HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject Packet4:f-iV br
Receipt
CITY OF ORONO - #DIVJOW APPLICATION
------------------------------------------------------------
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address Undssiyned
Property Identific. `ion Number (P.I.D. ) 08-117-23 31 0006-UUD
Please check one - Property _ abstract or torrens?
Attach logal description to application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT Phone (home)
Name ldreo R. Frdnkl in Development Phone (work)
Address: 1.3237 Orchdrd Rd. City: ;1tk,,. Zip: 553•",3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMNER (if different. than applicant) Phone (home)
Name
Phone (work)
Address: City: zip:
(attach list if more thai, one)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXISTING LAND USE
Number of Tax Parcels I
Development Size ;.) Acres Dry Land
Acres Wet Land
Acres Total, all parcels
Present Use (check) Residential; no. of units
ether (specify) r,1C,u,t parts . une
Px r,t. residential unit.
Present Zoning District
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSAI, Division for Tax Purposes
Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites)
Subdivision for New Building Sites
Number of Building Sitc•s: Existing Units
20 New Units
20 Total Units
Proposed Gross Density: 23 Units per ! Acres 6.67 units/acre,.
,Minimum Lot Size: 1«_OUJ. �q Feet Dry Su:ldable, Land
Proposed Use: (chock) Residential
Other ( sF c-: f y'
MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY POR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY AI'I'LICATION
1. Completed Application Form
2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey.
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 330' !you must obtain
this list from Hennepin County Department of Fin.ince A-603 G(jV': Center
348-3271).
'4-:1, Stamped, legal sized envelopes (M10) pre -addressed to each of the
names on the above list with no return addresF (use address labels
obtained with property owners list).
5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of
any other person- you wish notified of this applicatior.
Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is
complete.
Zoning Official's Signature Date
1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments).
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.
Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete.
Zoning Official's Signature Date
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rim
xx Sketch Pian Review (Class :, II 6 III) $150.00
Preliminary Review (Class 16 II Subdivision) 250.00
Preliminary Review (Class III and all nun -residential) 300.00 +
20.00/Lot
Final Plat Review (Class III) 150.00*
*(Plus any legal or t—igineering charges)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or
requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney,
Planning Commission and Council ne-essary to process this application and
further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance.
- ZApplicant's Signature - Date � 15`
� � Q
Owner's Signature \� �_ _.� �� Date
AE,plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days betare tt.e
Planning Commission M,etinq. Planninq 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 _n applicant is
unable to attend a scheduled meeting, V:lease make arrangements to have ar
authorized agent attend in your place ant] to advise the Huil,a•nq 6 7on.nq
office of this change prior to the meet:nq.
CITE' of ORO NO
Nest tlffice Box 66e('rvsual Hay. Minnesota :634 i•Municipal Offices
On the North Shoe of Lake Minnetonka
CATA PPIVAC'i .ADVISORY
In accordance with t:.4. 15.165, "Rights of sub]ects of data",
we would like: to inform you that your request for a permit_ or
license frcn the City of Orono or any of its departments may
require you to furnish certain private or confidential inform-
ation.
You are notified that:
1. The information you Furnish will be used to determine
You- qualification for the per.��it or !:tense requested.
2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require
that the City deny the permit or license.
;. ,he inform-- tion -4., be shared wit:; other local, state
or federal agencies to the ^x:.ent :ie.ess-iry to process
`_!]e ;:ermit or 1ic:ensa.
rtques ted '_:erm; t Or l:ct'n. -- : e i-cs i JunCll
_ic•n tc apr:ra•:e, son-I.L. :,-,formation ,J:ecoma public.
5, have tertian ri;ncs under M.S. 15.1b� t� review
ate data ci: yourself.
6. Ycur full nar'e, 3r,d rate of birth are required to prcc•2ss
this application or permit.
NARCO 131c'Haxu F'BAa 1!: — - —
First ._. st
Lim rr
A.1 reti
3-4-t)i1
Cate ut birth (maces not apply to bui_ding/?eneral permits)
f> iK-4iflt+ -
Phune
I \Ur4l 'and .fty rinhts as sj,9Tec) above.
X
�f, /t1A1Vl. ♦' 1 11 • IW MKTRA nU% & MA\!! ♦7 V? 154 0 M BI lu ►►flak♦ 471 ; 3N
SM.04 RIGHTS OF SUBJFZ` S OF DATA
Subdivision L Type of data- The rights of individuals on whom the data is
stored or to be stored shall be as set forth in this section.
Subd. 2. Information requited to be given individual- An indvidual asked to
supply private or confidential data concerning himself shall be informed of: q) :he
purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency,
political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether he may refuse or is legally
required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consecuence arising from his
supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of
other persons or entities authorized by state o: federal law to receive the data. ;his.
recuirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to su. Dlv ir.•:es:icat:ve data,
pursuant to section 13.8z, subdivision 5, to a law enforcement o:ficer.
The commissioner of revenue may place the notice recuired urde" •s
subdivision in t1le unc!v!aual income tax o: property tax re:und ors:ructions irsteac of
on :nose corms.
Subd.3. Access to data by individuaL Upon request to a responsible
authority, an individual shall be informed whether he is the subject a stored data on
individual, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon
further request, an individual who is the su5iect of stored private o: public data on
individuals shall be shown the data without
ahat datae to him Afte and,if indiv des; -has shall
5e informed of the content and meaning
shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to
him for six months :hereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is
pen ing or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. Ttie
responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by
the individual subject of the data. The responsible au ,ority may recu:re the
al costs of making, certifying, and compiling the
requesting person to pay the actu
copies. ssible, wlih E 7y request
The responsible authority shall comply :-!mediately, if pc
made pursuant to :his subdivision, or within live days of the date of the request,
exciudinb Saturc.�-s, Suncatis and legal holidays, if immediate compliance s not
possible. If he cannot comply with the recues' within that time, he Shall so irfor�m the
individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply wi•h
-agues:, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.
Subd. 4. Procedure when data is not accurate or complete. An individ"ual may
contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data concerning himself
exercise this tight, an individual shell notify in writing the responsible authority
describing :he nature of the disagreement. he responsible authority shall within 30
da%s either: (a, correct the data found to 5e :zaccurate or incomplete and attempt :o
notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including re=ipients named �y
the individual; or (b) notify the individual :hat he believes the data to be c^'re::•
Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual's stater:!ent of disag'ee.me^::s
included wish the ;tselosed data.
The determination of :he resxrsibie a:;thor::y may be appealed put -Sun"•: :o
provisic;s of :ne acnir.:s:-at, pro^educe act relating to c:r_*estec cases.
HARDCOVER CALCULATIC'I Ir'OR r.;;t-'
SETBACK ZONE: (CIPC._E ONE) 0-75'
EXISTING HARDCOVER I.I ZONE S
------------------------
A. HOUSE 1 x S.F. �Z p
LE;IG7H WIDTH 0 z
2 - z
x - _ 'LLCM S.F.
_ X SOO S.F. 3
X = _ S.F.
X = S.F. U)
B. GARAGE 2 X - 2 400 S.F.J v
%z ul
C. DRIVEWAY�� X S.F. pl aL Z
� � N
lfl 9
- x = S.F.
D. SIDEWALK ��? % X S.F. _ O
S.F. 3 Z
E. ATIO/ x = S.F. y
�EC< � �
x = 12.1(40G0 S.F.
citT
F.LANDSCAPE x = S.F. d
AREAS �'
ck
UNDERLAIN%) 'yf 2 Cic=
BY X = S.F. p+
PLASTIC F-
SHEETING
X = .F.� Rol
x _ = S.F. v
ro ��
G. OTHER x S.F
= — ~
_ ,
TOTAL FAROCOVER IN ZONE -
TOTAL PRCPERTY AREA IN ZONE
-------------
a
27,3'1 S.F. D
x '.CQ - _-4-A
C AZrvat, 24
Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley /
Orono Planning-ommission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
Fromt Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator
Date- September 13, 1989
Subjects #1460 Marco Franklin Development Company,
1340 Baldur Park Road - Sketch Plan Review -
Suhdivision - Condi*ional Use Permit for PRD
Pertinent Ordinance -
Section 10.25 - LR-lC zoning district. Specifically review
purpose/intent of zoning district as follows:
1. Provide medium density residential development and
limited "agricultural" activity.
2. Cannot endanger quality of story+ water run-uff into
Lake Minnetonka.
3. Special lakeshore standards are to he employed in
the development of property in order to protect the
lake.
4. The property must have immediate access to highways
and public sanitary sewer.
Section 10.25, Subdivision 4 (A) - A conditional use permit
required for Flanned Residential Development. Note that
such development shall not be limited to detached single
family structures.
Section 10.32 - Standards for a Pianned Residential
Development. Please note the PUD recent ordinance is not
available to this area of the City and is only available to
the corridor defined adjacent to Highway 12.
Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6, 7, 8 - Sketch plan review
under the subdivision regulations. Review intent of sketch
tian review.
Zoning District - LR-IC
Application - Residential subdivision/conditional use permit for
20 unit PRI) - sketch plan review.
Total Area:
Applicant's determination - 122,000 s.f. or 2.8 acres
Staff's determination = 118,017 a.f.* or 2.71 acres
Zoning File #1460
September 13, 1989
Page 2 of 4
• This area ii- determined at the 929.4 elevation or
ordinary high water mark and would include all areas on the
pennisula that are either at or above tho 929.4' elevation.
Per Section 10.22 and Section 10.55 of the Municipal Zoning
Code, this is the only area that can be considered for
development purposes in determining allowed densities.
Proposed Unit Density - The density allowed (per Section 10.25
and Section 10.32) = 5 units or 23,603.4 s.f. or .54 acres
per unit
Proposed by IkI,olicaut = 20 units or 5,900 s.f. or
.14 acres per unit
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Plat Map
Exhibit C - Survey - Designing Building Envelope 6 Flood
Plain Elevations
Exhibit D - Resolution
Exhibit E - Survey
Exhibit F - Plan of PRD
Review of Application -
The applicant's current proposal includes Lots 30 and 31,
currently unler set,arate ownership. Staff has been advised by
the present owner that they are not part of this application
which would result in a reduction in the area calculations noted
above. The PRD plan shows a combination of 9 duplex units ai.d 2
single family units. Units 16-20 are totally located within the
75' setback area designated by the dashed line running parallel
to the shoreline. Portions of structures 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, and 15
are also located within the lakeshore protected area. Note
driving and E;arking areas have also been placed within 75' of the
lakeshore. In PRD developments that contain shoreline, the
lakeshore protected area may be used to qualify against density,
but the lakeshore setback of 75' and hardcover regulations shall
be applicable for development as directed in the purpose and
intent of the I,R-IC zoning district. Hardcover calculations have
not been noted by the applicant but clearly we are dealing with
excessive amounts of hardcover within the lakeshore protected
area and within the building envelope within the pennisula that
consists of approximately .58 acres. Maximum hardcover within
that def fined enveiole would be limited to 5,5(10 s.f.
Zoning File 11460
September 13, 1989
Page 3 of 4
In early 1982, the City was asked to consider a four -unit
PRD of the pennisula area. The City advised the applicant that
they would have to deny the four -unit PRD because c. *;o
excessive variances sought to hardcover with the application. :n
light of the obvious action of the Council, the applicb:,s
submitted a revised three -lot plat of the pennisula and wab
granted approval in September, 1982. The resolution that granted
preliminary approval of that three -lot plat has been enclosed for
your review.
During that review the City approved extension of municipal
sewer lines to the undeveloped property (never assessed for
sewer) finding adequate cap,,city for the three additional units.
Another issue in that earlier review was the fact that Baldur
Park Road did not extend to the east property line of Lot 21.
Upon preliminary approval, the applicant was asked to deal
individually with each of the these property owners seeking quit
claim deeds of a road right-of-way to be extended or connection
to a future cul-de-sac within the subject property. The three
affected property owners refused to deed the right-of-way as they
were opposed to the proposed development of the pennisula area.
If the City is to consider further development of this property,
the three property owners must once again be contacted for final
determination before formal condemnation of the roadway can
commence.
The City has received no information as to the elevations or
floor tolans of the proposed units at this stage of the sketch
plan review.
There have been no changes in the lakenhore regulations
since that first review in 1982 that denied a four -unit PRD.
There is nothing in our current review policy or ordinances that
would suggest the City would turn around now and approve a 20
unit PRD as proposed on this severely limited site. Staff would
be happy to work with the applicant to determine a more feasible
and realistic application for formal filing. Applicant may wish
to proceed with the three lot proposal originally approved by the
City in 1902, but it is questionable as to the current position
of the owner of Lots 30 and 31 and if that current owner would
choose to join in that three -lot proposal.
Please note the existirq house at the point of the E,ennisula
is still not served by municipa; sewer. The current owner hate
had no success in dealing with the owners of the remaining
eastern lots in achievir.q an easement to bring sewer to the
property. It may to necessary for the City to condemn both
access and sewer Easements for the property. It would be
beneficial for all if the current owner of the remaining parcels
could work with the property owner to resolve the extension of
municipal sewer and legal access to the {•roperty.
Zoning File #1460
September 13, 1989
Page 4 of 4
Issues that must be addressed by the developer of the
property with formal applications
1. Resclve of density. Need to address lakeshore setback
and hardcover regulations within 0.58 acre building
envelope.
2. Define actual properties to be inelLded in the formal
application - whether current owner of Lots 30 and 31 with
join in formal application.
3. Extension of the municipal sewer through now private
properties at the east side of the property.
4. Define new public roadway that would extend to the east
border of the property - contact with current property
owners to see if they would agree to deed right-of-way or
City to condemn the property for road purposes and to bring
current road to improved status.
5. Will increase in density within subject property. Will
require major upgrading of Baldur Park Road.
6. Other considerations from Planning Commission members.
If applicant wishes to approve Planning Commission and staff
position, applicant may fill a separate appeals application in
order to present proposal before the Council.
TO f':anninq Commission
P141)M: Jeanne A. Mabusth
UAT1.: January 28, 1981.
SUBJECT: @669 Tonka Lake-.opurci.s, 1340 bildur Park Road
Subdivision
Application - Subdivision - 4 lot plat
Variances 1) Lien aity credit 31.841 (c)
2) hardcover 0-75'
75'-250'
List of Lxnlbits
Exhibit
A -
Application
Exhibit
B -
Applicant's letter
Exhibit
C -
Data table
Exhibit
D -
1978 plan
Exhibit
E
- Preliminary plan
Tonka Lake properties has filed a 4 lot plat subdivision
application. - note not a PRD - requiring variances and density
credit,..
In the following review I have made chances in the applicant's
data tables (See Exhibit B • C). I requested that the pre-
liminary plans for the formal application designate the flood
plain elevation of 931.5 as in Peterson's 1978 application.
(Exhibit D) if you review the preliminary plans from application
1466 the 931.5 elevation would take approximately 3,300 of from
the buildable envelope area noted by the applicant at 25,300 of
based on the 932 elevation. The allowed buildable area at the
75' srtback .area would be changed from 6,325 of to 5,500 of.
In addi.ion I have emended the total proposed hardcover calculation
for the U-75' setback area from 10,260 sf to 11,040 af. The
applicant was asked to designate a road with a minimum width
of 18' and he has desicnated 16'. Thic 2' difference created
an addition of some 760 sf of hardcover and changed the total
haidc- yr Ion thv revised plan to 18,680 at.
bT1Ct McL'lerw
The plans still show individual riparian outlots. Based on
the limitation of the site, I would still sugceat one shared
riparian outlot with a single joint use dock whether you
recommend a 2. 1 or 4 lot plat.
hu..!no can be 1+laced un each newly Created lot meeting all
-Qqu.:ed setbacks. l,ot 4 may havc some difficulties once the
9i1.5 elevation to desi,tnated - once again shack the Peterson
t }plan of 1976.
T04ka Properties
LC,n
ILVaLe Plat ruad must be designated at an 18' width. If
.•, ia•, lina:s .are not run within the ritth: of way of 1)utlot A
t.ut alone tha• lower; south shore than of
sewer f k)u rlOt
Jamllna.eJ and Platted as a 20, easement on the final plat.
I•( •11,p11cants seek a density credit for the restricted
)t.utvs that . elevation).
area (area below the flood
93i5 levation). ordinance 31.841 (c)
the credit can not a•xeevd Lull.far,le area of .58 acres. the area of the dry
Variancc
'1.841(c)
.',8 dr} buildat,le
.58 maximum area credit for flood Plain
1.16 acres
- 2 units allowed Per LR-IC
4 units proposed
3 units a;.pi.:, d n 1978
)lication
Thu h.:rdco,ror variances
are as follows;
0-'5' setback arL•a Total
allowed
0 area 92,717 sf
existinq -
8,250 of or
proposed
11,040 of or
setback
allowed -
area
c Total area 22,000 of
., SQOt;t
vxisttn(r -
c.r 25.
1'920 sf
propun.•J -
7,640 of
Val .a►,cv
2,140 or 9. 71 cavarr -Allowed 25% f-r
Total of )4.7% a
Planr,ir,•; .' ,;gin. , ,i,,r;
thl
Should address that following
issues at
1 2 al Iowa•;)
- 2.
2 - ,,«viaw ut rwrc:st:i�,s
for ureyuirred
.,1 shale Of 1c.t
- vaarianceb
61 42.7;' st cr
F)wt._nouIa
ll
: 1®,U17 ur :,
acrt's of a tut -Al let area of
en•:ar)•.) .• t.': tt.�
acres in vxclualed from the building
'S'
th. Hr ,hart••,
setback u,, .►11 three yl�ie9 of
jppri,Ai^.ata 1.
saute, vi►or,
I.ls acrv. �f fla .,
<,d plain long the
,,• � t,ur lair, r
! t ha "' nir'''�la •. a.a•a•rely restricts the
:ultra.
a _
r.•,.,.r,
writ rall ll ur tl.+cal
intcrest in th«
4 - Lrtr,•r r.•.flt
t.
r, Dear cost (If,• extanlin.;
:...lrr...
.rwwr to
,tr+,at.vcJ t.y fvbruary
„ .3... ,;..: 4f i•ubI lc ha•af,n,j !ur
t4•.rch 1
4
1669 Tonka Properties
Page 2
Subdivision PRD
1'r-s_d unit Denslt;
GruS;; and Area
Area JLlow des,,2.75 acres
na�ed 3 1.25 acres
Flood Plain 931.5
Dry buildable Area
Above 931.5 1.50 acres
Areas of Right of 1r,,y
a) Out1Ot A
b) Public Cul De Sac "2 acr
.18 icre
N,:t Land Area
a) Exclusive of Outlot A
b) Exclusive of Cul De Sac ' 1.28 acres
1.32 Acres
Net Land Area
1'10 acres (exclusive of
Flood Plain Area ^ 1-25 Outlot A
(Density credit Ordinance 31r841es ���te credit could not cue de von
land area of 1.exceed given
Tota, dreg with 5 acres)
Flood Plain Crat:it �� acres
Actual f•ro,;,sal
i units/2.35 acres net
r 1.7 units per acre
+)luw,'d unites het acre = 2 units per acry within LR-lC zone.
Build n` Lot' and Build,ng Envelope
Lot 1 a bui„Tiny envelope should follow existing structure's exterior
walla to prevent future en�roacliment into the 75'
set
1 doe...raet the .U' s•:tback requirement from the otherback
area. LOt
Lot neets cr:e 15 metback area, and alsc, the 20,
There is au existing Patio that is co to crmoved onstetak
hbaclore uir
9 �e n t
t.
Lot 3 netts all setback requirements.
Lot i will
li al: metback requtrvments, this lot has an existin
wht:., Lou removed.
y yarsye
All building jut* rxlst lrUtr;i.le the 931.5 1levati;>n.
Hardcover
Allowrl 5,';0a of
Extytin.i 11,170 Yt
OW10, A - 7,010 of
Lot 1 - 4,225 of
Lut . - 5,520 of
Lot 3 - 1.620 of
Lot J _ 2.210 s,
Total f•ruy0awd
Plannin,) Comrnistr,n
IW-1 : Th_mas J. JacoLs, BU1lUlny nfficial
DATE: March 10, 1982
SUBJLCT. 46b9 Tonka Lake Pruperties, 1340 baldur Park Road -
PRD Subdivision - Work Session
t.ist of Exnibits
Exhibit
A -
Title Opinion - notinq tee ownership
Exhibit
B -
Certificate of Title
Exhibit
C -
Cuok letter (2-4-82)
Exhibit
D
- Olson letter (9-17-80)
Exhibit
E
- Council minutes (9-15-80)
Exhibit
F
- Applicant's Attorney's letter
Exhibit
G
- flan - doted February 24, 1982
The applicant proposes a 4 unit PRD of the total 2.75 acres at the
tip of Baldur Park - does this sound tamiliar - this is their
third try folks! I have attempted to clear up the questions raised
by the Planning Commission of the wetland ordinance in the section
immediately below the introductory comments. Once again, star .s
beginning to sound like a broken record >ut this property is a,,
right for a PRD development. Our major concern will still be the
increase in hardcover resulting from any new development. Planning
Commission should try to come to a compromise position on either
controls over density level or limit of hardcover within each
building envelope. The aniy reason 4 units can be propored by the
developer is the location of the existing structures in relation
to the allowed building envelope. Four units required to meet all
setback could never be located within the allowed buildinq envel pe.
Plann►nq Ccmjni!csion should ask for a reduction to 3 units based on
the existinq riun conforming tes►dentlal structure located outsiJe of
:he allowed Luildtnq envelope and on the hardcover inc-eases
:esulting from 4 unit level of development. Nppllcant may be
given option to remove existing house and pre.ient a plan showing
all 4 units within the building envelope. (See hardcover section
below)
In Conaiderdtion ut ordinance 31.841 - specif►caily (L� & (c)
At oi-i last met t.r.j, ,Planninq Commission interpreted section (b)
ar not allow►nq any uvvvlopraert within the City of lands involveu
with tio%>J plains or wetlands to ever yo below 5 acre of dry
t.utld.iWt per unit. Staft has been advised that this section
duty i.ut dpl.ly to 1'14D' ., suWkvisionw, etc seeking such credits.
:..ttun (Ll i• a tuu; tar staff to Uetermininq the buildability
r a I.ral•erty invulv••d with pritected area. The density review
bt .uw ► 4 La .w-1 un tr. •: jnJorJs set forth in ur.' • nance 31 .0-i l c ) .
d
.i N1NJiF•5 UF'
711I: PLANNit.0 ^.O,"ISc•ON MFETI\li OF F'4:bR J;cRY
t �hd
'c,.�•l ch.,r "•,r} 1'ece:r:;on wene
there alrcddy cxistrd on
APPlacant
umount of the
h ve uru,,tvd prole hardcover, Tht' 1978 Property an
hardcover thin the ircposal woulu
"tdff current proposal.
notttd e:rr„r
1. 1982 Faye 4
culdtlonal s lrr the dppllcdnt's hardcover 1978 -and advlsvd dPPlacant that in cal-
,rouoDal Nath the Present
more pro.oYed comparing the
} hardcov�•r In thL 1981prouos111 that there
Plan. is
VI'hui�i noted
by th,• tnac this was .r new applacataon
ritrla., of toddy. Hardcover submltte;J
world Lu relative t:, the c considerations
ruvaew. current
Plan .en;j � h13 Commiss1on's
Peterson noted that this t
the neayhLur, bype of .
ecause Plan. would
upyrad,:d, the road would Le completed
dll
Plated and
Kelley dske.i if this wa road? s i Prlvdte road or
a public
Peterson stdtecj
wa sac but they had t}robw3uldaneapublic upto the cul
Y on 8aldur Park Road to coma ac ulrr„q the right
access, road
of
the puillc road
P-d rQ sthasked PetersonQve
Property' of uWnershi}, he had
1'`•t`•rsolr stated the
that
an 1978 t t.rr 1vd7i he fee owner. row he ownv! all of c ce H• nested
he Owns this. lot too. �ePt Lac
30 but
Callat:ad that from h
tt.e curr,n+trrtotN::;lrvvl 'hit ,�kanl lc the 1978 plan ,nd
smdlleC L,. _rosaon. PVrnt:rsula was 1
ic'tt lna
F'e:eetr.;,r, �tse�•,: t:;.,: iceudlly the
lu0' ,:r.cv }' had
I90C' �.elne
the orayanal plaan t Some
the early
,••tte:r, ..edt�r:
r,l that thu existlnq hardcover
d`• anu that the l,etnansula plece: of
ery "witdclons. Shu ittat.•I was ha,,
t.� Pr,-: `. t 1t that , ro Y ha.
, her ,.� dn.+ she. could nothe3 went out en
,ld Lou, lu ,:•
Lri this Let how they
t'�Metrty, Y
thv it
Itirt •IiuYauu, (jrl any ,rndl..:e-c1 1+, the
t.r' uCh.rr
. a
..., w r dc•„ 1, . f
� ,r.• , t t,, . yr
t Lt ou:,l not. "net, this
""''KA PROPERTIES
1300 baldur Park
Subdivision
6664
6
f'
d
t fj.. •i. 97Y.. i .. .. .
•..r.�:-C c:t• III: ortoo r;,:: I. .::.•.
•C, T r 10, 1 y 7•i
•r:.iJtion - .:.,rch :.'L, r .,ye•
1 79EXHIBIT �
. ..�:: .�• !'r'�•:in+:,ar 4 IVISIO::
'i Gfy i:ern ll.,r,I,.' sut.li CLI'� JOYJI of t!�,. ;r'y�, r,0 :;lath Av, .
'n::s the rolls,.:; , (Continued)
of entran:�' pt•rnit frog !l�•nnel,in
=•u fty Iti3hway Uenatt�ent.
•-•:usslon of re
red
i.,ur lots
t,"us�,s s�t,t- I 5eptic )Ins ,e�.�t i` test lrr1 d•►ta for
1• lc systen,_or to lnsF,rct vxlstinu
heveioNur enter into a Conservation an,:
Jsuf`lent with City,
'1• Piat road �•1uw..;r
re,:e.•:pt oftCc,l,�.traviewed b}• City .nginecr I
rents, s report on Nr►tra:,cerequire.
0 ion
rel u i rr-
Council :1usrtu,9 - July 10, 191)
MfYor Vah :Jcr:;t Move
the Sixthvreiln+r,Jry subdiva�sionrlrele seco`J,•c1, to JI,Prove
9�0 Sixth Avl•nua tlort:: queut of Kern Ho,
rcconnc•ndatlons ' per the plannin ) pt•'
above. rbtion, Ayes (3n Cc,.-�vsion
(Oi .
Mr. Man Ulsoh, Clt` Plannel•, efttcrrud into tht•
record the ruquCut for a subdivision of
1'utar�en, 1340 13dldur fare, Road
197y Gary
wh_ch statdated Jun(_ :n
Mr. Petersen h,,s invested L , •fCsl'SS 1:,5, WlCh 11C1e discuss1_I,
.Johnson the affected nelghbors7 the ro•,d
a bot r) and with s
l.rlution h.,s sta f, (•und�r;;�n,
Leen •,rjreL- u :•he following
poll:
The "1,1., t w will bo.- extended a 1 u.,
the thrnu adlact•nt perties I the road
M111 dCtOSS
w:11 be �rr:ova�s:ApprovJl on three plotwhi^hetcul` owners
1971) to the cast (south de-4dc
%urvey copy, UJldur park ) end per the
:. the end o Road w111 b�. June 18,
t the axistiny Pavin Paveet
re J I,avt:d turnaround will be 4 to the spa
�rivs•;�ay' J lI provided, de -sac
•+::1 Lam. extend into the peninsula. Craves)
+stalled J1on
9 the :shore to Ripthe road.
��'+'• I'l•,tLlf,, protect the ro.,d.
7 •,ncf Fiavl:,rl wall satisfy
the C1ty by a":;urinq a fixed the nc c
Celt rlght-of-w. 1I:1�X,t�
t 1.f 1:.,rc,ur,d, Y rnainton,y,ce to extend °Y and
►„• chin+leg should e • to the new
.fit, benefit all I,arties.
rG•,d e'hanr
1� increas,s Lc,s 1 0.4i ace,•
the ,•ffe•etive lot sizes:
-
Lot. , - �'J . •,ere
0 ,, Jcrc.
sUBDIVisi011
1340 Baldur park ;t,...,.
0466
Gary Petersen
(Continued)
ar..
I
: i l ): C):tON COL':;C 1 J l :.l' 10 . _ r• ; v
o i .r-try plat Jl.I,tuv01 �t '.. :C1J 1. •:
7.41.lic road platted acrus:; hour, John:.c.n,
t:utttlt rsun, unl: aub3ect property 24' wide with
".0' d:.u.rter cul-de-sac and 18' pavenenL to
I.at�:h exi:.ting road. Turnaroun,l to be paved in
cul-de-sac per public. Works Supervisor's
.6pprova 1.
2. Private driveway to extend fron cul-de-sac to
three- building sites, either at, a shared driv
I:; L-Iwwn, or platted at; an outlot 20, wide aL
shown.
3. Approxmitt:ly 200' of riprappirg to be ir.ntalluti
-Along soutt.wc:.t :shore to protect road improve-
nt.•Its plus: conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, i 6 noted on
ml tfay 14, 19'19 neno.
Council tleeting - July 10,
tlassungale moved, purr seconded, to approve the
prulininury at.lu)iViLaon request of Gary Petersen.
