodeling this home is to update it and provide room for our farriily, horses, and home office. We’ve chosen to remodel the house in its present location to utilize the first floor of the existing house as our office per the code that requires a home office to be part of the primary structure on the site. Adding onto the existing structure in its present location preserves the existing open areas for pasture and views for neighboring homes. It also helps to minimize tree loss by preserving the numerous existing trees along the north, west, and east property lines while still providing the required area for a new septic system (see report by S-P Testing). Because of the heavy clay soils and perched water table on this site, the septic system will need to be located to the west of the house (and north of the barn) in an existing lawn area (all other areas are too low or compacted to provide a suitable site for this system). This lawn area is the only other area close enough to the existing house that would provide a suitable building site for an addition. We realize that a variance is necessary to remodel this house: however, the actual footprint of the new addition will be no closer to the road than the existing house and will improve the least desirable part of this structure in it’s existing location rather than disrupt another part of the site. Thank you for your consideration - if there is anything I need to do prior to the meeting on October 16, 1995, please give me a call. Sincerely, Gregory S. Kellenberger I RUN DATE 09/l«/fS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY II^CffiflATiaN SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»MERS LISTtATCH M2!»•------- CMNIR HAHi • TAXRAYiil NME/AOM\ SS Sl-llS-23 14 0007 04100 NATERTCM4 RO DiOOMH H SHOLL OUQUAN H SHOLL 4100 MATERTOHN RD HAPLE PLAIN MN 55S59 !ii: • •% i *#r• PROP AMR •ry OMNER NAME TAXPAYER ;> NMC/AMR«r’R 'll M S1-110-2S 41 0004 0410S HATERTONN RO 0 eXSUERE • A 6IGUERE PAMULEE MARIE SAHCHUK 410B MATERTOItl RO HAPU PLAIN rtl S5SS9 <’ PROP AOOR 'r'!' (MCR NAME TAXPAYER V N4ME/A00R SO S1-116-2S 44 0002 DOOM ADDRESS UNASSIOCD STATE OP MIMI STATE OF MINN lOTEl) (LUCE LINE TRAIL I ; ••. !# « 1 . \ . ’J.rf J 4 i. V <K .« \ it" "U.f V :• 4 ; *?t' t T• f; ; • •* ** J • M ■ i ' py ^, REPORT NO. P14SS4Q1 PAGE SSO S1-11S-2S 41 0001 04040 HATERTONN RO P A A R P SraEJA PATRICK AyKATHLEEN P SmEJA 4040 HATERTOm RO HAPLE PLAIN MN SSSSf SO S1-118-2S 41 OOOS 0404S NATERTCM4 RO 0 S i 6 S RELLEN0ER6ER OANA A GREGORY REUENOERGER 4045 NATERTCRfI RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55554 50 Sl-llS-21 41 0005 04005 HATERTCMN RO C r DALE A G L PALILSON CHRtSTOPHER F DALE 6ER1 L PAULSON 4005 HATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN m 55559 58 51-110-25 41 0012 04025 HATERTONN RO J S A P 0 RICE JEROME STANLEY RICE 4025 HATERTONN RO HAPLE PLAIN m 55559 50 51-110-25 44 0004 00050 CRISTOFORl CIR KENDRICK 0 MELROSE KENDRICK 0 MELROSE 50 CRISTOFORl CIR HAPLE PLAIN MN 55559 TOTAL OATCN 502 00008 OQo 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATKW, TO THE DEST bF MY KNONLEDGC AND KLIEF.no-95,.DATE 4 . /•i i I • ‘V, •’ ! 4• •' i' .f * #• ; i ir -T ; -a J • • ' f- laiacect Prop.n>-0«.ers-AcUo.vledg.mcnt Fonn , h-l r,fL(rn< I d ■ I (w») l^f'vv.A- f p- ' ----------- r address] [print nan:t(s)l ^ -,nr-,ve~.t=t or proposed use of the property located have reviewed ±e plans for the propose u Acplication No.-------------■ at 4C4S Ej also retereed .0 as U.o , _____ T /'vL-f*'] am (are) not asked to C4S ------ r, acknowledsement, I (we) am (are) *.ww - I (we) understand that m executic- uu ^ jnerely to confinn for the City declare approval or disapproval or the^ ‘ ' ^/pians and ±at the proposed neighbor’s Council that I (we) am (are) aware oi Lae uaa. project or use recuires C cui Wy ^ approva 'x>Ai Date ? />C 1 Date -----td*- [prini namet,s)l Tl^e) understand"!^in e.tecuung ?oJ of ie'tmpr'oremsot plans and that the proposed ne.ghbor s project or use requires CouncU approval. Property Owner d7..- print address] fiootf Date O - ^ /-U / —/ % f >- Date Property Owner -id Use App![cS.'^U-rB» zl?g Offirel <uys prior to^Sie scheduled meeting date. I, .»r. :• . • \ * ' » . • vs 'vv- * « • ; • * , . ..I -• a‘• ’ :v '• ’ I • V* . • • INSPECTION RECORD PUMPOUT RECORD DATE COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS /2L “Q' A^o ^14 c //\j AJoT' LocAi^t^ C - CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - NONCONFORMING LOCATION SKETCH I ( / i I I I ' • \ ; I / ^ - X / / \ Include: 1) Well location U)i^rf/ZTOuti^ 2) Distance from house to septic tanks, ditt. boK, and drainfield 3) North arrow arid road f I.! * • t • • • t « • ♦ • •.» ^ • . i**>* •/ • •1 'A y t,* ■ ’ ■' *'• . •t * 1 1 ■i-.; • %.• .• • # LEG ■I—I—^ o= /TT. ? •,S| s"r^y.: *. • jrrr S-P TESTING, INC.Steven B. Schirmers — MPCA Cert. No. 627 951 .Katycio Lane NE • St. Michael. MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 o req Kellenberger 4045 Water-Own ?.d. Orono, Henn. Co., Seore.-ncer 18, 1995 7 7 J J/ * ✓/ This sits has an existing Non-Conforni.ng TLisonaUy System •.■hich was not found but the soils J saturated) less than 3' below the ground sur.ace in all possible ar'^as for a sysben. When che house is reconsuJCted, ‘'‘J® tuipty Une fLm the home to the existi.ng tank or tanks i abandon, DUT.D & fill with soil. This On-Siu^ Sewage Treatment System is Designed for a Type bedroom D«i|ned in acoordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. The soils on this site are a clay loan. A seasonally high water table (mottled soil) was found at 14" to 22" surface. Due to the seasonally high water table, ^ Mound System will need to be installed to treat septic e-fluent. The prooosed sites are on approximately 6%^to 8% slope f ^ aporoval from the city Inspector for over o%. -his is whe on y area available for an On-Site Sewage Treat.ment System wnich is undisturbed or has mottled soil greater tahn L2" below the ground surface. The soils at a depth of 12" have a percolation rate averaging 5.4 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 back drainage to the pumping chamber. The distribution pipes shall have their ends capped. 3e sure the rocl< and sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mou.nded area must be turned over, D^Su break up the sod, be sure not to over work. The power suooly and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping biiamber in a weather proof enclosure. A f must be installed with a light ana sound device, this is in case or a pump failure. CONT'D 4045 Watertown Hd. Orono (2) All neighboring wells are located greater than /5 away rron .he oroDosed treatment area. The well on this site will oe g^reater than 50* away i will also need approval from the city Inspec.or. Keep all heaw equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked or. before construction. This Design is not valid & .*.e system will need to be relocated if failure to protect tne areas proposed for On-Site Sewage Treatment occurs. With proper installation and maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than gray water (laundry, showers, etc.) human waste & toilet tissue should be disposed into the septic tanks. Garbage disposals are not recommended. Excessive amounts of soaps, cleaning agents & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & clean your tank through the manhole by a certified pumper every year if you have 1 tank and every 2 years if you have two tanks. SBS/ds ^ • 4:.' ' t t , hi ■ 5 »i; } (0) Cd tX . / .4 ✓ sS e ®•t |8 1 -i*»i *<y 3 _________ i 1 I 3 o o T. :v:^ mu ti tr U lU KELLENKROCR RIKMMCf OMONO.MM ml jiii»£Eta n \ 7\ ^ \l m 77^ 1• •>. t .."I • • •• iJ r »«• opt top A 4 I. !t7 : ------r ,- • • •, -.r ^ • jT—. . - -1'. ..' 1.k. . Tw • » « ■■* ‘ - • •• • •- • • • — «.• # • «» •• - - .■ ‘'-j:.* *• - T • ;^* 1 . • — “ * • • .—----- T . ~ V'-il • « • • • .. V m *-i *'t- • • ▼ _ . 11 • • •• ^ '.A •-vr:;. ^ - iM* * ^f. • V. • Y11 'h"ro .#V■■-'i l.‘ . r< r-l I • ' k -------------- ■ •.........* • • ■• %•• * »k ►•■ lIlN , ..i • ij »«* f*.} : I* • ' •Irr. ’VI,,I* * '\. n.i t ;i'll lJ'M , 11 •• * I ■ *»l e.UEV. I* ♦ • • ; , . % • I . •* I ‘ . • 1 ,• ‘i «• r. ^ • i *V , ■; I / / ■ ■ * « • I * V.f V'* ^ .•■• ' • • ■• • ;j • • ■ ,' '••Vi' 4/f■■■.'■. .!. '.i . 1,: h.5CV>'^'.I ' ,'S 1 '• ' ^ • • • • , *1 • • » •; I •,•,* J'.Ij: *' V . ’V ^ '! ' 'VV’fe^ ■'.. Jii, v: \*N .it: H^V V*’ •. » i /• * / ♦// / X IP •:! //' / / t' TTr ■ O C ‘ I'*-1^' J* 0^2? i/> p ,V^ i>‘'X 0 2 VI" V Z>. iV. ;. / / f ' ) f\ V -''iv-;.i i I f);. r »?: Ls K i.: ! o’v'' :l • •' - I r-S':' ' 'Vi! hv•*. •! • 1*A t lu r .. . V; -’:■A'W^ ■ '/•ir:'*•: . ViiVi, ' *-T* '*. ll/•r •■'t • j / •VK' i.‘{ •• / • ' # * A.U r> V.- N. A ■ ; %i0:’ r .* *i' * y'\ 4 •JK; / I • *.* ‘ / \ <\7 I » •.V o •O' 0 o 7T> TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 12, 1995 SUBJECT: #2081 Patrick Walsh and Nancy Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road * Variances Public Hearing Application: Application involves one or one and half story?? additions at the east and Micst side the residence. An approximate 9*xl T concrete stoop at the new entrance at the northwest comer of residence. Improvements will also involve a second tloor expansion over the existing garage and an expansion at the lakeside of residence providing expanded bedroom areas. These improvements will result in an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback by the upper level expansion of the bedroom area. The bedroom addition will also encroach the lakeshore protected area. Excesses of hardcover exist in the 0-75’ and also within the 75-250 setback area. Major increases in hardcover are proposed within the 75-250* setback area. Zoning District - LR-IB Lot area = 9.792 s.f. or .22 acres Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance for expansion of structure within lakeshore protected area. Required = 75' Existing = 68.6’ Proposed = 68.6* Variance = 6.4* or 8.5% Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Proposed bedroom expansion at lakeside qJ' residence encroaches average lakeshore setback line by 6 . Section 10.22. Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. 0-75’ setback = 4.960 s.f. Allowed = 0 E.xisting = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9% Proposed = 592.1 s.f. or 11.9% No change is proposed I Zoning File ?#2081 October 12. 1995 Paee 2 75-250’ setback area » 4.832 s.f. Allowed = 1.208 s.f. or 25% E.xisting = 1.943.8 s.f. or 40.2% Proposed = 2,718.3 s.f. or 56.3®^o Variance = 1,510.3 s.f. or 31.2% Hardcover increase = 774.5 s.f or 16% Section 10.24. Subd. 5 (B) - Street setback variance required for expansion above garage located within a substandard street setback. Required = 35’ E.xisting = 20.9’ Proposed = 20.9’ Variance = 14.1’ or 40.2% Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Structural coverage. Total lot area = 9,792 s.f. Allowed = 1,469 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,351.3 s.f or 13.8% Proposed = 1,971.3 s.f. or 20.1% Variance = 502.3 s.f. or 5.1% Structural increase = 620 s.f or 6.3% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicants Addendum/Hardship Statement C - Plat Map D - Property Owmers List E - Neighbors Acknowledgment Form F - Survey/Site Plan G - Hardcover Inventory H - First Floor Plan I - Second Floor Plan J - Staff SketchT^ew Hardcover Improvements K - Elevations Description of Request The one and a half story additions at the sides of the residence will allow for expansions of first floor living area. On the left side the improvements will allow for an expanded master bedroom and closet area and on the right side a mud room and kitchen with seating area. The left side addition will also allow for an expansion of an upper level bathroom. It is not clear from Zoning File ^2081 October 12, 1995 Page 3 information if side additions 'MW allow for any other expansions on second level. The upper level bedroom expansions and recreation room will be placed over the existing structure. Both side additions will meet the required side yard setback of 10’ nor will these additions encroach the average lakeshore setback line nor be located within the 0-75 setback area. Applicjmts propose an approximate 9‘xl T concrete stoop at the new entrance at the northwest comer of the residence. All of the improvements result in an increase of \6% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area where 40.2% exist. New structural additions result in a 620 s.f. or 6.3% increase in structural coverage. Structural coverage exists at 13.8% and is now proposed at 20.1% (15/o allowed). Statement of Hardship Please review E.xhibit B, hardships are reviewed as follows. 1. 2. The lot is small. No additional lands are available and no adjacent lands are available to combine with the homestead parcel. The elevation of lake in relation to the property prevents a basement being installed beneath residence. .Applicants ’ storage and utility facilities are all located within the first floor living area. Issues for Consideration 1. 3. 4. Will Planning Commission members recommend 16% increase in hardcover improvements within the 75-250’ setback area? Are there existing improvements that can be removed or reduced in size? Can proposed improvements be reduced in size? Will members approve a 5.1 structural coverage variance for this property? Can the structural additions be reduced? Can there be more of a vertical expansion and less of a horizontal? Do members have a problem with expansions where portions of a structure exist within substandard setback areas? WTiat of the average lakeshore setback encroachment by the bedroom expansion? Will it impact the views of the adjacent residences? Options of Action To denv or approve as proposed or to approve as amended or table providing applicants additional time to amend plans that would address concerns of the Planning Commission. \ ^ CITY OF ORONO - VAJUANCE .APPLICATION 4^ »-• •V * ^ ^ f-^ v\ r• H r \Is "■M - V — - :•1 _..^ . . . ... ^ w WVri^V- V %. •. . -t -it • r' K • •:,•'. r*4** fw'-iiA_ _- ^ “T. U-. ■ Initial .Application Fes S200.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V^’anance Fes SICO.CO j j (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnicrures 5-OO.UU .After-Lhe-Fact Fees (Double application tee) PROPERTY rsTOR-NUTION;^ , ^,-T fste -Mr- roiML-L^ Propem' Identification Winded on required sun-ey.^ ^ Attach legal description to application it a . (monih/year) Dat^ropenv [7.^^ i. t. U‘ A Prefenius^ proper:}': J^residentiai ----- Zoning District:--------------------------------- other (specify). . Phone (home) -453 3 .applicant j n|^e.p^Ax.r^rlf^ //7- g7 3^ OWNER (if different than applic^t) Name_ Address: Phone(home) Phone (\vork)_ City:Zip: 7 Estimated Construction Cost S___g_description of ^QCEST _ ^ ^ Describe request m detail. -r-7: VARIANCES^^QCTBEP ^ Hardcover 'XJ-°' Average Lakeshore Setback: Other (specify) Front compliance with Zoning Code requirements;-------------------------------------- %/rr (attach additional sheets if necessary) / REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must he submittpri hv the application deadline date m order for vQur application to be considered complete; 1. j. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Complered Application Form . , - r Cenifted Prcpen>' Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtam this list from Hennep:n County Department of Finance. A-60^. Govt Center, 348-_'-71). Plat Man (obtained with propenv’ owners list). , ^ ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i x 11 tor T(Dpo2raphic sun ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are prooosed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/:’’ x 11" tor reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views .provide one (1) copy 8>/^ x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital stanis) ot all persons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons vou wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your .ppHrnrinn is not coinnlete if the above information has not been included. The applicant hereby agrees to provide aU information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee Payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that me information supplied Applicant’s Signamre ------------s,. ^ ^ --------- Jty' o k^dL/^---^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and CouncU members for purposes o^vestigation and verification of this request. owner’s Signature-:^-------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plaaning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 * • % •. •* -"V ^ ! September 21, 1995 Jeanne Mabusth Mike Gaffron Building & Zoning Adm. City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 56Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Subject: Lana Use Planning - Zoning Variance Application Hardcover Variance Description of Hardship Dear Jeanne and Mike: We have experienced a hardship because our house is located on a lot that is nearly level with the lake. Since the property is close to lake level we are unaole to have a basement for utilities and storage. The lu. r: of a basement has caused us to use much of our limited first -^iOor square footage for utilities. Excluding the garage our \rst floor square footage is only 890 square feet. Lack of first floor square footage and the lack of a basement has caused the following hardships: 1. The kitchen is in the only entry/hallway of the house. 2. It was necessary to install the washer & dryer in the foyer/entry closet. 5. The kitchen lacks an eating area. 4. The area that could be used for the utility room/washer-dryer is presently being used as a downstairs bedroom. 5. The water softener is in a small cupboard in the kitchen. 6. The water heater is on a shelf between the kitchen and a second floor attic. 7. The bathroom is only a 3/4 bath and lacks space to add on. — -'f fa ^ The proposed addition would solve the hardship problem by doing tne following: FIRST FLOOR Add bedroom space and space for a kitchen. SECOND FLOOR Add an upstairs bathroom, enlarge the two existing bedrooms and allow room for more storage. Thank you for your help and the help of your department in this matter. Sincerely? Patrick^J. & Nancy S. Walsh (10) '«• l*!l (571 r rVi... ^T » A. ^ / k X5i y ;" T0MKAVI •T y 19 «60 7 /(<)'I :• ^ fO;^ Iff *1 ('" '^> V^<S^/ / '« ^ I ' mdi’I '^’> 2 '* 'i 30 rsa.« <S7. I 0ARPEI!9 (en \ «? 1 \ W9’*vT7 ioTT iGMJ&iUM ^’frr or 'rt or i« • , ; lOT •rl* (?6) . -i" § <«> . ?/;••••• (Z4) ». I '4.^ I «• •> •• f%. • UT) , i. ( If) 71 \i» n (53)V(^^^ ---------------- igT^iT'O'^^'-1 «,,%?v.‘, * (17) 4>\ ' / 1? '■6 137) M (60) “\(6?)V V;;V" \(77)'’ ^'^V(?3)\ t-rtf?4K JtK ->»)\» (12)?.\ ’• fOt aK RUN DATE 09/22/95 PROP AODR OWNER NAME lAXPAfER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 07-117-23 33 0001 1410 REST POINT RD ROBERT G BREDESON ROBERT G BREDESON 15 E ST ALBANS RD HOPKINS MN 55305 07-117-23 33 0004 1398 REST POINT RD L K JOHNSON & C B JOHNSON LYLE K JOHNSON 2737 IRVING AVE S MPLS MN 55408 07-117-23 33 0007 1380 REST POINT RD W & V KRAKE JR WALTER F & VAUGHN D KRAKE 1380 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 07-117-23 33 0011 1385 REST POINT RD SUZANNE AUSTIN 229 OAKWOOD RD HOPKINS MN 55343 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 07-117-23 33 0002 1400 REST POINT RD DAVID A WILLIAMS ETAL DAVID A WILLIAMS 1400 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0003 1406 REST POINT RD L R HORN & M HORN LESTER R & MYRTLE HORN 1406 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 r 07-117-23 33 0005 1396 REST POINT RD P S N WALSH PATRICK J WALSH 1390 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 07-117-23 33 0006 1386 REST POINT RD TERRY C SMITH ETAL TERRY C SMITH 1386 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 on *C )• / 07-117-23 33 0009 1395 REST POINT RD ROBERT G BREDESON ROBERT G BREDESON 15 E ST ALBANS RD HOPKINS MN 55305 07-117-23 33 0010 1405 REST POINT RD WENDY M OLSON WENDY M OLSON 1405 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 CO 'ii: 07-117-23 32 0037 1375 REST POINT RD M B & L K GERLICHER MICHAEL B & LYNNE G.-RLICHER 1375 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF r»« rr mi 4^/'^ MtOOi')) )i •| ^ " Adjacent ftop<:rt;-'<>™ersVAckno«ledgemeni ..... .<^,-1^ __of _ /?y6 [print namevs)]print address] of the property located have reviewed the plans for^^e proposed 'sJq' at j-^Cjn V7.U PT feo referred to as Land tse Application No. . ,.e, understand -dial in e..e=utind Z mfci“ C»:a.rr(tra^Tate-vit: 0^ Plans and that die proposed neighbor's project or use requires C^anctl approval. >r (P\ ,J / Propertv' Owner Date Propertv- Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)l [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located also referred to as Land Use Application No.------—^at____________________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner .Appucrn,';:ari:.b'^°" t^ln” m ^e ^ to the scheduled meeting date. <-n. a J Uji t r \ LAKE MINNETONKA WEST ARM DFMARS-GABRIEL YD SUR\^YORS. INC, 30JO Mofhfv lon<» No rft^outh. UN 55441 1 h»rpty c«rVfy that >9 o inip and correct representoVon of a su'yt*y of ni0 No. (ho boundaries of the above doscrtbod land and at (he location of all buildings, i* any. thereon, and all visible ercrocch-vents. If any. from or on said land.8 790 C As stj'veved by me th»s day of , iQ Book-Page ________ _ 334/12 CERTIFICATE LeQ Qi Descrislior: LOt 4, "Subdivision o* cOf *4 '=?esf Point Perk Lc<e \4ir)netonka ^Li^'aco^er B^eckco^r S^*bccK Zone r- 75’75’-250 LXtSt^ro '^arrjeove'' House <Sc Garage '31.3 1220 Cn'veea/ 324 A 420 CcrrrorQ f%-/ ^ .c-ascaze /Pock 66.4 * ’ J. 7 A'ood DecKs/Steos •ij 24 Rera n nq ,vc/j 'Q 9.3 9nck Surface 20 ’’atcl eicrdCCven 592.1 1943.8 ~otai ^rea >r> Zor\e 4960 4832 zjf^sting Hardcover Z 11.9%40.2% » ra/*/ /J/ S V ^ • ^S/ 3 //9 //f/s i0v*e) // 9*^* /ppa ^ ^S2 ■ /^7S /SS7 ^ ^T/e 3 PREPARED FOR: , i l^ ‘1 I • ) mr>021 X7 I /-—/^— V»40 (i / N vO \ -t .P ? ' ;0 ZO-A, "4 S(c TZ:: :~i _z z~ izhzz:^;! tzzzzLzz-zrz y. mC\ 70 8 X N N :s\ CPm c? t 0 I 0 o -j 1 i^zzT_ eezz-j: ?o '2 -X - - 3’(o 'iP .(p 'v,Y' \ LAKE MINNETONKA west arm .1 r- « -v 'A-tc. I ,o ;?AG iLe.. I'-P"-. i>Ai 1—Ak-Ei- E_'lJ2.V'AT“ I OnJ KI ot to -S:cALe —I--------4 - I. . iji . \ \ 1V, '4 To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit>' Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 13, 1995 Subject:#2077 Charles W. Hommeyer. Jeffrey Bowen and Kenneth Rolland, 4119/4125/4127 Oak Street - Class 11 Subdivision, Replat - Sketch Plan Review Application: The sketch plan proposes a replat of 15 lots into 3 lots all meeting or exceeding the area requirement of 1 acre. The application involves the vacation of Park Avenue, Clyde Place and the western extension of Oak Street. The City maintains road (O^ Street) up to the intersection of Linden and Oak. An unimproved section of public dedicated road serves as a private drive serving 4 properties. Zoning District: LR-IB Total area = 3+ acres Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.12- Vacation of public road. 2. Section 10.24 - LR-1B standards. 3. Section 11.10. Subdivision 6,7 and 8 - Sketch plan review List of Exhibits A - Application B - Location Map C - Preliminary Plan/Replat D - Topographic Map E (A-C) Staff Sketches/Access Options F - Pattern of Existing Development G (1 -3) Gustafson Report 10/10/95 Review of Application The sketch plan proposes the replat of 15 lots within the Minnetonka Summit Park Subdivision to three lots each meeting or exceeding the one acre minimum lot standard of the LR-IB Zomng District. Refer to Exhibit C, applicants ask to also vacate Park Avenue, Clyde Place and the western end of Oak Street A shared access is proposed for Lots 1 and 2 via Linden Avenue. Applicants current addresses at Oak Street wiU be changed to Linden. Lot 3 will retain access via the existing driveway that currently ser^'es 4 properties. 4111 Oak Street will continue to share the drive with Lot 3. Zoning File #2077 October 13. 1995 Patze 2 Applicants' plan confirms that a 15' walking easement will continue to provide access to the 30 wide public access to the lake. The center line of the rav ine has been designated within the right-ot-way of Oak Street. The City will retain a drainage easement over the ravine within the portions of Oak Street that are to be vacated as well as a northward drainage area located within Clyde Place and the western border of Lots 1. 2. 3 and 4, Block 3 (review Exhibit D). The Citv- will ask for 20* wide utility easements over all municipal utilities. Refer to Exhibit C, note sewer line within Park Avenue and Oak Street. The three applicants met with the Public Works Director and the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed vacation and replat and received concepmal approval. Each of the substandard building envelopes would now be increased to greater than one acre in area. In reviewing the sketch of the proposed replat and surrounding area affected by the vacation (Exhibits C and F), the review staff raised additional concerns. Rev iew Exhibit F. the only public access to Parcel A is via Clyde Place or Park Avenue. The northern portion of Park Avenue does not connect to the southern boundary' of Parcel A and Clyde Place is an unimproved public access. Linden does not abut Parcel A. Refer to Exhibit B, Parcel A is located in the LR-IB Zoning District and is within the MUSA. The owner could legally request an extension of sewer and div'ide the three-plus acre parcel into three lots. The current driveway easement that serves Parcel A at the east boundary connecting to Tonkawa (Bennet property. Application #2078) can not serve a future division of property. If the City is to vacate Clyde Place and Park Avenue or the extension of Oak Street. Parcel A will no longer have access to a public road. Parcel A may continue to use the private driveway easement until such future time that the property may be subdivided. Staff has addressed this concern by providing three sketches for achieving legal access to Parcel A and also obtaining adequate right-of-way for Linden Avenue that would now serve two additional units (three curb cuts). Rev iew the three staff sketches. Exhibits E (A - C), designating three options for access. Note all three involve the Bennet property currently being considered for a two-lot subdivision at your October meeting (Application #2078). Review Exhibit G, Gustafson has selected Option A of the three staff sketches. Note also Linden's right-of-way is widened by obtaining 20' of additional right- of-way from applicants. Staff has discussed the request for additional right-of-way with both the owner of Parcel A and Jim Jensen, a representative of the Bennets. Mr. Jensen feels that dedication of additional right-of-way for an extension of Linden Avenue at that location would have a major impact on the proposed house to be developed on Lot 2 of the subdivision. He has also voiced concern with defining an easement ouUot along the south side noting that his client did not create the back/front lot configuration. They have no control over Parcel A. He notes the owners only option may be to withdraw their two-lot application if the platting of a section of that cul-de-sac has a negative impact on the building site. Zoning File #2077 October 13, 1995 Page 3 Staff advised that it is consistent tor the City to ask for the creation of an outlot over shared driveways in subdivisions that did not invoke back/tront lot considerations. Fhis is a policv ot the City. The cul-de-sac will have an impact on the septic site located at the southwest comer and will have to be moved to north and east. Staff has also reviewed the options of access with Mr. Knight, the owner of Parcel A. He had no objection to the proposals, at least not at the time staff reviewed the conceptual drawing with Mr. Knight. Knight may have other comrrents for the Planning Commission at your meeting. The acquisition of additional right-of-way for an improved Linden Avenue was not discussed by- staff at the conceptual meeting with the applicants. In Gustafson's report he asks that the public right-of-way be retained just beyond the access driveway to 4111 Oak Street. As City does not maintain Oak Street beyond the Linden Avenue intersection., we would recommend that a 30' outlot be platted over the section of roadway shared by both 4111 Oak Street and 4119 Oak Street. The City Engineer was incorrect in assuming that lots at 4125 and 4127 Oak Street were to continue to be served by this roadway. They will achieve access at Linden. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be served at a single curb cut at Linden, then branch off to their respective driveways (refer to Sketch E-B). Staff would note that the owner of 4111 Oak Street is aware of the application and supports the proposal. The City Enaineer supports the proposal as long as with the replat certain conditions are attached to the approval (refer to E.\hibit G). The following list may be used as an outline defining the issues that must be addressed so that applicants can make a decision as to whether they wish to proceed with the replat. Issues to be addressed are as follows: 1.In light of the discussion at our most recent workshop concerning the acquisition of right-of-way and location of cul-de-sacs, should the City be obtaining additional right-of-way with this replat/vacation application? If we vacate Clyde Place and Park Avenue, should the City be required to provide public access to Parcel A? 3.If the Bennet application is withdrawTi, should roadway with portion of cul-de-sac be platted within the subject property? Should Parcel A be solely responsible for providing turnaround? 4.Should a 15’ walking trail be retained through Oak Street right-of-way to allow for a walking path for property owners to the immediate east to get to the ravine area? Zoning File i^2077 October 13. 