1340 balder park Road, subject to a *T" turnaround
inside of the cul-de-nac, park dedication fees being
Laid, removal of cabin prior to final plat approval,
.and developvrt. agreement for road and sewer itnprcve-
.i.rnt.;. Motion, 1tyel; (3) - !Jays (0).
Page 11
SUJDIVI: IO:t
1340 haldur Park Ro"..
(Conttaued)
:lurr oo.Fud, Ma.;%entlale seconded, to approve the VARIANCE
variance request. of CharleL Peterson, 1505 North ;05 North Arm Drive
Arn+ Drive, I;ulAivet to a screenint) fence rade of 1477
natural matt.rials being installed perpendicular Charles Peterson
to the b.ICIP. lot line. ttot ion , Ave!; (3) - trays (0) .
Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, intoned ►he City
Council that tht Plannint, Cor,:r+issior recortmends
approval of tho :"quest of Mr. L. !. 1.1halen,
:535 ;ootch Pine Lane, for a iro:tt yard setback
variance of 24' and vacatiu.► of a 50' utility
ta•..c•nent, ::uL,t•t•i to the following conditions:
1. A 20 drainaq.• t a!;ement to be granted and
filud wit!; Litlt of Lot 3, [Bloch 1, Dicon
Ada itIon.
2. foul to to. tra int,d into a tans; truck when
requir.•d.
Hurr :c,(,ved, !4.I:...t.ngalc seconded, to nvr a
24' t rcii.t yar I Latbark var i anct• to L. .t .
I.naLun, -'4)'p :.cotch Vine l anc, and dIrt•t"t
Ltatt t Fruparr a ret.-lution for a -.0' utility
t•4:.t•ncGt-seatton, I..•r tht• Planninq Comnission
rt•,7Ur1n. 'IttJt 4011L. fief i ra. , A•.'va (3) - r.aya (0) .
VARIAt)CE/VACATION
2435 Scotch Pine Lant
1478
L. J. Whalen
4
Ernst Associates
BALOUR PARK
�J i
FXK;:_iT__
• 3/29/82
Mr. Al Olson/Pi,nning Department
�(W299V
1
6
- E
COMPUTATIONS FOR RUN-4
AGE
Sq. ft. Acres
Coef.
0 • CIA
EXISTING SURFACES
Structures. existing house,
patio
garage. shed
3.173 .072
.9
.016
Gravel Drive
8.200 .188
.9
.042
Lawn j Rough areas
108.417 2.489
.3
.187
119.790 2.75
01
.245
PROPOSED SURFACES
Structures 2263
2400
2200
2000
8863
8.863 .203
.9
.045
B'* Paring
11.340 .260
.9
.058
Lawn 6 Rough areas
99.587 2.286
!
.171
119,790 2.75
.274
Q- C iA
b rain,luo yr. flood
• Qp - Qi
A
.274 - .245 - )[9
x 1.98 . Acre Feet Required
.U29 x 1.98 • .057 A(.. Ft of stordye
W deep)
-057 . 43.560 - 21432.92 sv it.
1
(21500 sq.ft. :' deep)
-
.4.a
1669 Tonka Lake Properties
Page 3
S.ibdivision - PRD
Therefore: 8uildabl;• area. 75 ft setback i abeve 931.5 - 22,105 of
max allowable hardcover 25% - 5,526 sf
existing hse, patio etc approx. 3000 sf a 13.51 (no var. req'd)
with second lot add apPTf
otal 2400 s- 24.41 (no var. req'd
with third lot aOd approx 2200 at
Total s 34.31 (9.31 var.)
with fourth lot add aFdrox. 2,10 sf
Total --§T-Os - 43.411 (18.41 var.)
FINAL DENSITY REVIEW
1. Clearly Rome hardcover variance is required to allow
any driveway on the property.
2, with the driveway hardcover variance, 2 units
(1 existing + 1 new) could be built meeting all
other requirements and without further variances.
1. Allowing three units as in the previously apprcved
plat would require a nominal 10% hardcover variance
dithin the bu•ldable area.
4. Allowing four units as proposed would require a
no^inal 204 hardcover variance.
Five units as might be allowed by gross lot area
density is clearly not phys tally practical within
the Retback requirements.
i.ec•orrv%ended Considerations for Prelimina_.X Plet Approval
1. Determine r- aaonaule density to be aliowed
a) 2 units with drivewa}• hardcover variance only
b) t units with driveway and 10% structural hardcover variance
ct 4 �urrts with driveway and 20% structural hardcover variance
cond i t ioneu upon
a) driin.jne im,•ro^uments per plan, including holding ponds,
it-lucated and reslopcO driveway, building eaves troughs,
maximum hardcover squire footago depending upon density,
and •roRie,n cunt rul measurer. MCwD mirRt av,prov- �Irainage plan.
t•r nr,w with turnaround per plan
1 r m paved width for 2 units
minlmu- ' °' p•iv�cl wi<Ith for r rr 4 init.�.
r 1 ,ft,lrC,it ,ir (it nq•t. Cit, cul de Ric and right
r•f way ►ncic-Cinrt Ejavine -f strv-t an:! cul de
�^ ind r►p r+{-pino Of S0101e ,» )n previous
{�; 1 scat ►on..
EXHIBIT _ -
TO: Jeanne A. Mdbusth, 2onim,g Administrator
t'kuM. Alan A. Olson, Cit! Planner
DATE: April 13, 19P2
SUBJEC-. 0669 Tor.ka Lake Properties - Proposed 5ubdivisiu:
(PRD)
The basic zonin•; on tl,izi property is LR-1C S acre/unit.
Because of the r.cninsula location End resultant 3-sided 7"
setback requirements, this site is a natural one to consid,.
for PRD cluster -type development allowing for defined houb..
pads and common open space close to the litke.
The limiting situ ract„r is the lake and rasultant floodpl.,
area below elevation This defines both zetback anL!
hardcover l ire:it.ition�.
All building sites including the existing hours are above
931.5 floodplain elevation. Provided an open space/flowny,
earement over Outlot B is granted to the City, Section 31.c..
allows this flood fringe area (between 929.4 and 931.5) to :
credited for density purposes.
All new building sites mevt the 7i' shoreline setback. Th,
existing house (ai,d proposed lot) encroaches to about 40' :
the shore. It has been demonstrated to staff that 4 lots
totally conforminq to the 75' setback are possible if the .:..
house were demolished (lot 2 becomes smaller). The request
tc allow thy existing structure to remain where it is.
The City could require removal of the existing house and fi:
conpiiance with tLe 75' setbaca as a PRD condition. However
since 4 conforming lots a_e feasible, the existing substanu...
rouse location really has no bearing on determination of V.-
approl-riate density.
Therefore, based on setback and net lot area factors, the
allowable density would be 4 or 5 units (2.75 acres - road
U.L.A. .22 a(,ru 2.53 acre = .5 - 5 units by area of i ur..
)practically possible per plan).
On the uther hand, hardcover is extremely limiting. Per
at&d 14.202. there can be no hardcover below elevation. 931.
of within 75' ut the shoreline. And it, the remaining area
the rt.txinum h-r,leuver van be no more than 254. The maximu
Hardcover all,twed ip therefore only 5526 at. Any amount
th s aswunt requi.es a variance.
tiAbwd ul. o th.: nou*Le ►izes proposed texcludiny uriveway
'mardc(.ive: ; the m.aximaum density allowed by hardcover liwit.,
Would Lt. 1 unt not 4.
• 0669 Tonka Lake Properties
Page 2
Proposed Subdivision - PRD
Any development, inclAinq the existing house, requires a
hardcover variance for '*•e driveway (and City street) to
.:ess the buildinq site. The :leveloper claims various
hardships and proposes various. mitigatinq factors in his
request for hardcover variances necessary to approve any
construction on this property.
Hardships
1. Lake on 1 nides - peninsula location
2. Driveway and street must be located within 75' of
shoreline and partially below g31.5 eleva..ion
in order to reach buildable triangle.
r. Only 19.5* of the site is above ►elevation 931.5
and 75' or more from the like•.
4. The existing substandard house location predates
the current setback and harAcov•+r regulations.
'elide ating Factors
1. Site topography is such '.hit must all drainage
flows south so thrt even though the driveway
iw within 75' of the north sh-, the drainage
actually flows 95 to 190 ft to the lake.
ffoldinq ponds are proposed to retain direct runoff.
1. The drrvewa� will he relocated farther fr(Nm the
north shore, and reslohed to assure drainage away
frum the near shore to the holding ponds.
s. The total hardcover proposed is 16.8% of the
aruts land area.
rxclu_lin,e driveway .irea, the structural h.-1rdcwer
IS 6600 sf. .Q.81 of the buildable area above
elrt•,atlon 411.11 and outside of the 75' setback area) -
The bottom lint- is that an,- de•.•elopment within the buildable
.Ir-a. even one house, will require hardcover variances for
lie I avf,way. And the ammo int of driveway hardcover required
in r.vt si.nifican•1% different for ore house than for 4 cr S. 1
T! us !� �• snit rral .ihf re�ae'+ in •o mt^imize this driveway hardcover 1
-onsistent wit" access %afety requirements, to redirect driveway
r in-f t the !.oldin,o pon,1x and t he.ine south to the lake the
nil way•, ap'l to frt-rr•►ne reasonable d •-sity al low.mres by
I-I'iew : u.•*ur•el h.sr,lc•nver wi l hin 'he )hur ldat'le area,
.n of "., ►,. .�.,, :nr , di i v i--ay h.ar,l,
Ernst Associates
1
Mti, ,ItJVI MI Ylu'•" �--
!,W0.1) I•LfJf:IN(: SIAt I ITY Qf ORON
OF O R(1M)
Ol ; I(A K)x bb
LkYstAL ISAY, Mlht k SOTA
RI F: LALDUR PARK T(YaA LAKE PROPLAT1Et, ' CONTROI. NO. 669
I4 AR M5. MAYI18 Srt:
,I'a I OUR S•.t It'll PLAN RLVItW UN THE IN JAD+VARY ;'�°: , 1 'PAVE BEEN MADE AWARE
TI M Sm PAST DATA 44 THIS PROACT WAS NOT r A1>E C:.t AA TO THE STAFF AND THE
l(Wi1061(Y1. Wt A',SL#41) TtWT ALL PARTIES WERE AWARE OF TNt FACT THAT THE EXIST-
1►tt: ',ITk ALREADY rfAS 11,170 S.?.FT. OF H RMOVER AND ONLY 6325 SQ.FT. IS ALLOWED.
AS YOU ►S1(1MI Tf *_ VARIANCE THAT ME APPL : CANT WAS RE`(A V, A NC, ON THIS PRGIFCT WAS
IN ktFtRU4CE To t ARUrOVtR.
W! 440 I': t ►• 11 tMt Ttlt R THL FOLLOWING HARDCOVER DAIIA COWAiRAT IONS FOR CLAR-
It Itathr( V.0 rOto INFORFIATION. IN Ttf FOLLOWING WE ARE COWAR ING;EXI STING SITE
aMVlflTl w. 11.11ti AI'+'ROV10 BY Tt* CITr (. AMITIONAL HOUSES) IN 1978, PRD PLAN
:ftTl KI IIIWtD, B1 fOWI-•,,Itrt U. 18 JANWRY 1M, REVISED CONCUIT PLAN
1'• •; : I.UIVISIM :ATED JAf.IJARY 1992 AND ADJACENT EXIcTI►, SI'/ -E
r` - ' RD:
'
3UILGABI.i .;..
•:. S.F,
HARDCOVER
TIFFS
tit'tiAC/_---
ALLOWEU
SHOWN
GREATER + -
;S, iUfl
n, 525
11,170
1.77 ♦77♦
iuu
6,
18, 09U
2.86 +196%
i . {'4• ,. ',i 18 ,,'Lit. 14f,.
••
+ + 0141 k, VItW
tua
b,32',
22,n15
).bl .261%
.t.. :1
t`, 301)
,900
2.93 #183♦
1' • i 't, hALD► R 1'ARt
' 'a w I.Aitall,t 1'1 h: 1
(� (IV MAU D) +lkAt 1480)
"• 1
$111s
2,824
4.63 #"It
rW7/Y't w,.i. N.111 1UAI • \, 11 Y+�Iy+o1A../IIM�N VI\►A6( CtMt�A� tfw HNN�R1Lw�1
1'
Ernst Asscciates
KkLDUR PAkK
--
"JIM
JAI+uAR 25, 1982
D `�
REVISEv JAr4LMY 2fi, 198'
? r�
TA:
ITY Uf i►RON
,Q. FT.
A!'.
1. TOTAL ACREAtc
118,017
2.71
2. TOTAL EXISTING t-WD COVER
11,17U
ASPt1ALT DRIVEWAYS 8,250
.26
STRUCTURES 2,920
3. HUILOAbLE ARtA AT 75' SETBACK
OOD
25,300
.58
MAXIMM r"D COVER ALLOWED AT :',�
�ff4.
6,�e
.IS
5. TOTAL PROPOSED HARD LOVER
11,9Uc
bN At T DR I VEWIYS Ill , "t. j - 11, 4'(O
If, (pie
.41
STRUCTURES 7,64U
U. AREA WITHIN 75' SEYdACK SHOWN
92,717
2.13
7, ARILA BELOW 932 ELEVATION AND
60,113
1.38
ABOVE 979.4
8. LOT 1 (1240 SQ. FT. HOUSE EXISTING)
22,360
.51
L7f 2 (20U0 SQ. FT. HOUSE)
22,500
.51
LOT t (1800 ><,. ► T . HOLJSE )
22,230
.51
,UT 4 (1000 Vi. f T , rtxrit )
25,550
.59
9. 1AJTLOT A
10,530
„4
UUTLL,T b
3, $30
.013
OUTLUI C
2,54u
.o11
OUTL-Ji L,
3,042
.O1
4U'LOT t
3, 735
.04
S
Ernst Associates
9ALDUi PARK / TONKA LAKE HkOPERTIES i CONTROL Nu.6t.9
MS. JEAN MAY13ESH
JAMML1kY 26, 1982
PAGE ,
b. 14US SAL" PARK RD. ra
REMDDEL iXISTING
►OUSE G BUILT NEwGARAGE 1979
VARIANCE FOP (.ARAGk , r O R O N O
SETBACK FROM 75' TO
54' WAS GRANTED HY
Hy CITY 6,25U 1,5f;: 3,140
1.01 +1G:
:: PLA( tkFUR it-, '.01t+,11!)1ON ON 1 FEB. 1982
WE wUULL) HOPE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS CLEAR AND IF TtfRE ARE ANY QU=STION5 PLL:. ,
DO NO' PIESITATt TO GIVE EITrtk GARY PETERSON OR MYSELF A CALL,
t3E i T REGARDS.
ERN ASSOC I.. �
GENk F' . ERNS T
GFE!GFf
C . �- . TO (ARV Pt , • w,;,t,
91401 Z
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1315 —
A RESOLUTION GiLiNTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
FOR THE PLAT OF B:.LDUR PARK PENINSULA
wSiEREAS, a subdivision application for a four -unit Planned
Residential Development wa3 filed by Tonka Lake Properties on
J,:iu,ary 7, 1962 of a property le.lally described as:
Lots 22 to 33, inclusive, Blo-k 1, •Baldur Park', and
Lot 21 except that part thereof described as follows:
Beginning on the meander line at the Northeasterly corner
of said Lot 21; thence Northwesterly on said line a distance
of 5C feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 211
thence Southwesterly on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21
a distance of 23 feet; thence Southeasterly to a point con the
Southeasterly line of said Lot 21, 66.5 feet Southwesterly
from Northeasterly corner; thence Northeasterly on said
Southeasterly line 66.5 feet to the point of beginning,
together with all of Nelson Lane, now vacated, and together
with that part of Isle Boulevard, now vacated, lying North-
westerly of a Southwesterly extension of the Easterly line
of said Lot 21, Block 1, 'Baldur Park', according to the plat
thereof on file or of record in the office of the County
Recorder (formerly Register of Deeds) in and for said County,
hereinafter referred to as the property; and
�%HEai.AS, after due published and mailed notice in a6�ordance
with Minnesota statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning
and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing
cn April 11f, 1982, at which time:, all persons desiring to be heard
concernir;,7 this application were given the opportunity to speak thersoni
.lr.j
wHE:itLA;, a, the regul"r meeting of the Orono City Council
t,uld on 5epte-4ber 13, 1982, Tonka Lake Properties, hereinafter referred
t� as the developer, withdrew the four -unit PRD proposal and under
ttat same uubdivisi,,n &I•plLcatLori sought Council's preliainary approval
of a plat u! throe lots of the property; and
WHEREAS,, the Or -)no %un,.il considered the findings of staff
and thL comix,.ts .,t P. Gary Petersen, authorized representative o' the
dcveloptr, and m.il, the followir,y findings of fact:
.•14 r s r r •.
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO —1115
1. The prupurt% is 10 "Iced within the LR-IC zoi. .1g district
requiring - .-.ir1ML, n lot area of 21,780 of or 0.5 acre
Lot 1 is JP:. jx'..nately 30,000 of or 0.68 acre
Lot 2 is 30,)60 of or 0.69 acre
Lot 3 is ap•.: oximately 41,L00 of or 0.94 acre
2. Th, total L," !ding envelop.• of the property 'f- saverely
restricted the lakeshort. setback standards of the
Oroau 6oain) Code.
3. The building Qnvulupe is aiso restricted by a flood
plain, area t.ulow 931.5 elevation, that includes more
than one-third of the area of the peninsula.
4. A principal residence with accessory improvements can
be located on both newly created Lots 2 4 3, meeting all
required setbacks of the LR-lC Zoning District.
5. The new dri%,way to serve all three residential units
will Loe cont.tructed so to direct all surface drainage
awa;' from tr.e lake; the existing driveway permits
surf.,: ru:. �tf direct to north shore of peninsula.
6. 1'M: pr�pos,:_ three -unit density with controlled use of
r..,rdcover, ._rict adherance to all setback standards and
c ntrol of :.itfac.: drainage will be environmentally more
.,i,,,nttgvou. than that of the existing residence.
7. Tn.; . xistl!. on Lot 1 is the only house on saldur
Pa:R not y� 7onnected to municipal sewer.
r
B. The de:ve!ol..: has assur_d the Council that the existing
•vid�nc n Lut 1 will to connecte,i to sewer by
i982.
9. Thv haz"rdow s stricture on Lot 3 will be rbmoved prior
ti) f irwl F : ,- .sppr�val.
10. The PC I.0tw;i three -unit Plat is more consistent with the
rxist: ,j pattern of development of the saldur Park
L:e I I:IL, r r.o• : .
i 'ih. -lit -tv : : e luirud upgradinq of 84ildur Park Road will
.url ._Isar,) thv health, saf.rty and welfare .,f the
,a�. J..tv I . Ihborn„A .and qu.^,:Rai put) t.c.
r v
City Of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO 1415
12. '-he proposed plat and
in the enhancin reyu�red iTt,roverrtrnts will
g
nQlklhborhood °t the property values of result
properties. all surrounding
or more NOW, THER1
Orono of the findii LedlaboveOi.VED that base] upon either
hereby approves , the Clty Council of cityofper survey dated uune 13, preliminary Plat of Caldur Park the Cit
' , subject to Peninsula
the following conditions:
1 ��11 lots to be conner
b� cun:,ected by No
vetalel l0 1982 existing house must
A-12527-K, per irrLvOcable letter
2• Ore driveway 1ts. from public road to servo all
three residential
3• Removal of existing Removal ofrage on Existin Lot 3 prior to final plat
or as a requirement g garage on Lot 3
houc;e on Lot °f lss.-ance of buildin prior to
3 • 9 permit for Weer
'1• All lots are riparian to
docks located accordin lake Minnetonka and
Conservation g to all Cit shall have
D-Stri=t ordinances, y and Lake Minnetonka
-xtensiun of
existing Baldur Park Road to new turn
b; �arou of plat extension; includes paving of road
turnaro�n 1 aid a r, around
road shoulder P.roximJtely �00 feet of r. ra and
protection. P p shoreline/
6• The Council has agreed to gr.int hardcover variances for
Lots 2 s 3 as follows;
al Lot 2 hall be limit
sha l l f
limited to
L-t 3 s1: hardcover vari
t.l , limited to `- —� hardcover variance
As for Lot 1, the —
no additional duvelopvr is advised that there ma area unless thsru of hardcover within the 75be
existing hardcov� • an equal or gruater reduction -2501 •n the
cr within the C-75' setback 1n the
f0lluwin area.
g llr+,rovemont s are requ i r,ud
1 • Ext.•nston o: b+ldur Pat K Ri,ad
suIstiNq our ta,-e to Cerminaty E,tvc+ 18, wide to :latch
raJ.uy paved surfacu, SJ radiusright
turnaround
I'r, �ij,.,� i plans f„r rued .,r,J an lght of way.
r i d t'y th s t( f roc Cit y drainage •4ork aunt be
r' enylneer prior to the
I,.
F�
fw
M
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1415
••• •
start of work. All work must be completed prior to
final plat approval, or a developer's agreement must
be signed with acceptable form of financial se to drsure completion. curity
2. Riprapping of shoreline along Baldur Park Road extenalu:.
per DNR-MCwD specifications. City permit will be grant`.:
upon approval of plans with no fee required.wp per:._
required.
3. Relocation of existing private driveway beyond turnarour....
Existing driveway to be rip ved and reseeded. Locate t.,
save existing trees.
The following lilt of final s�::mittals must be submitted
within the first week of the month to assure required action
by the Planning COMMission at their regularly scheduled meet.:.
on the third Mondav of the month.
1• Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies
and one 11) copy reduced to 1` • 2001.
Drawings to include:
a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey dated
.June 18, 1979.
bl Extend plat to i,^.clude 24' minimum right of way for
Baldur Park Roa.i along Lots 17-20 inclusive.
.1 Plat turnaround at 50' radius as shown on survey
(although do not leave private exceptions as rear
part of Lit ll►
dl Plat na:w (Irivuway as a 20' wide outlot
e) DXdicate turnaround and 24' right of way as Baldur Park koad.
t) Dedxrate drainage and atil►cy eaaeaents-
! 1 5' ea,•h side of 1c,t lines between lots
11 10' each side of driveway outlot and around
cul J.! aac circle
)1 minimum 20' wide along route or Proposed sewer
(which nay alter 'Ilse of driveway utility uaeesia:..
.above 1
City of oRONo
RESOLUTION OF `Ni CITY COUNCIL
NO• 1415
g) Dedicate public waters below contour 929.4 MSL
as •Lake Minnetonka'
2. Legal documents :=quired:
a) Title opinion addressed to th• City. All owners,
mortgage holders or others with property interest
indicated therein shall •iqn the plat and all other
documents affected by said interest.
b) Privets driveway easements and stiaintenence covenants.
c) Owners and others with property interest on Lots 17-20
affected by Baldur Park Road extension must also
sign plats.
3. Fees to be laid. Total duo: $980.00
a) Park dedication fees per current schedule, two new
lots (acreage 0.85 acre/lot) 2 X $440 . $080.00
b) Legal review and filing fee ! S100.00
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Ilinneso at a regular
mectinq held September 27, 1962.
W iam B. van Nest,mayor"
Attest: 11 . T, I,
Alberta !M. Strom, City Clark
-5-
a a 4669 Tonka Lake Properties
Page 4
Subdivision - PRD
d) sewerage of existinq house not later than July 31,
1982 ($5,000 security check is on file to assure
this wi., happen regardless of whether subdivision
proceeds or not)
e) common open space to be held in undivided joint
interest by lot owners, with open space and flowage
easement to the Cite.
f) joint dockage not to exceed l slip per lot, located
as on plan. If 3 or 4 lots approved, then dockage
should be divided as shown in which case we recommend
no need for a joint uses dock license.
q) removal of existinq garage and sheds as shown on
the plans (demolition permit required).
h) regrading, landscaping and sodding of all disturbed
areas.
0 payment of extra fees, depending upon approved density,
for ..ark dedication and sewer units.
Note that the Cit} should be prepared to condemn any public
road right of way as may be necessary to allow extension
of public road paving from end of paved road to new cul
de sac. The developer should again -ry to privately acquire
the necessary right or way, but I do expect public condemnation
will br necessary.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1999
ZONING FILE i1459-MULVANNY CONTINUED
Assistant Planning anI Zoning Administrator Gaffron
explained that the Mulvanny's were requesting an average setback
and hardcover variance to construct a room addition over an
existing deck. Gaffron questioned whether it would be possible
for the applicants to remove any existing hardcover.
Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Mulvanny what his hardship for the
variance is?
Mr. Mulvanny replied that their bedroom is 9' x 12' and the
kitchen area is also c,site small.
Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Mulvanny whether he intended to
put a deck on the front side of the house?
Mr. Mulvanny replied that he had a deck for so long that he
would prefer not to have one any longer.
Kelley informed Mr. Mulvanny that if approval is given for
this application that it would preclude anyone from adding a deck
anytime in the future.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by
Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the average
lakeshore setback. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she
was having a difficult time finding a hardship for the variance.
Planning Commissioner Cohen said that he considered living with
less than adequate space to be a hardship. Planning Commissioner
Bellows asked Mr. Mulvanny how many bedrooms the house has and
what size they are. Mr. Mulvanny said that there were three
bedrooms, two of which are 10' x 10' and one is 9' x 12'.
Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1460 MARCO R. FRANKLIN DEVELOPMENT
1320 BALDUR PARK ROAD
SUBDIVISION
SKETCH PLAIT REVIEW
Marco Franklin was present for this application as was Mr.
Ed Vogt.
The Planning Commission explained the City's position
regarding access, water & sewer and the 75' setback zone.
Chairman Kelley also noted that the applicant does not own all of
the property.
Mr. Franklin said that a purchase agreement had been entered
into with Mr. David Mess for the property at the end of the point.
Kelley said that he would not approve any haricover
variances for this very sensitive property. Kelley a� :ed the
applicants if they were familiar with the City's hardcover
12
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING S.;PTEMBER 18, 1989
ZONING FILE #1460-FRANKLIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
ordinances?
Mr. Vogt said that he was familiar with the hardcover
ordinances, but was hopeful that the City would view hardcover in
this application as a whole. He said that their proposal would
leave 70% of t..e area untouched.
Kelley said that the city would look at hardcover proposed
for each area. Kelley also observed that the applicant's
proposal called for more than 25% hardcover in the 75-250' zone.
Mabusth advised the applicant that the City's ordinances
would not allow for the consideration of hardcover coverage on
the parcel as a whole.
Planning Commissioner Bellows noted that the applicant's
proposal had not given adequate consideration to the 931.5'
elevation.
Mabusth said that accessing the property via a public
roadway had not been addressed, nor had the extension of sewer to
the proposed units.
Mr. Franklin said that with the tax structure as it is, and
the cost of the land, it would not be economically feasible to
build anything less than 10 units. Mr. Franklin said that the
area of Baldur Park upon which he wishes to tuild, is currently
littered with trash and is a trouble spot fo.- the Orono Police.
He felt that his development proposal would b,- beneficial to the
City in many ways.
Chairman Kelley said that he did not believe that area could
support 10 units.
Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he too would have
difficulty recommending approval of the proposal as it is being
presented at this time.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by
Chairman Kelley, to approve the minutes of the September 6, 1989
Planning Commission meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion
passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
It was agreed that Planning Commission member, Sarah Moos,
would represent the Planning Commission at the October 9, 1989
City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The September 18, 1989, Planninq Commission Meeting
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
13
ZONING FILE NO. 14b0
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/26/89
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Marco R. Franklin Development COPIES TO: Ed Vogt
13237 Orchard Road The Vogt Corportation
Minnetonka, MN 55343 1 Carlson Pkwv, St 260
Minneapolis, AN 55447
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan Review
------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/89 No Action Required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Please review the directives of the Planning Commission noted below.
The following issues must be resolved upon application for a formal
Subdivision/Planned Residential Development:
1. Resolve of density, lakeshore regulations of the City must be
upheld with any development of the peninsula area. Note actual
building envelope consists of .58 acres.
2. Define actual properties to be included in the formal application.
Pased on staff's current kncwledge, the owner of Lots 30 and 31 does
not join in your al.piication.
3. Extension of municipal sewer and public road to east side of
property.
Please contact the Building b 7oning staff so that we may assist in
the planning of your formal land use application.
THE VOOT CORPORATION
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING
October 27, 1989
0CT 3 l �
Jeanne A. Mabusth
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Baldur Park Peninsula
Dear Jeanne:
I'm writing to say "thank you" for your time, consideration
aril constructive comments at our recent meeting. You have a
way of dealing with people most graciously even when points
of view .ire quite divergent.
Apparently, at this time, the owner feels that the pivotal
item of density provably cannot be resolved satisfactorily
through further architec+,oral alternatives. I am under the
impression that their pre:; -grit- intention is to turn to legal
advice regarding determining their options.
If they do, it does not represent my a6 vice. I had looked
forward to continuing to work through the normal Planning
Commission processes.
Thank you again for your patient and considerate input. It
is a pleasure to work with you.
Yours truly,
i tht. VllGT CORPORA'1'I ON !�
Edward J. Vogt, A.T.A.
EJV/wg )
W1
SUITE jtsU (-ANC'j'UN LL N1EN • ONE A4Lc.L)N PAPK WAv • MINN( AV4:1j -, MN Y,441 -!612, 4 7!r 2826