1995 Pane 4 5. Others raised by Planning Commission. If applicants proceed with the formal replat/vacation application, the subdivision must be reviewed by various utility companies so that they may obtain the necessary easements over their utility lines. These easements must be located and dedicated on the plat. / JJ J - cm' OF ORONO -Ci- . GENERAL L.AND USE .APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site .-Address £///f y/z r ^/Tj ^ Tvce of ADpUcaiion to be Filed _ _2U. Properrv Identiiication NumC'er i* .i.i-'- .\PPLIC.A\T Name —^^—- Address ^/LS a4 K TT. ---------- Phone I home) Phone (work) 0\''NER (if different than applicant) /<(^y^Jc^u Addre^r^ ------------------------- ■ Date Property Acquireduaicriuuc:iLv ----------^--------------—TT'TTTZ^ I tdo)Cl^o non>lso own the adjacent parce.s or iand. fmonth/year) nfn« W.U. CLT app.icancn 5125.00 Residential Accessory Use ^ 5200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5175.00 Guest House;Guest Apartments “ S150.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg . --------S250.00 Commercial/Industnal Use rys»-7v ™°i“S - desigiuied -.vetbiid or noodplain §^^dS;st:^rJlrwaUs o,- .a^esdore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ... ,• SIOO.OO Renewal Fee (no change from ongmal application) After-ihe-Fact Fee - Double Current .\pplication Fee OTHER Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) 5250.00 Vacation 5175.00 Easement Vacation ------ 5 75 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision -------S300.00 Rezomng (PUD - refer to tee schedule) 5300.00 Comprehensive Plan .Amendment 5100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule present use of property Present Zoning District--------- Present Use of Property Residendal Other (specify) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ___ Completed Application Form. ___ Describe request in detail. . Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtam this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ___ Plat Map. , Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur%eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). . List of the legal names (include marital satus) of all persons with an mterest in the properu ’. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see stalf tor requirements). ^ ^ _____ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified ot this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENT^ SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:______________________----------------------------------------- 1. 'I 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE . ^ u ^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by onginal fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and cenifies that the ^formation supplied is true and cojrect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signamre:Date 9-2 OWTsER’S SIGNATURE 1 ^ • j ku The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes^ investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signamre Date before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning • • _ t ___________* ^11 ADolicam must have all submiaals into the City offices 25 day: uciuic ms nouiuus ------------ . ^ - cSL.ss.on Meetings are held on the third Monday of eachUnth. Applicants must be present at ^Ischedul^ r».view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Budding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. SEn.5,T.ir .R.i?,i ., : 1/^ I Bonestroo Rosene Andcrlik &l Associates Engineers & Architects October 10, 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Honimeyer Subdivision File No. 139-2077 3on#nroo ??osene. AncJenik and Associates, me s an Affirmative Action Eouai Coportunity Errcioyer Otto Q. aonestroo. P E Pooert W Roser>e. P E * .csepn C ^neeriik, PE n L Sorvaia. PE ?ic’“ar J £ Turner P E G.enn R Cook ® £ Thomas £. .Soyes. P E Pofcert G. Schunicm. P E Susan M. Eberim CPA * • ScP'Or Consultant Howard A Sanford. PE Keith A Gordon . P E RoOert R Pfefferie p E. ffxhard W Foster. P E Oavid O Lesfcota, P E Pooe^'t C Pus sen. .A ! A. en^ A BOiifdon. P£ N^ark A Hanson. P E Michael T Rautmann. P E Ted K Field. PE 'homas R Anderson. A I.A. James R. Rosenmerkel. P £ Donald C Burgardt. P E Thomas A SyfkO. PE Freoertc J Stenoorg. PE ismaet Martinet. P E Micnaei P Rau, P E. Thomas JU Peterson P E Michael C lyfKh. PI James R Maiand. P E jerry 0 Perttsen P E Scott J Arganek. P E. Kenneth P Anoerson. P Mark R Rolfs. P £ Mark A Seip. P E Gary vV Morien. P £ Paul J Gannon. A.O Daniel J Edgerton. P E. A RiCk Schmidt PE Oaie A. Groire p E. Philip J Caswell. P E Mark O Wallis. P E Miles 8 Jensen P E. L Phillip Gravel, PE Karen L Jlnemeri. P E Gary 0 Kristofiti. ? £ OCT 1 2 W95 Brian K. Gage. P E. p Todd Foster. PE. Ke'th R. Yapp. P E. Douglas J Benoit. P E Shawn O Gustafson.' Ceciiio Olivier, P E. Kent J Wagner. P.E. Pam G. Heuer. P E. Jonn P Gorder. P E. Dan D Boyum, P.E. Jeffrey J Ehiennger Joseph R Rhem. P E. Lee M. Mam. P E Charles A, Erickson Leo M. Paweisky Harlan M. Olson Agnes M Ring James F Engeihardt C" Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed subdivision and right-of-way (ROW) vacation in Blocks 3, 4, and 5. Minnetonka Summit Park on the properties owned by Charles W. Hommeyer. Jeffrey A. Bowen and Kenneth B. Rolland. The proposed subdivision will result in the combination of 11 existing parcels (originally 15 lots) to create 3 larger parcels ranging from approximately 1 to 1.5 acres in size, all within the MUSA boundary. The proposed vacation is for the ROW of Park Lane, and Oak Street west of Linden Avenue, both existing gravel roads; and Clyde Place, a non-existing roadway. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. On all subdivisions or replats in the City of Orono we recommend the following easements be granted to the City as a condition of approval: 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines. 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all road ROW, including county roads. A 50-foot width for road and 100-foot diameter for cul-de-sac ROW. A minimum 20-foot width for utility easements centered on all existing or proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water mains. Drainage easements across all drainageways, floodplains, ponding and wetland areas. The proposal to vacate the ROW may be appropriate if the above easements are either retained by or granted to the City. Specifically, the vacation and subdivision should accomplish the following; 1. The subdivision must be done by plat to adequately describe the easements. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 • • 01 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth City of Orono Page -2- October 10, 1995 2. Utility easements must be shoun on the plat centered on the sanitary sewer line. 3. An additional 20 feet of ROW should be granted to the City along the west side of Linden Avenue, as well as the south half of a 100-foot cul-de-sac ROW at the north end of Linden Avenue (see Staff Concept #1). This will provide an adequate ROW for Linden Avenue, assuming that there may be further development to the north. 4. Drainage and utility easements should be showm on all lot lines. 5. Drainage easements must be showm on the plat centered on the drainageway running south down Clvde Place and westerly down Oak. Street to North Arm Bay^ * (approximate location). 6. Public road right-of-way should be retained up to the western edge of the driveway for 4111 Oak Street with an outlot platted from that point to the south line of new Lot 1. The outlot should be considered a private street because it serves 3 lots. If a fourth lot is subdivided on this private street it should be paved to City standards. It is apparent that meeting these criteria will in effect duplicate the ROW that is proposed for vacation. We would not recommend approval unless ^ of these criteria are met. The easements are needed to protect the access, drainage and utility service rights of adjacent properties, that can only be provided across the subject parcels. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawm D. Gustafson, P.E. »*■ -0 Cjoncef‘'T ^ # L ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING .MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder. Sandra Smith, Dale Lmdauist, Candace Rowiette, and Elizabeth Hawn. Janice Berg was absent. The following represented the City Stafi'; .Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Septic Inspector Ste%e Weckraan, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Councilmember Goetten was present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m. (#1) #2064 ROBERT S. OLSON & IRVIN T. GEFFRE, 4665 BAYSIDE ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENTA^'.ACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS 7:02-7;IS P.M. The Cenificate of Mailing and /Mbdavit of Publication were noted. Gaftron reported that the application is a request for a lot line rearrangement between Lot I, Block 2, owned by Geffre and Ouilot C, owned by Olson. This property was platted lit year with an outlet for the 14 acre rear parcel. The outlet was created for future development. No septic testing has been done nor any park dedication fee taken. As part of the original proposal, Olson agreed to sell Gef&e the portion of Outlot C with the shed on it, and outlot A. At the current time, Geflre has a I 94 acre lot, and the portion of Outlot C would add 35 acres. Outlot A consists of .27 acre, yielding a total of 2.56 acres in a 2-acre zoning district and would, therefore, conform in area. The remaining Olson property wall total 14.2 acres. The proposal would require a setback variance for the shed, which is over the 1000 s.f. standard and is, therefore, considered an oversize accessory structure subject to minimum lot area and setback requirements. The proposed setback is 30 , where 50 is required from the new south (rear) lot line. It presently exists at 12' from the northerly lot Ime. It will meet the required 30' east;west side setbacks. The oversize accessory structure requires two standard variances; one for its size of 2450 s.f where 1200 s.f is aUowed, and needing a lot size of 6 acre minimum. The allowed footprint of all accessory structures on the propertv is 2400 s.f Existing on the property is a detached garage, a small shed, a quonset, and the oversize accessory structure. These stiuaures total 4182 s f requiring a variance of 1782 s.f The size of lot required to accomodate this much accessory structure is a 5 acre minimum. Gaffron asked the Planning Commissioners to consider recommending a reduction in the number of accessory buildings to reduce the number of variances. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTExMBER 18, 1995 (#1 - #2064 Robert Olson/lrvin Geflfre - Continued) The proposed lot line does not preclude the use of the Outlet corridor for a liiture roadway To meet code and not impact future development, an option is to come down the west side of the properties requinng a 50* corridor, which will not be limited by the lot line rearrangement. The City is requesting vacation of the utility and drainage easement. Minnegasco has no interest in this being done. NSP, thru a verbal communication, asked that the electrical lines not be vacated. This would need to be confirmed New dedication of drainage and utility easements is proposed to be required along the new lot boundary. Regarding the oversize accessory structure square footage variances, Gaffron asked the Commissioners if Geffre should be required to remove the snialler shed or quonset to minimize the amount of accessory structures It was noted that both applicants were present at the meeting. Lindquist asked what the uses were for the quonset and other shed. The quonset, which would be on the new lot, is used for storage. The applicant would consider removing this structure The other shed is used for garden tools The applicant requested maintaining this small shed. The quonset is 1014 s.f, and its removal would reduce the variance to 768 s.f Peterson commented that Outlot C at 14 acres was large enough to consider moving proposed rear lot line further south into Outlot C. The applicant responded that it would not be a problem to change the lot line 20' more to the south. When questioned by PglCTSon whether the lot line change would affect the fiiture road, Gafiron said it would not affect the future road. Gafiron noted that as part of variance approval, the City should require the standard oversize accessory structure covenant stipulating that Gefire's lot size cannot be decreased by a future division without requiring the removal of the oversize accessory structure. Rowlette asked that a date for the quonset removal be noted in the resolution. There were no public comments. Peterson noted that there would be no impact on any neighbors. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2064 with the removal of the quonset 60 days from the final date of approval an additional 20' be added to the south end of the lot. a covenant placed on the property requiring the removal of the oversize accessory structure if the lot is made smaller, and new drainage and utility easement be granted. Vacation of the existing easement will be approved subject to confirmation of the interest of NSP. Ayes 6, Nays 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMAflSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 («) #2065 SAMUEL MARFIELD, 2455 SCOTCH PLNE LANEAIR. & MRS. H. DOl'Gl^VS HILL, 2425 SCOTCH PINE LANE, AND WILLIAM TOLES, 2435 SCOTCH PLNE LANE - VACATION OF SCOTCH PINE LANE - VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTH.ITY EASEMENTS - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) 8:00-8:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants, .Mr & Mrs. Marfield. Mr & Mrs Hill, and William Toles, were present. Gaffion reponed that the request is for a vacation of a road right-of-way and utility vacation with a rededication of utility easement and replat ot the Dicon Addition. c propcrtv was platted to create 3 buildable lots and a public road in 1974 when it was a 1- acre zoning area and consisted of 3-1 /2 acres. The replat would allow the Hill propeity better lakeshore access A 50’ utility easement runs east to west in the existing plat. The current plat includes a 50’ dedication of CoRd 51. The proposal is to regrant easements necessary to accommodate existing and future utility needs. Gaffron noted that a letter trom NSP indicates there is a distribution facility in the area. NSP will not give their approval for the easement vacation and any changes will have to be made at the expense of the applicants Gaffiron thought if the existing utility lines were located that NSP would possibly approve the easement vacation in exchange for new easements. A Minnegasco lener said there are natural gas lines in the area, and the company objects to the proposal unless suitable right of way and rededicatitm is resolved. Peterson clarified that the utility easements must remain as they now exist. Gaffiron confirmed this. Gaffron said City sewer was extended to the area in 1980 with 10' easement on either side of the line The City Engineer indicates 30' total width is needed for that utility easement. It was noted that the applicants have not provided a surve>- of where all the utility lines are located. This is required and is being asked tor from the applicants. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#2 - /^2065 Marfield/Hill/Toles - Continued) The paved portion of Scotch Pine Lane would be removed and the property replatted in this proposal. The Hills would gain a portion of Scotch Pine adjacent ot their house as well as the majority of the cul-de-sac, giving the Hills a continuous single parcel from the County road to the lake Mr Toies on Lot 3 would gain the end portion of the cul-de-sac area. The Toies driveway would be revised to gain access from CoRd 51. Regrading would be done to eliminate the e.xisting drainage pipe. The Marfields would gain the west and southwest portions of Scotch Pine Lane. A 20'x90' outlot is proposed for the shared portion of the proposed MarfreldHill driveway Staff is concerned that the replat would result in a "backlot" configuration which would not meet the 150% acreage or setback standaids. The Marfield lot would appear lo become a backlot under the proposal. Another Staff concern is that with the area ^;eing zoned for 2-acre lots today, if this 3 -lot plat was proposed, the City would require platting of a private road 50' wide with a 100' cul-de-sac and a 24' paved road. The application as proposed does not meet the current City codes, but what currently exists does meet code. Marfield commented that if the three lots had 6 acres, the lots could accommodate the roads. It was his opinion that all of the blacktop to serve the three small parcels was too much. He noted City officials in the past had agreed with this opinion Peterson commented that requirements are changing. The Fire Department feels the road as it even now stands does not totally meet their needs and would ask for more road if that were possible, i.e., larger cul-de-sacs or loop roads. Marfield said Scotch Pine Lane is the only public road between CoRd 51 and Bohn's Point. He would like this road to be similar to the other accesses in the area, most of which are driveways. Kill suggested that the fir** department use the grassed areas to gain access. It was commented that fire trucks could get stuck in the grassed areas creating new problems. Mrs. Hill noted that the fire department could not access the Toies property as it now exists. Rowlette concurred with this notation. Marfield noted that, although Orono is into green spaces, it allow ed this 3/4 acre of blacktop to be built where it isn't necessary. The Commissioners agreed that they too like the green grassy areas but trends are chanuinc for emergency situations. The police department has responded that they approve the proposal. The fire depanment had not been notified of the proposal. It was noted that the public uses the road, even though it is marked dead-end, and are creating a safety hazard by driving 30 mph. Mrs. Marfield noted that her grandchildren had a close call from being hit by such a car driving on the road. Other concerns were noted regarding security of the area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN'NING CO.VLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#2 - #2065 Marfieid/Hill/Toles - Continued) Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application ^2065 untU the Fire Department could give their recommendation regarding the proposal. Toles noted that tabling would upset liis plans for rebuilding on his property this fail. Gaflron asked the Commission about the issue with creating a backlot by having an outlot resulting in the Marfield propertv’ being more substandard tor setbacks and area. He requested whether there is also a problem with the outlot to be owned by both Marfield anJ Hill Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it. A lener from neichbors. the Lew's, favored approving the appUcation providing the new driveway not be closer than 15’ from the lot line and the utility easements to their property remain in effect. The neighbors to the west, the Luke's, also had no objection They asked that the City stipulate that no additional buildings be allowed on the site. Hawn moved, Schroeder seconded, to amend the tabling motion to an approval motion for Application #2065 subject to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to be dealt with, and the driveway must be at least 15’ from the neighboring property. Gaffron suggested it may be inappropriate to place the fire department in a position to approve or disapprove this request without further Commission input. Gaflfron asked the Commissioners to address the issues under item #1 in the Staff memo relating to the variances requested for replatting and rededication of easements, the wetlands delineation and dedication on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to define this as a unique request as compared to other three-lot subdivisions, or be prepared to grant approval to other neighborhoods making similar requests. Rowlette said she did feel there are specific findings in regards to this application noting the e.xisting substandard access to the Toles property. There would be better access from CoRd 51 for emergency vehicles under the proposal. Hawn noted the additional finding that removal of the cul-de-sac to allow the Hills to cross to their lakeshore parcel without crossing the road would be a benefit. Smith asked Gaffron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of 3-party ciU- de-sacs to ask for removal, is this opening the door for similar requests. Gaffron said it could be opening a "little door", and that is the reason good findings are important here. Peterson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this application forward to the Council in a messy form and requested that it be tabled. Lindquist said some of the issues may come back to haunt the Commission. Schoeder agreed this could happen, and not only on the cul-de-sac issue, that there are many issues involved in addition to the fire safety issue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#2 - #2065 Marfield/Hill/Toles - Continued) Hawn withdrew her amendment to the motion. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2065 to gain specific input from the Fire Department and general input on the issues. Vote: .Ayes 5, Nays 1, Ro’Mctte, who would have liked to have voted on the amendment. (#3) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH RENOTinCATION 7:18-8:00 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Weckman reported that the proposal is for a two lot subdivision from property that had been combined from a 3-parcel property consisting of lots 1, 3, and 4. The applicant had previously stated he had not intentionally combined the lots but it was done as a result of a request for one tax statement. The two lots meet the area and width requirements. Weckman said the main issue is with the access roads on the property. Lots 3 and 4 are the current homestead and have access from Frederick Street. A more recent driveway was established trom Casco Point to the lots and is now a thru driveway with a circle. The applicant said this driveway existed between 1931 and 1985, but he allowed vegetation to grow over the driveway after 1985. The driveway was reestablished in 1994. The original subdivision shows an outlot with a drive circling around and connecting to the cul-de-sac, but the drive used as the connector cuts through lot 1. Weckman asked for direction from the Commission on what to do with the driveway. With the driveway serving lots 3 and 4 going through Lot I, the requirement of 1/2 acre contiguous on Lot 1 with the principal structure placed on the lot is not met. An option was noted to end the driveway as shown on the drawings; or since Lot 1 is being sold to the applicant's son, an option would be to allow the use of the driveway on a temporary basis while using the adjacent two properties and not adding an easement in favor of lots 3 and 4. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#3 - Ul'yyO Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Peterson asked the applicant if there was a reason to leave the driveway going through Lot 1 Cloutier said when the property was subdivided in 1962, outlot 1 provided ingress and euress to lots 1, 2, 3, 4 When lot 2 (owned by Mr. Paurus) was sold, provision was madelbr lot 2 to use outlot 1 up to the lot line. The applicant added th .t lot 4 has an easement right to use outlot 1 as well as lots 1 and 3. Cloutier preterred that onlv Paurus use the drive near his property in order to maintain privacy tor all parties concerned. The driveway through lot 1 is used to access Cloutier's lot 4 instead ot the driveway through Paurus' lot 2. Weckman said there was no easement for that driveway to come through to lot 4. Cloutier said the driveway provides use as an alley to his residence and as the main drive for delivery trucks and other large vehicles Peterson suggested closing the access from Frederick Street or have the applicant decide between the Frederick Street access or the driveway through lot 1 Schroeder commented that any decision should be based on the possibility ot a future subdivision. If lot 3 were proposed as a separate lot, the road by lot 2 could be used for access. The problem with that solution would be the use of 3 properties on one substandard road. Weckman was concerned with lot 3 not having the 1/2 acre of land required with the structure Schroeder said the resolution would need language to address access for future subdivision Gaflron noted that lot width was also a potential issue for splitting off Lot 3 in the future. Cloutier said he had no plans at this time to subdivide lot 3. He did not wish to be cut off from the thru road. Hawn noted that emergency vehicles would have a difficult time accessing Cloutier’s property from Frederick Street Hawn suggested extending the center road to the cul-de- sac from Frederick Street Topography was found to be a consideration with this suggestion It was further noted that this option would not solve the problem with cutting lot 1 in half Weckman said if the 1/2 acre requirement could be met by relocating the driveway on Lot 1, this would be an option. This would require new plans and calculations. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTENfflER 18, 19Q5 (#3 - *<2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Peterson asked if there were any other issues to consider. Weckman noted that no park dedication fee w'ould be required The City Attorney said the property had already been subdivided as of record There w as also a difference of opinion on whether this was one parcel or 3 Weckman said Mabusth had requested language be added to note that any future subdivision must meet current standards and codes It was further noted that the property has been assessed for two water and one sewer connection but would require assessment of another sewer and SAC charge. Cloutier responded that it was his belief this was incorrect as lot 4 was connected to sewer from Frederick Street. He added that when water was provided on Casco in 1971, a stub line came from Casco to his property. Gaffron said he would follow up on the charge for the sewer unit. Weckman said it the sewer line crosses a neighbor's, the City would need to verify and identity ’ any easements. During public comment, Wilbur Anderson, 3555 Frederick Street, read a letter from Norm and Rusty Paurus The letter said the Paurus' approv ed the application if no changes were submitted from the 3/20/95 submittal, or asked to allow their feedback on any changes made The Paurus’ asked the proposed house be moved 5-6’ to the northeast to save several mature trees and that all construction and driveways comply with current City ordinances. Peterson asked for Cloutier’s comments on the letter. The applicant was unsure what trees were being referred to as there was a solid line of trees on the lot. Cloutier did not believe it to be reasonable to redesign the house with the topography since there was no lack of trees on this or neighboring properties. Peterson said the proceedings cannot be stopped because a neighbor was not in attendance. Commissioners noted that the driveway was the main concern with the application. The lack of 1/2 acre contiguous on lot 1 because of the configuration of the driveway was the problem. Cloutier commenced that lot 1 consisted of 3/4 acre and contained woods continuous over to Frederick Street He asked for approval of the driveway for he and his son. Lindquist said he was uneasy with the proposal. The applicant was told that there would be a time when the property did not serve Cloutier and his son. Lindquist noted that the roadway by Paurus' lot 2 could serv e both Paurus and lot 3. Rowlette asked if Frederick Street was used on a daily basis. Cloutier said he used the access from Casco. Rowlette noted that the Casco driveway was not well maintained. The applicant said red rock had recently been brought in but said further destruction of the driveway would occur during the construction process. Rowlette said she saw no reason for the middle driveway to serve lots 3 and 4 when outlot 1 was already in place to serve those lots. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.A.NNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#3 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) Smith opined that three drives for one house was unnecessary. Cloutier said he would be willing to close off the drivew ay from Frederick Street. The issue of the 1/2 acre contiguous would still be a problem. Galfron suggested moving the driveway to the northeast and refiguring if the 1/2 acre was available. Lindquist said if the 1/2 acre was present, it was his opinion that the appUcation could be granted under the present code without coming back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron said there would still be a subdivision needed to separate Lot 1 from lots 3 and 4. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2000 for subdivision subject to Lot 1 meeting the zoning standards with the 1/2 acre of contiguous with respect to how the driveway bisects the property Applicant shall make payment to the City for a sewer connection charge of Sl,284 50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule plus the service availability charge of $850 00 Applicant is to provide an updated survey locating sewer and water service at Frederick Street prior to scheduling the application before the Council Final resolve by the applicant is necessary concerning dedication ot easemwit for Frederick Street access drive that encroaches Lot 1 Applicant will sign off on a resolution with the disclaimer drafted by City Attorney, and clarification will be made that the property is one lot. Applicant will work with the City to clean up the property of miscellaneous items Lindquist asked if the applicant would consider abandoning the driveway from Frederick Street due to the number of driveways. The applicant said he would prefer not to but would do if that is the desire of the Planning Commissioners. Tlie applicant was told that an easement from the road to the west for Lot 2 cannot be vacated as it is a private easement. Schroeder said another alternative would be to dedicate some land for the roadway. The applicant made a suggestion of taking a portion of lot 1 to lot 3 and remove the boathouse. The 150% lot area requirement for a back lot on 3 was noted. This suggestion was not to be considered at this time. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who noted if Frederick Street access is not in use, it should be closed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#4) #2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SHADV'Mf OOD ROAD - VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARLNG 8:37-8:4* P.M. Gaflfron rep .ed that the application is for a hardcover variance in the 75-250’ setback area for an addition on the lakeside. The property is also near the Narrows Channel, which affects the 250' line The addition meets the required side and lakeshore setbacks as well as the average lakeshore setback Very little hardcover exists in the 0-75’ area with a patio consisting of rock with plastic constituting 4.4% hardcover. The hardcover in the 75-250’ area exists at 44% where 25% is allow^ The proposal calls for removal of rock beds with plastic or fabric underlavment reducing the hardcover to 31 7^^o. A new survey has been done on the property It shows that some of the rock beds have been added since the 1988 deck was approved. This was not done by the current owner, who purchased the propert>^ one year ago The property consists of 28,000 s f or 6 acres in a 1-acre zoning district The lot coverage by structure is 11% where 15% is allowed. A concern is the addition of the 3- season porch above the deck, which was built since 1988 without permits. Staff is asking for an after-the-fact permit for the construction of the porch, which meets setbacks, without any penalty assessed. As to the hardcover variance issue, Gaffron noted there is no structure feasible to remove, just rock and plastic. The shed on the property is needed for storage The applicant commented that the 1987 resolution allowed for 37.6% of hardcover. With this proposal, the hardcover will exist at 31.7%, less than what was approved in 1987. Olson noted that the net square footage for the addition was 267 s.f Peterson said the Commission currently often trades plastic and rock for structure, and under the code. Peterson saw no problem with the application and noted it had no effect on the neighbors. Smith asked if the removal of rock and plastic included that in the front of the property. She is concerned with an erosion problem with removing that rock area. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Rowlette seconded, to approve Application #2044 subject to the removal of plastic in the beds. Rowlette amended the motion to include the 31.7% of hardcover would be the maximum allowed in the future and any future structural additions should only be approved by trading structure for structure. NIINXTES OF THE ORONO PL.-^NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#4 . i?2044 George Olson - Continued) Mrs Olson asked on the hill portion of the property if it would be sufficient to perforate the fabric in order not to remove the fabric so as not to affect the area. Peterson said she should work with the builder on this but the Planning Commission cannot distinguish perforated from fabric-laid areas A member of the public noted that the material under the rip-rap was not considered hardcover She was intbrmed by the Commission that the rip-rap itself is hardcover so the material underneath does not matter. V'ote Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #2059 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, 1485 SLXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 8:48-9:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. MCWD Engineer. Andy S>verson. and Manager, Tom LaBounty, were present. Gaffron reported that the request is for variances and conditional use permit to construct a 2.5 acre w et detention basin/wetland. The purpose of the project is to remove sediment and nutrients from the creek flowing into Long Lake from the north. The area in question is on the Pearce property, located southwest of Tanglewood Road and east of Dakota Avenue and Long Lake Boulevard, on an easement The site is not within the City designated wetland but is on the national wetland inventory map. It consists of t>pe 2 and type 7 wetlands protected under the Wetland Conservation Act from filling or draining. The Wolsfeld Lake area drains southeast from Medina under CoRd 6 under a culvert to the 2-1/2 acre pond area. It would be a two cell pond with 4; I slopes with a peninsula feature and contain an outlet with a fish barrier to keep fish from moving up creek. The t>pe 7 wetland is a wooded wetland in a low flood plain area. Major excavation would be required, involving removal of 25,000 cubic yards. A gated access driv eway would be constructed off of CoRd 6 for spoils removal as well as future access A concern is with the fill material being taken off-site and its affect on traffic on CoRd 6 It is unknown at this time where the materials would be taken. This would be determined by the contractor. Variances and conditional use permits would be required for the excavation. A variance to the shoreland ordinance is required as this is a creek/tributary protected area where no tree removal is allowed within 75'. No intensive vegetation clearing is allowed within 75' nor grading or filling; all of which would be done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (nS - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) The project has been in the planning stages for the past couple years and is slated to be construaed early 1998 The project will be done in the beginning of January to the beginning of Febmary with revegetation and replanting taking place in the spring. Peterson clarified that the project would only occur and be effective it the Deerhill project in Medina is completed. Tom LaBounty said the Medina project is in condemnation process at this time He noted that the easements for the other two ponds, one in Long Lake park and the other on the private land, have been completed The object of the Long Lake project is to clean up the water discharging from Long Lake to Lake Minnetonka to the corridor to the Mississippi and is part of the overall scheme. Schroeder asked if there w as anything that would prevent the Deerhill project from being completed. LaBounty said he expects an appeal to the condemnation proceeding but expects to have all the permits in hand by the end of September LaBounty cited the Gleason Lake project and the concerns regarding the disposal of materials' from the site on Hwy 12. He would like to address the problems relating to this project. LaBounty said contraaual agreements have been made with the property owners when asked by Smith. Performance stipulations have been set out. The alum treatment of Long Lake will occur after the ponds are completed. The effectiveness of the treatment will depend on how effective the ponds are and their construction. LaBounty said alot of the effectiveness depends on the Best Management Practices in the sub-watershed. The clarity level would be a progressive improvement. 5+‘ is expected, which is a radical difference from the V clarity presently in Long Lake. When the revegetation is ocurring, the improvement in clarity will hit a flat spot, but will then continue to improve Hawn asked about the sediment ponds. She was informed that 50% of the phosphorus would be removed by the alum treatment. Hawn questioned whether the remaining 50®/o would contribute to future water quality problems being created. Syverson noted that whUe the phosphorus removal was believed to be 50%, the sediment removal would be a hinher percentage, 80-90% This would result in a significant decrease of sediment to cover the alum 50% is the typical efficiency found according to Syverson. Further gains would require more ponds and would be too large to be feasible. Syverson said the process is two fold. The internal process would recycle the alum which would be taken out and sealed and then more taken out from there resulting in a higher percentage of 75%. Reestablishing vegetation then gives the lake a chance to work on its own. The project is a helping hand which allows the lake to work on its own. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Peterson iiu^uired about long term maintenance. LaBount\' said this would be done thru agreements Long Lake has already entered into an agreement regarding a tish barrier. If no agreement is made with Medina or Orono, the MCWT) would handle the maintenance. Lindquist asked how often cleaning out of the sediment w ould occur Syv erson said this is site specific and depends on facts such as erosion and development, which would increase the amount of cleaning done S>'verson said the Orono project is two cell. The first cell would catch the most sediment and need to be cleaned out in 3-5 y'ears. The larger cell would require less trequent cleaning projected at 15-20 years. The maintenance is dependent upon the management practices upstream Hwy 12 construction was cited as an example If silt fencing were not done on the ponds there, more material would fall into the ponds requiring frequent cleaning. Syverson said the management is a cooperative effort. Lindquist inquired about the Dickev' Lake area. Syverson noted this was a very small phosphorus loading area and the cost would not justily a pond. It was noted that the wetland area on the east end of Long Lake where there are streams works as a detention pond. This area was noted to serve as a natural stonnwater management pond as the water comes out of this area quite clean. Schroeder inquired about runoff from roads such as Hwy 12. LaBounty said this does exist but they try to make up for it with projects such as the pond. Peterson asked for public comments. Bill Pearce, joint owner of the subject property, along with his attorney, Greg Fontaine of the Dorsey firm were in attendance and asked to presem a summary of the conditions of the settlement agreement between Pearce and the MCWD. Fontaine said Pearce became involved when the plans for the pond were announced. The original proposal was for a 3- cell, 5 acre pond south of 6, not Deerhill in Medina, with small ponds in Long Lake. Pearce then retained an engineering firm to come up with a better solution. The size of the detention system on the Pearce property was then reduced which was a substantial improvement. Pearce said he understood the need for the detention pond on his property, although he would prefer it was not necessary, and was generally supportive, and still is, of the project. Fontaine said there have been design specifications and significant alterations made without consultation with Pearce. He cited an example with changes to the fish barrier upstream from Long Lake. LaBounty later noted the net effect of the change in the barrier would not affect the outcome. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#5 - >^2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Pearce felt it would be to the City ’s interest to include conditions in the agreement between Orono and the MCWD A summary of these conditions were given out to the Commission members. The conditions are intended to reduce the impact of the area and be restorative of the area. Fontaine said there has been difficulty with the MCVVT) complying with timelv notice to Pearce with regards to revision ot documents and follow thru on design elements. He believes it is in the best interest of the City to require as pan of their review an artist's rendition of the area showing the revegetation, and explain the differences between the specifications and what the MCWD is doing. Fontaine said it also is necessary for the MCWD to spell out the maintenance requirements with who doing what, who paying, and on what schedule Specific recommendations were give i in the handout for such maintenance Schroeder commented that the project was complicated and asked Pearce what costs he has bom due to the project Pearce indicated engineering costs have run $85,000, and the easement will only recover about 520,000 Schroeder noted that the Barr engineering report will have a positwe influence on the project It was also his belief that another meeting is required for the Commission to look over the findings, especially in light of the time and cost consideration Pearce has given to the project. LaBounty said the project began in 1988. It was originally proposed to totally take place in Medina, then was changed to two ponds in Long Lake, then changed to include the Pearce pond and Deerhill, and now to include Long Lake. Medina, and Orono The phosphorus reduaion amounts have remained the same LaBounty pointed out if no agreement can be acquired on the Deerhill Road pond, the projert would be back to a 5- acre pond on the Pearce property. LaBounty asked, regarding the 7 engineering findings, that while 1-5 met with the MCWD approval! #6 LaBounty would like the agency to be treated as would any other federal agency On #7, the special conditions under which hauling can be stopped, LaBounty said fines can be imposed on the contractor He further noted no fertilizer would be used and tree removal has been taken care of To control erosion. LaBounty said the slope down to the pond would be 4:1 with a 6; 1 slope out of the pond. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to table the application. Fontaine noted that LaBounty has only recently taken over the project for the MCWD and lias done a good job with communicating with Pearce Schroeder asked that copies be made of the Barr report for the Commissioners. Smith thanked Mr. Pearce for his time and cost considerations he has taken. MEsXTTES OF THE ORONO PLANiNING COM^flSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER IS, 1995 (#5 - #2059 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Continued) Rowlctte questioned item A on the handout and asked what would happen it the Medina project was not completed prior to the Orono project LaBounty said it would be sutficient to condition Orono’s approval on the completion ot the Deerhill Road project. LaBounty said he w ould furnish an anist’s rendition of the revegetation and w ill meet with Pearce Vote; Ayes 6. Nays 0. The Planning Commissioners asked to schedule a joint meeting with the Council regarding this project (#6) #2060 TIM FEYO AND KAREN FULLER-FEYO, 4055 ELM STREET - VARIANCE RENEWAL - PUBLIC HEARING 9:40-9:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gafffon noted that the application was for a renewal of a lot area variance previously tjranted in 1978, 1980, and 1994 The property is located in the LR-IB single family fakeshore residential zoning district requiring 1 acre on Elm Street, west of Tonkawa. A 54% variance for lot area is requested for the .46 acre lot. The lot meets the lot width requirement as it contains 118’or 84% of the 140’ standard, where 80% or 112’ is required for existing lots of record. Gaffron reported that the three lots were combined into one parcel and received approval of a conceptual footprint in 1994 with 10' side setback, 30’ rear, and 35 ’ front setback. The grading plan showing the driveway meets the satisfaction of the Engineer Concern with the grading is from direct runoff traveling downhill. A proposed downspout and underground tile will direct drainage to the road ditch at the from of the lot, from which it flows to North Arm. Peterson received confirmation that there are no changes to the application, and it is a renewal application only Peterson inquired of the appUcant if it was their intention to do anyihing with the property Fevo said it is their intention to seU or build. The Feyo's are in the process of securing loans It was noted that the shed belonging to the neighbor is still located on the Feyo property Schroeder inquired if there was a lot line problem. Gaffron said the shed still exists over the lot line and the neighbors still disagree Schroeder asked that the lot line be located and stipulate the location of the shed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#6 - #2060 Tim Fe> o and Karen Fuller-Fe>'o - Continued) Peterson said regarding this surv'ey dispute, his position is to look at the survey submitted by the applicant as the one by which to gauge the application. A neighbor's survey would only be considered if it differed from the one supplied by the applicant. During public comments, Herman Laue said he is concerned with drainage, hardcover, and the lot line issue He said he is working on a survey and may pursue a Torrens action in order to settle the lot line dispute Peterson commented that Laue has not to date shown by documentation any discrepancy with the survey done by the applicant. Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to approv e the renewal of Application #2060 with the same conditions previously laid out. Gaffron noted receipt of two letters from neighbors, Laue and Wiley, opposing the renewal of the application, which were read into the minutes and are part of the application package. Another letter from Mr. Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane, neighbor down hill from Laue, opposes the renewal due to a concern with runoff from stormwater. It is his opinion that the increase in hardcover would add to the runoff problem and cause erosion to the public access Schroeder commented that any home built on the property would have to have an approved drainage plan that met City code. Peterson noted that this was a case of dispute between neighbors. Gafffon clarified conditions previously stated regarding legal combination of the lots, setback and hardcover requirements, and detailed grading plans showing driveway and any tree removal and retaining walls. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0 Motion carried. (#7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE RENEWAL - PUBLIC HEARING 10:00-10:02 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Weekman reported that the application was for a variance renewal, which expired September 12, 1995. The applicant was not present. There were no public comments. i NfINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#7 - #2061 Ame Wasberg - Continued) Lindquist commented that the application was a difficult proposal and suggested tabling the application until the applicant was present. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2061 until the applicant was present Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2062 TED ROZEBOOM/JOSEPHINE KNtDSON, 2967/2965 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARLiiNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:02-10:33 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant. Ted Rozeboom, was present. Gaffi-on reported that the application is a joint request for variances to cenain performance standards of the home occupation use in the 1/2 acre. LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential zoning district. The request is to allow a home occupation to occur on a tax parcel not owned by the home occupation applicant, in a building not occupied by the home occupation applicant, and in a building where ‘’e emrance to the home occupation is not gained from within the structure but has a separ« e dedicated entrance. Gaffi-on noted that Rozeboom lives at 2967 Casco Point Road. The dwelling at 2965 Casco Point Road, owned by Josephine Knudson, the mother-in-law of Rozeboom, received building permits for remodeling to create an office area in the lower level with an existing dwelling unit in the upper level. The remodeling involved a workroom area, office space, and sitting area. During review of the remodeling plans, the inspector noted the need for a home occupation license and advised the applicant of the requirements. The space was reviewed in .April of 1995 and found certain home occupation conditions were not met. A letter of August 18 to Mabusth defines the use of the space by Rozeboom. By ordinance, the only person allowed a home occupation license is one who is residing at the residence, which is not the case in this application. If the lots were combined into Rozeboom’s name, the residence at 2965 Casco would be considered a guesthouse, not the principal structure, and would still not met the conditions of the code for residency. It was noted that the two properties were originally one with the residence at 2965 Casco being the original carriage house of the home at 2967 Casco. The properties were separated in 1968 by subdivision. Gaffion questioned whether the home ocupation use now proposed would be acceptable with merely a lot combination. Staff questioned if this would be a case of a use variance, a commercial use in a residential zone, but the City Attorney indicated it would not because a home occupation is allowed in a home in a residential zone. MINXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Knudson - Continued) Gaflron asked Commissioners to ignore for the moment the fact that the properties are adjacent to each other and the relationship that exists I'-'tween the two parties involved. The property at 2965 Casco would not be owTied by the person conducting an occupation there, would not be lived in by that person as his residence, has the possibility ot clients coming to the site for business purposes, and there is the possibility ot a third party using the upper residential space. This would then seem to appear as a mixed residential/commercial use and then possibly be a use variance. Gafiron said if the Commissioners now factored in the adjacency of the properties and the family relationship, then the appearance of a use variance still exists if the lots are separately owned and not combined. If both properties were owned by Rozeboom but not combined, it may be closer to the appearance of a home occupation Finally, with legal combination, this is much more clearly a case of a home occupation occurring with performance standard variances Variance approval does require findings of hardship. Peterson said he felt the ordinance was clear in that the home occupation license requires the person running the business to live in that dwelling. Peterson said he would vote to deny the application Rozeboom asked if the type of business had any bearing on the application and home occupation use. He was told it did not. Rozeboom said he could change the residence at 2965 Casco to be in his name and asked if that would have any bearing on the approval or denial He was asked if he would then live in that residence, which Rozeboom said he would not Rozeboom said he was an architectural consultant and the purpose of this proposal was to provide a place for his elderly mother-in-law to live. Rozeboom said if he combined the properties, he would lose the market value of the properties. Peterson said he would not consider changing the ordinance, to which Lindquist agreed. Rowlette said there should be some way to resolve the issue without the need to lose value of the property by combining lots. She saw no reason why the applicant could net work out of the residence at 2965 Casco when it was the original carriage house for his own home at 2967 Casco. The applicant offered to remove the dock, stairs and asphalt to reduce the hardcover and be reflective of the neighborhood and of a home. Schroeder commented that a hardcover trade would not have any bearing on a variance for a home occupation license. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONiNUSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Joscphine Knudson - Continued) Schroeder asked the applicant if he would be able to work out of his own home. Rozeboom said he would lose the iniogrity of the Victorian style home and needed the space provided by the other residence. Several ideas w'cre aired regarding a lot combination and a "skyway" or structure of some sort to connea the homes or owrership change of the residences Gaffron commented that one option to consider absent legal combmation but with common ownership was a "special lot combination" document that is filed on the chain of title of both properties that would define what may be done on the properties. Hawn inquired of the applicant again if he would be willing to combine the lots. Rozeboom said he would lose too much market value but would be willing to put the other residence in his name and homestead it. Gaffron read a letter firom Mr. Henney . 294! Casco Point Road, voicing his support of the application. Gaffron again noted the Attorney’s opinion on the use variance as to tvhcther would allow the use in that residence Barrett opined that it would not be a use variance. Rozeboom asked, and received confirmation, that if the "special lot combination" were to be done, it could be terminated if the lot ownership would change. It was fiirther commented that if the relationship were to change or the residence sold, it could also be terminated but it cannot exist in the present configuration Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2062 wnth a special lot combination defining the relationship of the parties involved, with both parcels being placed in Rozeboom’s name but not required to be legally combined. The use would be allowed until Rozeboom was no longer the owner of both properties. He would be required to meet the home occupation conditions except the three noted No signs or rental of the property could occur. A portion of the blacktop would be removed and a landscaping plan be presentee prior to going forward to the Council. Schroeder asked for clarification of what is a special lot combination document. Gaffron cited an example of separate but commonly-owned properties located on two sides of a road. The owner wants a house on one side but the garage on the other side. This might be allowed under a "special lot combination" as the lots were sold together. Schroeder asked if the application was a typical example. Gaffron said it was an unusual example of the use but with the City's discretion, it could be done. The document would be on the chain of title, and if broken, it would revert back to its original intent. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. (»8 - #2062 Ted Rozeboom/Josephine Kmdson - Continued) Commissioners noted they would not want to see any outward evidence ot a business or any parking. Vote; Ayes 3, Hawn, Smith, Rowiette; Nays 3, Peterson, Schroeder, Lindquist. Motion fails. The applicant asked if it would w ork if his wife owned the property'. Peterson said that would set a bad precedent. Smith said specific ground rules need to be laid Rowiette moved. Smith seconded, to table .Application #2062 to allow applicant time to consider other possible solutions Ayes 6. Nays 0 (#9) #2063 GERXLD AND CANDACE ROWLETTE, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARLNG Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2063 at the request of the applicants. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2066 ROBERT AND IRIS WAADE, 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33-10:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidav'it of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the application is for a number of variances for a 3rd-level addition to a lakeshore property located off of Shoreline Drive in a 2-acre zoning district. The house curremly exists at 21‘ from the shoreline with the deck 16' from the shoreline A bituminous walkway is located under the deck near the lake. There is an 8 3' side setback where 30' is required. The average lakeshore setback currently encroaches 13’ for the house and 24* for the deck and would remain the same under the proposal. Hardco' er in the 0-75' exists at 28.11 o for structural and 11.1% for non-structural for a total of 39.2%. The lot coverage by structure is proposed at 13.8% meeting the 15% allowable. There would not be much of a change in the footprint of the house. The proposal is for what is by definition a three-story home by eliminating the existing flat roof and adding another level over the main level and basement, which is considered a story with its 18 courses. The street side of the residence is a walk-in with the proposed story to be located above that. The floor plan shows a car port on the main level, open with a roof, and proposed with a second story. The pitch of the roof would be 10; 12. The height of the residence meets the ordinance at 28-1/2' as normally defined; but the house is 46' in total ground-to-peak height from the lakeside view. NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris VVaade - Continued) The variances required include lakeshore setback, side setback with no proposed change, second story 25 3’ from the side where 30* is required, average setback enCToachment with no change, and hardcover in the 0-75’. which will decrease with the removal ot the bituminous walkway Pea gravel with no liner is proposed to replace the walkway The loop drive and an existing portion of the driveway will be removed, ^^hat w ill remain will allow a car to back up and enter the street as well as an apron for the garage, which will need to be redesigned to avoid encroaching the draintield. The septic system will serve this 3-bcdroom home. There is no change to the number ot bedrooms but a change to the bulk of the residence. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the issues. The proposed third level is questioned due to its close proximity to the shoreline Staff questioned whether the replacement of the walkway was an acceptable form of non-hardcover The southerly neighbors are currently able to view the lake over the home .As proposed. Staff questions whether the house would tower over and impact the neighbors to the north The hardcover would yield a decrease but are the additions and removals a reasonable trade for the 148 s f of structural hardcover. It was noted that the existing overhangs average 4' in width and are proposed at 18" The rock and plastic between the dnveway and front entry have not been listed as hardcover, a portion of which is below the overhangs. The backup/parking apron will need to be relocated as it encroaches the existing drainfield. The removal of the concrete driveway is seen as a positive improvemv*'^. however. There are no feasible alternate septic sites available on the property. Tl.< -eing considered by the neighborhood for sewering. Staff questioned whether enclosing the carport and changing the roof pitch would be a viable alternative to the third story proposal. Staff is asking whether the hardships or justifications are enough to support the proposed changes. Peterson clarified that the house will still have three bedrooms but the common rooms and master bedroom will be enlarged Lindquist was concerned about adding to the structure when it was located so near the lakeshore Hawn questioned whether it was possible to enclose the carport and add a story above the carport to open up the view for the neighbors and not present such a massive structure. The applicant said he had considered lowering the structure by adding dormers and burying usable space in the roof line, w hich would reduce the height by 7-9' to soften the look. Peterson said the home was already substandard by its location encroaching in the 0-75’ setback area and did not see how the applicant could ask for an even greater impact on the property. MLNX/TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 19<J5 (#10 - #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) Rowlette said the basement consists of 18 courses and considers the home now too large. It was her opinion that no more can be added to the strucuire. Gatfron asked if there was any logic to changing the roof pitch from hs present flat look. The applicant said the roof was old and a flat roof was not conducive to the Minnesota winters It is his intention to redo the windows and plumbing. The roof does not present any curb appeal and a low pitch roof would not help to improve the look. The applicant felt the high pitch would aid in setting the second story into the structure and is currently proposed at 25’ in height The applicant said the original house had the boathouse in the lower level, but now houses the utilities, and that is the reason for the 18 course basement. The rest of the house has 8' ceilings. The applicant said the height would be 24’ with the use of a different pitch. Rowlette said she could not approve the application as proposed. The applicant asked for suggestions. Rowlette said the applicant needs to soften the look, and she would be open to enclosing the carport area. Lindquist and Hawn agreed. The applicant asked what the Commissioners opinion was of an addition of a 2-car garage with a rambler style home, while maintaining a regular roof pitch. Commissioners said side setback and lot coverage would be issues in that scenario. The applicant was told to come back with an amended proposal Rowlette moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2066. Gaffron noted receiving acknowledgement forms from the neighbors on each side of the property. The applicant asked for an opinion on what could be done to the property. Most of the Commissioners voiced that it was their belief that very little could be done to the property. Vote Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2067 BRUCE AND TERRY CLARK, 625 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:59-11:00 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. Gaffron displayed a survey showing the proposed side setback variance for extending the existing attached garage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#11- #2067 Bruce and Terry Gark - Continued) There \%'ere no public comments Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2067. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) #2068 PAT AND KATHY S.MIEJA, 4040 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:00-11:06 P.M. Xhe Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit ot Publication were noted. Gaffi-on reported that an application was proposed in 1994 by the previous owners for two additions including a 3-season porch This application is for a lower level garage with one level of living space above it, plus the 3 -season porch. The property is a comer lot located in a 5-acre zoning district. The code retjuires a 100* setback from Watertown Road.^ which is functionally the front of the property but is technically the side street A 50* sideyard setback is required north of the house and 100* from Orono Orchard Road. The lot area excluding the right-of-ways is 1 28 acres The setback variance to the rear results from the proposed addition at 32* and 46.8* for the 3-season porch The setbacks from ^ Watertown Road are proposed at 25* for the porch and 51* to the house comw where 100’ is required. The house will remain at 3 bedrooms and not require any expansion of the mound septic system. The well is being replaced on the property. Rowlette asked about the status of the property located to the north containing wetlands. Gaffion said it has recently been sold. He noted a buffer area between the two properties Smith questioned why the addition would be set back rather than brought out even with the existing house. The applicants said it was to maintain a view from the kitchen area. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve AppUcation #2068 for side street and side setback variances with the conditions as noted. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2069 CINDY AND STEVT HARRIS, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:06-11:09 P.M. The Certificate of ^Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#13 - #2069 Cindy and Steve Harris - Continued) Gaffron reported that the application was a request for a variance to construct a swimming pool in what is technically the front yard of the property located between the road and existing house. The code does not allow tor such a structure in this area. The residence and pool would be located in the center ot a 25 acre parcel, 500 from the road, and located in a 5 acre zoning district Gaffron said Staff would request an as-built surv ey once the pool was constructed as the bam on the property is not shown on the current survey There were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2069 with the request for the as-built survey upon completion of the pool. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2071 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - AMENDED VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 11:09-11:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Crawford of Kraus .Anderson Constniction represented the applicants. Gaffron reported a request to amend the prior approval for excavation in the 0-75’ zone to rehabilitate a tunnel with retaining walls to the greenhouse. During the repair, it was found to be in need of waterproofing, which would require the need to excavate and remove an elm tree. This was not included in the plan previously submitted to the City. The applicants agree to mitigate the loss of the elm tree. It was noted that the tree would have been a detriment to the tunnel if left in place. Applicant noted 2 maples were proposed to replace the elm There were no public comments. Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2071 for excavation and after-the-fact tree removal based on Staff conditions and with tree mitigation. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#15) #2072 GRAYDON K. NEWMAN, JR-, 1655 BOHN’S POINT ROAD - VARIANCES/CONDinONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:12-11:18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and AflSdavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present with his landscape designer. Dale Gustafson. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA.NMNG CONL\USSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#15 - #2072 Graydon Newman, Jr. - Continued) Gaffron reported that the property is located on Bohn's Point and contains a house and carriage house. The application is for hardcover and lakcshore setback variances and land alteration permit in the 0-75' zone to allow reconfiguration of lakeshore access walkways and shoreline improvwtent to include sand fill and boulder wall improvements The existing deck platform located at the shoreline was found to be encroaching into the neighboring property. The proposal is to remove the deck platform and construct a new 5 wide walkway laterally in the 75’ zone leading to the dock, which will be moved over into the applicant's property The application is also to support the existing stone wall with additional stone and add another course of rip rap with sand and plantings between the rip rap and wall The Engineer suggested removal ot hardcover pavers. The rip r^ is located all along the property The plan calls for the additional stone in a smaller area The deck itself w ill not be replaced. Smith asked why a 5' instead of a 4' walk-way to the dock Gustafson said it was in order to use the existing heavy modular materials. Schroeder asked it 4' would work in this application and was told it would. Gustafson noted the rip rap alone is not enough to maintain the shoreline on a busy day on the lake. The stone pads keep the waves from eroding the area and undermining the rip rap. It was his opinion that only way to help would be to add another course ot rip rap. Smith said the present configuration seems to be working for the maintaining of the property. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2072 with the walkway amended to a 4' width and to leave the patio blocks in place. There were no public comments Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, Rowlette, who felt the concrete blocks should be removed (#16) #2073 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 11:18-11:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicants were present. 25 l MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#16 - #2073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) Gaffrnn said the application is for a number of projects to update the property to include the replacement and enhancement of additional retaining of ke> stone-type product 1- 2' lakeward from the wood walls, which are 2' to 4' in height. The property is located on a channel to a lagoon area and contains a stairwell to the lake side The proposal also calls for replacement or enhancement ot retaining walls to support the driveway. The Engineer was concerned with the wood walls being left in place, which would eventually rot. The second part of the application is for an entrvw ay over the existing front steps to ease a drainage problem. This would add 100 s.f of structural hardcover to the property. The third part of the application is for the addition ot a 10'xl6' deck and a 10x33 enclosed porch area, to be located 19* and 24* respectively from the lake. The lot coverage by structures is proposed at 16-1/2% where 15% is allowed. Gatfron reported there is extensive amount of hardcover on the property with the driveway, existing rock, and patio areas. The 0-75* zone contains 49.6% ot hardcover, the 75-250’ zone contains 74,2%. for a total of 56 6®/o hardcover, which is double the DNR standards By removing ail of the rock and plastic, the hardcover would be reduced to 35% in the 0-75’ zone and to 43% in the 75-250®/o zone. Rock would still exist along the garage area. Hawn asked what the reasons were for the wrall. The applicant said it was to replace walls that had fallen over and to strengthen the walls The appUcant said it was started by erosion of the foundation of the garage. Gaffrcn said the Engineer has recommended removal of the e.xisting wood retaining walls rather than leaving them in place behind the new walls. Hawn said with a new entry and new retaining walls and the three patio/deck spaces around the house, it was a densely covered lot. Hawn recommended taking the deck and turning that into a porch instead to reduce the structural coverage. The applicant responded that there was no first floor family room and was putting a family room where the lower level and upper level decks were by the garage area so as to not impede the view The rcofline would remain the same. Smith agreed that tne lol coverage was excessive. Rowlette commented that the lot was maxed out in lot coverage as it now stands. She noted the driveway area was large and saw no need for that much space for a turnaround. NUNXTES OF THE ORONO PL.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (>^I6 - #2073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) The applicant said there were two areas where rock could be taken out and add grass and still do the breezeway as proposed Any other areas could make it difficult to maintain with the slope of the lot Schroeder said the rock removal should be done, and he would not approve any additional structure Rowlette asked to look at what could be done with the driveway The applicant said a sidewalk was eliminated, and the new driveway replaced what was there -ijread^ Rowlette added that the hardcover calculations are then higher than what is listed. Schroeder asked if any of the poured driveway could be remov ed. Smith questioned how all the hardcover was approved when 25% is allowed and 74/® exists in the 75-250* zone Gaffion noted that he had advised the entry addition contractor that applicants should not redo the driveway as the Planning Commission would not look favorably upon new hardcover appeanng during a hardcover variance review, but it was completed without a permit. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2073 limited to the replacement of the retaining walls by the shoreline, retaining w all and step along the garage, and to repair the retaining wall along the driveway. There were no public comments. Hawn questioned whether the entry could be added without the addition of any more lot coverage. The stoop was noted to be a permanent pan of the house as it covers the well pit and is included in the perimeter of the house. It was asked that the overhang not exceed 4'. Schroeder said he would amend his motion to allow the entry due to the existing water problems with the condition that 2x the amount of hardcover would be eliminated elsewhere md all rock and plastic be removed. No screened porch or new deck would be allowed. Lindquist seconded After further discussion, Gaffron noted on the site plan the areas where hardcover is recommended to be removed. Gaffion noted receipt of letters from neighbors voicing their approval of the application. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNfISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS (#17) #2043 GORDON J. BUHRER, 2620 FOX STREET - SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING The Certificate of Mailing and AtVidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gafiron reported that the property is located on Fox Street and abuts Fox Run. The request is to split an existing 4 1 acre lot into two lots, 2 1 and 2.0 acres in size. No drainageway or wetlands have been substracted from this gross acreage The applicant proposes to split the land into an east lot with the e.xisting house accessing onto Fox Run and a west lot with future access onto Fox Street The front lot line of the existing 4-acre parcel is along Fox Street but the driveway access is from Fox Run In conceptual plan 1, the new building site would access Fox Street and front on Fox Street. The existing house lot would also still front on Fox Street. In plan 2, the only frontage for tLt existing house would be on Fox Run The vacant lot would have additional frontage along Fox Street. Plan 2 avoids the need for a lot width variance for lot 1 The front lot line along Fox Run is only 19 6’ from the existing house where a 50' setback is required. The existing house was built in 1968 and required a 20' side street yard setback at that time. Gaffron said the septic sites reportedly would conform for either configuration of plan 1 or plan 2. There is a buried tile in the drainageway which runs from White Oak Circle to an open channel to a pond. No easement exists over this drainageway Staff recommends the requirement of a 15’ drainage easement the entire length of the tile and channel. The problem with this, according to Gafifon, is, after excluding the area of this easement, the property would end up with less than the 2 acre minimum for each lot. A solution would be to redefine the drainageway and retile or rechannel. A perimeter drainage easement would allow for a credit of 5’ or a lot area variance could be granted. Granting of the area variance with a new subdivision has only been approved twice since 1975, and this application is not so unique as to justify variance approval. The Engineer has suggested relocation of the drainageway A question would be if the dry buildable credit can be given for the entire 7.5' easement needed in each lot. Gaffron said hydraulics and drainage calculations are needed to confirm the flood plain extent, and the City would need to know where the septic sites would be located. No septic testing has been submitted for the site. The proposed building site is not shown. The comprehensive plan suggested that new lots be served by driveways accessing to private roads rather than directly onto public roads. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#17 - #2043 Gordon Buhrer - Continued) Gaffron said the applicant has suggested that since the pond at the southeast comer is man made, to fill in the pond to gain dry buildablc acreage The pond is not sho\^Ti on the national wetland inventory, but if delineated, it would very likely be defined as wetland. Lindquist inquired about the driveway access onto Fox Street GalTron said there would likely be good sight distance. It is narrow, not arterial, but should be no problem The applicant said the current house faces Fox Street, and he prefers a north south configuration He noted two alternate septic sites have been located on both lots, percolation testing has been done, and approved for a mound system He asked if access on Fox Street would gain approval. Rowlette said the north/south configuration would not work because ot the drainage easement. The easement would be excluded from the dry, buildable area except to add to the perimeter. A 10* drainage and utility easement was noted to be no good for utilities if the ground was underwater. Relocating of the drainageway seemed to be the only solution. This could be performed with a backhoe. Gaffron noted that the drainage tile continues to White Oak and on occasion may be plugged somewhere. The applicant would be better off with an open channel. The applicant noted that 3/4 of it is now open and the area does dry out. Lindquist noted that if this was not done and no credit received, there would not be the 2 acres needed. He saw no other solution to the problem. If the drainageway could be moved in order to gain confomiity, this could be done. The drainageway could then be followed for the lot line Afier the tile was removed, the remainder should be left as open ditch. The applicant noted that the survey for the property had recently been done by Mark Gronberg. Hawn asked if the utUity easements are excluded from dry buildable area. She was told they were not if on the perimeter easerncm. The Commissioners advised the applicant to proceed as long as the lot area minimum was met with the rural 2 acre contiguous dry buildable excluding the right-of-way, easements, wetlands, and flood plain levels. Peterson asked for the appUcant to work with Gaffron to work out the details. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#18) #2070 L. E. BRUEGGEMAN COMPANIES, 372 WESTLAKE STREET - SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARLNG The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Developer Loren Brueggetnan and property owner. Dean \Iaeser, were present. The property in question is located on Westlake Street The sketch plan is a review ot a proposed lot line rearrangement or replat to result in two building sites from a 1 99 acre group of 3 ta.x parceb This property is located in the single family lakeshore residential 2-acre zoning district requiring 200' width minimums. The home currently on the property overlaps lots 10 and 11 with a storage-type building on lot 11 Two rental cabins overlap lots 1 1 and 12 but are mainly located in lot 12. The property currently operates as one single property. One sewer unit was assessed to the existing house but not granted to the cabins, which are non-conforming and are in need ot removal Council directed the applic^t earlier this year to coni.ect the house to sewer and allowed the cabins to remain in use for two more years before they must be removed. The cabins are using the septic system on the property, and the house must be connected to sewer immediately. The cost of connecting to sewer is $14,000 per unit. The applicant decided to pursue a lot line rearrangement or replat of the propei^ into two building sites. The lots would meet the required setbacks with 50' front and 30 side but would create a back-lot situation. The potential rights of the owner to have an additional building site would be much greater if each existing lot was buildable but th^ arc not as many variances would be needed If a back lot were created and replatted, it would not meet the 1 50®/'* requirement. Lot area variances would be required. The lot width as noted in case 1 is dqiendent on the 75' line but would probably meet the lot width required The lot coverage by structure allowance is limited by hardcover maximums. An average lakeshore setback variance would also be required. In the question of a replat, would the City allow a narrow corridor to access the back lot or would 30* be required as per the code'^ It is questionable whether two parcels would be allowed in this 2-acre zoning. The lots use currently overlaps resulting in the 3 lots functioning as one property If a subdivision is not possible. City questions what relief could be given to the owner. Would it be possible to sell land to a neighbor? Developer Brueggeman passed out sketch plans to the Commissioners showing two potential building sites on rearranged parcels meeting hardcover requirements. One site would contain a 2-story residence, 3300 s.f, and the second site would contain a 4400 s.f footprint with a walkout rambler sty le home, square footage of which would be 4000+ s.f with both upper and lower levels. Both would be on substandard lots but would be sellable according to Brueggeman. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 (#18 - nlOlO L E. Brueggeman Companies - Continued) Gaffron questioned whether the driveway across the top portion ot the property was included in the calculations. Brueggeman said the parcel contained 49,680 s.f. He eliminated the area within the 75' zone, netting 28.000. 25®'o ot that figure equals 7000 s f and took off the driveway for a net amount of 4500 s.f Peterson questioned the ability of the property to have two homes on one lot. Brueggeman said this is consistent with the homes in the neighborhood at this time which average 7 to 8 acres with the largest at 1-1/2 acres. These two lots would be 1.0 acre and 9 acre in size. Rowlette said she saw this application as an opportunity to gain a 2-acre lot in the 2-acre zoning district adding that as a single building site, it would be beautiful. The applicant s concern 'S with property value and overbuilding tor the homes in the neighborhood. Peterson said he liked the proposal but questioned whether it should be two lots when it is one to begin with. Lindquist noied that other lots built on were I acre in size. Hawn asked if the adjacent homes in the neighborhood were connected to sewer. Gaffron said sewer was available to all of the homes but not necessarily connected. Hawn asked if any other lots were combined in the neighborhood. There was one other lakeshore lot that was combined and is a 100' lot. The rest of the lakeshore lots were individual lots. Brueggeman said this was an unusual case with 4 buildings on 3 lots adding that the proposal would clean up the site. Peterson commented that the cabins have been directed to be removed anyways regardless of the result of this proposal. Gafifon noted that the property has existed as a non-conlorming use. When the sewer came available to the property, the non-conformity was brought to a head. Maeser is looking at the options available Gafiron added that the deadline of June 1995 for connecting the house to sewer has yet to be dealt with. Brueggeman said the rights of Maeser need to be considered by the Commission and Council, which he felt has not been done. It is his desire to solve the problems. Gafiron said the property is 3 separate tax parcels. In the sewered zone, it is required to look at each separately as to their buildability. The current standards do not allow these lots to be buildable. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18. 1995 (#18 #2070 L E Bmeggeman Companies - Coritinued) Lindquist commenied that with one parcel, 2 acres in size, with the concerns of the property and the houses in the area on 1 acre or less parcels, it was his opinion that it would be difficult to enforce the standards Lindquist suggested gaining the opinion of the City Attorney It was decided to gather more information gain the couns*' f t! .e Attorney, and ask the Council for their direction regarding the property. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#19) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION RLPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 (DALE LINDQUIST) Lindquist noted the delay in the start of the meeting due to a lack of a quorum. (#20) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1995 No representative of the Planning Commission attended the Park Commission meeting of September 4, 1995. (#21) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schroeder will attend the Oaober 2 meeting of the Park Commission. Gafffon brouoht to the attention of the lake use committee possible meeting dates of Oaober 4, 5, or 6 Gafiron asked that all open space surve-. be completed and turned in to City Administrator Moorse. Gafffon said Mabusth has suggested a work meeting be scheduled concerning zoning issues. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#22) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 21,1995 MEETING Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 21, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes 6, Nays 0. mE nT jtes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18 1995 (#23) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE OCTOBER 9, 1995 .MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Peterson \\ill anend the October 9 meeting of the Council ADJOURNMENT Peterson moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at 12:34 a m. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person L An Roz.e. Scol*^. T • R • A (A:> ITH A L. October 11. 1995 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth 3uiiding ik Zoning Administrator Citv of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN. 55356 Re: Application for Home Occupation License Variance Applicauon Dear Ms. Mabusth: After seeing the 3-3 vote of the first Planning Commission, listening to the arguments on both sides, and loiowing that costly restnctions (combining properties, changing homesteads, etc.) will be the ultimate result if the variance is approved; I am removing my variimce application. As disappointed as I am. I can make adjustments in my pracuce and move office space into my home. That office space will consist, as it does now. of a workstation for myself. Space requirements are approximately 80 to 100 s.f. for a worksurface. computer station, drafting table and filing cabinets. The vacated remodeled space requested in the variance application will be used by my mother-in-law. my children for homework, my wife’s tutonng and a recreation area for my family (ping-pong, fitness, etc.). I will .keep some computer hardware, table and chairs, and a workstation in this space to support some of the activities mentioned above. I want to thank you and .Mike for the advice and any support you gave me in this variance request. I will be in contact with you in the near future regarding the Orono Ice Arena. I look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely. Ted Rozeboom A OCt Ted Rozeboom Architects • 2965 C^sco Pnint Road* Wayzata* Minnesota 55391 • Tel: (612)471-8780 Fax:(612)471-8740 p. ^ PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR ROBERT AND SANDRA ROBERTSON. AND WELDON DUNN IN THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 32-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA (S) eXBmmilal SjSsSHsSSS:. wStllS.'SJS'CSlS.'“ 1*1 Mi.Mt>in tsi->:fl ----- PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR U)|[l\ lV (.K0\HIK(, iv ROBERT HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA