Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION .......... Initial Application Fee (,417.5.0 (S50.00 per each additional variance) ; Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) ----------------- PROPERTY LOCATION F "A Site Address d r i lce r f , k /�`cz cl f.ti»ar�E w�,rICE Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) kk Attach legal description to application if not included on -c 1 't A,,,! required survey-------Y--- ------ —-----------=--` ! uu ----�r��-- ::3, APPLI1� 1'/kh CLUSiW(7 i .J�1�Uf '�'f�ne (home)61-J I -(x)� � _ __ 1 - - rp- L Phone ( work) -5311- y-33 Address: j�] .�j �,,r't:�, ice: �r1�! iL City: A� i,U-JJJ Zip: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OMNERI(if different than applicant) Phone (home) -- Name _) j` i CiIAk-L/N Phone (wc,rk) — Address: jbbU q- City: Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) Q0 no also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRssENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District - Present Use of Property �' �} (I �+ rL 7 T� I� L / `KDResidential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- axeM PTION or REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: 4 6, .iLE FAfA,i-'i e,J -----------------------------------------------------------------------CATS 3 VARIANCES REQUIRM Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: J-T&`.;, A DRSCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPEM CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ c)I :L CC RNQUIRW SUeMITlALS 1.v Completed Application Form 2.t Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3.� Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4.t Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 84"xll" for reproduction). 5, Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 84"xll"). 6.. Sketches or plans of floor i elevation views (provide 1 copy 84"x110). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Cwner must siqn this application. Please remember that Your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT•S SIGNATURR The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the b-est of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ( �1" ��! c Date ,I =IB SIGNATEM The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature �{ l«� Date 12 2 9' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scbeduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please sake arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building i Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. To$ Mayor Peterson 6 Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Frogs Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dates January 17, 1991 Subjects 11618 William F. Pucel, Baldur Park - Concept Review of Proposed Variances for Four Building Sites List of Rxhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Original Baldur Park Plat - 1912 Exhibit D - 3 Lot Preliminary Plat Approved in 1982 Exhibit E - 3 Unit PRD - Sketch Plan Review of 7/90 Exhibit F - Comprehensive Plan of 4 Building Sites Exhibit G - Individual Building Pads 04 Fertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 i 2 - LP shore Setback/ Hardcover Standards. 2. Section 10.25 - LR-IC Zoning Standards. 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 2 - More restrictive provisions to apply where the conditions imposed by my provision of the zoning chapter are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, city code provision, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. 4. Section 11.02, Subdivision 4 (c) - No building permit or Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for any parcel or lot of land which was created by subdivision and not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter and no excavation of land or construction of any public or private improvements shall take place or be commenced except in conformity with this chapter. 5. Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 - Typical section. Please review the table designating required road/access improvements based on use densities. 6. Section 10.02 - Definition 39 - Lot line/front. That boundary of a lot which abutts an existing or dedicated public street and in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. Zoning File #1618 January 17, 1991 Page 2 7. Section 10.25, Subdivision 1 - Purpose of LR-IC District. One family lakeshore residential district is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned Residential Developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water run-off ±nto Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. 8. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6(b) - Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of q'ualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or a septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provision of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Review of Current Application - The applicant proposes the legal combination of the original platted lots of the Baldur Park plat (Exhibit C), into four building sites. Staff shall reference the follow ng combined lots as follows: Lot 1 - Combine Lots 21, 22, 23, 24 Lot 2 - Combine Lots 25, 26, 27 Lot 3 - Combine Lots 28, 29 Lot 4 - Combine Lots 31, 32, 33 It is the intent of the applicant and new owner to build on the legally combined lots without further subdivision. Legally platteu public roads to the individual sites are now inundated with water or have been vacated. The lots as currently platted do n,)t have a platted access. All lots are technically landlocked in consideration of the current Code. Staff's understanding of the applicant's position is that because the lots are legally platted that they have a right to be developed without the reed for further subdivision. Lacking a written addendum, it would he appropriate to ask the applicant to comment. Zoning File #1618 January 16, 1991 Page 3 The Planning Commission is asked to provide conceptual direction to the applicant regarding applicant's proposal to apply for 4 separate variance applications to allow the development of each building site. Some of the lots as combined will meet the required 1/2 acre in acre. Remember, total gross area above the Ordinary High water Mark is at 2.76 acres. The variance applications would involve excessive hardcover and lakeshore setback variances. Proposed Lot 1 (review Exhibit G) does not have a building envelope as it is completely located within the 75' setback area from both shorelines. Lot 2 will require not only excessive hardcover but lakeshore setback variance!. Lots 3 and 4 would require hardcover variances. The hardcover variances sought would be excessive. If access is to be achieved via private easement, the area of the easement must be excluded fron, the lot area. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (b) the areas divided from building site portions of lot must also by excluded. Lot area variances may be required for Lots 2 and 3. Unlike the PRD proposal of the recent summer, the severely limited building envelope cannot be employed to support building sites because the platted parcels require setbacks from lot line. The applicant has not submitted conceptual house plans for the sites but it would appear from the very defined roof designs shown on the preliminary plans and the given elevations that excessive amounts of fill would be eqi,;red to develop each site. Based on applicant's drawings it would appear that the building pads are located above the 931.5 elevation. The turnaround and looped entrance roadway are shown n site plan - how is applicant proposing to dedicate turnaround as public. right-of-way. In previous sketch plan reviews, the City has consistently advised that the most efficient way to develop the remaining property on Baldur Park penninsula would be through the PRD allowing for the clustering of homes within limited building envelopes. It was based on the uniqueness of the penninsula given the total gross area at 120,395 s.f. or 2.76 acres. It was understood that hardcover variances would have to be granted because of the limited building envelope of .5 acres and need to provide a legal access road. Issues for Consideration 1. Per Section 11.02, Subdivision 4 (c) and Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 noted above, can the City legally issue a building permit for a lot that does not have a legal approved access? Zoning File 11618 January 17, 1991 Page 4 2. If a legal access is proviced, woulI you approve the building site referred to as Lot 1 (combine Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24)? 3. Would you approve 3 building sites of a reconfiguration or "recombination" of the 12 exiting lots? 4. Can the limited peninsula site, now that Lot 30 is not included in the plat, support a formal 3 lot plat and meet all required setbacks from newly platted lot line .... if house sites cannot take advantage of defined building envelope, lakeshore setback variances would have to be granted. 5. As in the earlier reviews, access and sewer easements are still an issue because Baldur Park Road is not platted through to Lot 21. Thf- City wil I ask applicant to contact the 3 individual property owners and depending upon the individual responses the City will be obligated to commence condemnation for an extAnsion of Baldur Park Road to a turnaround/cul-de-sac. 0 k ID *Im if, +. . * to VL -1�- be 01 % AS % r j OAY .4 leg r A wo 304 F3 OCAL/e r iao At&L.C-. •rs ' +� )/ 1a M 19 IN& E9W T�rw //� • ' I �/� J .►t•0' 1 to iM� • M I of &so ; �i be ^ •i is 1p !woo JL 04 .. +• � _'__ _-----_.. - _ - - _ _ i' �.\ .� is �. 30 Aar a L-1 fall *%Jva—#A #669 < GORDON R. COFFIN CO. INC. ENGINEERS It LAND SURVEYORS LONG LAKE MINNESOTA IAJ 00 Do 06 The 44 be, 10 4, ma w••r tr • � Jo.1. �' ' .1 i a .\ t4A(' P 1 4' Sol. 01 f V • A Rj80LUTI'1N GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE PLAT OP BALDUR PA" IIEI11NSULA NHiRZAS, a subdivision application for a four -unit planned Rasidential Developmant was filed by '"onka Lake Properties on January 7, 1902 of a property legally described as, • -.to 22 to 33, inclusive, Block 1, "Baldui Park', and ,�.. Lot 21 except that part thereof described as followst Beginning on the meander line at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 21) thence Northwesterly on said line a distanoo of SO feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 211 thence Southwsaterly on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21 • a distance of 23 feed thence Southeasterly to a point on the Sout..�eastcrly line of said Lot 21, 66.5 feet Southeestarly from Northeasterly corners 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- wes irly of a 8orthwesterly extension of the easterly line of •&id Lot 21, Block 1, "Baldur Park', according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder (fortarly Register of Deeds) in and for said county, hereinaft.e-- -eferred to as the propertyr and r MHE1tt.A8, a. r due published and mailed notice in accordance with Kinteaota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono toning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19, 1962, at which time, all persons desiring to be Heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speDak thereon► and k US r ,. wBEREAB, at the regular meeting of the Orono City Ownoil held on eeptessber 13, 1912, Tonka Lake Properties, hereinafter refrrxrd to as the developer, withdrew the four -unit PRD proposal and under thhat same subdivision application sought Cmuncil's preliminary approw►l of a plat of three lots of this property► and MURdAS, t►s Orono Counc4l considered the findings of staff �• and the ccsesents of P. Gary Petersen, authorized representstiv% .,f the developer, and made the following !, -dlnas of fact, 1. The property is located within the LA -IC soning district requiring a minimum lot area of 21,780 of or 0.5 acre Lot I is approximately 30,000 of or 0.61 acre Lot 2 is approximately 30,160 of or 0.69 acre Lot 3 is approximately 41,000 of rr 0.94 acre 2. The total building envelope of the property is severely restricted by the lakeshore setback standards of the Orono Zoning Code. 3. The building envelope is also restricted by a flood plain, area below 931.5 elevation, that includes more than one-third of the area of the peninsula. 6. 11 principal residence with accessory improvements can be located on both newly created Lots 2 s 3, meoetinq all M required setbacks of the LA -IC Zoning District. S. The new driveway to serve all three residential twits will be constructed so to direct all surface drainage y away froe the lake) the existing driveway pavans surface runoff direct to nort:. shore of peninsula. 6. "is proposed three -unit density with controlled was of hardcover, strict adherence to all setback standards sad ,. control of surface drainage will be environmentally mare advantageous than that of the existing z,aidemn. 7. The oxistinq house on Lot 1 is ttw,s only house oa 8a3.6sr Park ne)t yet connected to municipal sewer. ". 0. The developer has assured the Council that the existing residence on Lot I will be connected to sewer by iwvemtu�r r 1, 1992. 9. The hasardous structure on Lot 3 will be removed prior tA to final plat approval. 10. The proposed three -unit plat is more consistent with the r existing pattern of development of the ialdur Park neighborhood. 11. "'he plat and re^utred upgrading of saldur ►ark bad will improve and assure the health, safety and welfare of the inmwdiate neighbornood and general pu' Ir. .i P "" Af 12 '''he proposed plat and required improvements will rsr... in the enhanciny of the property val#+es of all Burro, , neighborhood properties. NOW, TMERRPORt, BE IT RESOLVED that basee+ upon sWwr one or More of the findings noted above the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat of Ba'dur Park Peninsula per survsy dated Juno le, 1979, subject to the following oonditicna: 1. All lut to be connectea to severf existing houoe = at be connected by November 1, 1962 per irrevocable lettL. of credit No. A-12527-K. 2. One driveway from public road to nerve all three reeider�.il 1c.s. 3. Ra:aoval of existing garsge or Lot 3 prior to final Plat approval. Removal of Existing garage on Lot 3 prior to or as a requirement of issuance of building perait for house on Lot 3. 4. All lots are riparian to Lake Minnetonka and shall have docks located according to all City and Lake Minoastmka Conservation District ordinances. 5. Extension of existinq ba1dur Park !toad to new turnaround by weans of plat extensions includes paving of road and turnaround and approximat-11 200 feet of riptap alyorelinc, road shoulder protection 6. The Council has agreed to grant hardcover variances for Lots 2 4 3 as follows: a ) Lot 2 shall be limited to _12 1 hardcover variance b) Lot 3 shall be liMitod to j_t hardcover variance As for Lot 1, the developer is advised that tbere ray aye no additional use of hardcover within the 75'-250' setback area unless there is an equal or greater reduction in the existing hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. The following improvements are required, 1. Extension of Ealdur Park Road paved 18' wide t.o match existing surface to terminate at circular turnaround 40' radius paved surface, 50' radius right of way. Engineering plans for road and any drainage work swat be approved by the staff and City engineer prior to the start of wort. All work must be completed prior to final plat approval, or a developer's agreement mint be signed with acceptable form of financial security to assure completion. 2. Riprapping of shoreline along laldur Park Road extension per DNR-ML'11D specifications. City permit will be granted upon approval of plans with no fee required. NM permit required. 3. Relocation of existing private driveway beyond turnaround. Existing driveway to be removed and reseeded. Locate to save existing trees. "S following list of final submittals must be suboLitted within the first week of the month to assure regltir*4 action by the Planning Comission at their regularly scheduled meting on tte third Monday of the month. I. h000rd plat drawings in the fort of two (2) mylar oopiea and one (1) copy reduced to 1- - 2001. Drawings to includei a) Lot lines platted per prelininary survey dated June lt, 1979. b) Extend plat to include 241 aininm right of way for Baldur Park toad along Lots 17-20 inclusive. c) Plat turnaround at 501 radius as shown on survey (although do not leaje private exceptions as rear part of Lot 2T7 >, d) Plat new driveway as a 20' wide outlot .A e) Dedicate turnaround and 241 right of way as Mldur Park Road. f) Dedicate drainage and utility useawntat 9 11 S' such side of lot lines between lots 2) 10' each side of driveway outlot and around cul de sac circle J) miniauw 20' wide along route or proposed sewer (which may alter size of driveway utility easement above) U. 9) Dedicate public waters below contour 929.4 KSL as *Lake Minnetonka" 2. Legal documents required, a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All comers, mortgage holders or others with property interest indtcrted therein shall sign the plat and all other docusmants affected by said interest. b) Private driveway eaaom ntc and aaintenanoe cov nants.1 c) Owners and others with property interest an Lots 17 affected by saldur Park Road extension must also sign plats. 3. Fees to be paid. Total duet $980.00 a) Park dedication fees per cursent schedule, twor-, :.. lots (acreage 0.15 acre/lot) . X $410 - $900.00 b; Legal review and filing fee 1 $100.00 ddopt*d by the City Counc i 1 of the City of Orono, IL'Amoota at a r u q ti. . meting MIA September 27, 1982. William is. V,46 loset, - r •/ Attests Alberta trom, City Clark Dick Benson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE September 9, 1982 SUBJECTS /669 - Tonka Lake Properties - 1340 Baldur Park Road treliminary Subdivision Per prelininay plan dated June 18, 1979 Application - Three -lot plat Council Action - Preliminary subdivision approval Lot 1 - approx. 30,000 of or 0.68 acre Lot 2 - approx. 30,160 of or 0.69 acre Lot 3 - approx. 41,000 &f or 0.94 acre List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Council Minutes - July 10, 1979 Exhibit B - Council Minutes - July 26, 1982 Exhibit C - Plan designating building envelopes and hardcover table Exhibit D - Developer's letter of credit Exhibit E - Preliminary plan - three -lot plat Petersen has returned with the original three -lot plat that r MIVed , preliminary approval from Council at their July 10, 1979 sreting. The minutes of that iseeting are enclosed for your review. In light of the various issues raised during the review of Tank& Lake Properties PRD application, staff asks that Council consider the following changes in specific conditions of that original preliminary approvelt 1. To require a circular turnaround, 80' diameter paved surface, 100' right of way, as opposed to allowing a tee -turnaround. The circular turnaround was to be recommended by staff for the PRD proposal. 2. As of today, we have received no new input from developer concerning recent contact with property owners (Lots 17-20) affected by saidur Park Road extension. T'he City must receive upuate as to disposition of property owners in regard to sign -off on plat for &Jditional right of way. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Page Two April 26, 1982 variance for stormwater management will be granted In this application due to the Insignificant Increase In peak runoff as a result of the project and due to the limited space available for the placement of a stormwater detention pond. If you should have any further questions or problems, please advise. Very truly yours, EUaENE A. HICKOK ANu ASSUC1ATt5 Engineers for the jistrict 0 'g*e Cli d Reep bt • EXHIBIT --A TOt Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoni,.g Admini)trator FROM, Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATES April 13, 1982 SUBJEM 1669 Tonka Lake Properties - Proposed Subdivision (PRD) The basic zoning on this property is U.-IC S acre/unit. Because of the peninsula location and rueultant 3-aided 75' setback requirements, this site is a nat.-al one to consider for PRD cluster -type development allowing for defined housing pads and common open space close ro the %-ke. The limiting site factor is the la<e and -- iltant floodplain area below elevation 931.5. This defines ,jth setback and hardcover limitations. All building sites including the existing house are above the 931.5 floodplain elevation. Provided an open space/flowage easement over Outlot B is granted to the City, Section 31.841 c allows this flood fringe area (between 929.4 and 931.5) to be ereditid for density purposes. All now building sites meet the 75' shoreline setback. The existing house (aiad proposed lot) encroaches to about 40' from the shore. It has been demonstrated to staff that 4 lots totally conforming to the 75' setback are possible if the existing house were demolished (lot 2 becomes smaller). The request is to allow the existing structure to remain where it is. The city could require removal of the existing house and full compliance with the 75' setback as a PRD condition. However since 4 conforming lots are feasible, the existing substandard house location really has no bearing on determination of the appropriate density. Therefore, based on setback and net lot area factors, the allowable density would be 4 or 5 units (2.75 acres - road O.L.A. .22 acre - 2.53 acre ; .5 - 5 units by area or 4 units practically possible per plan). On the other hand, hardcover is extremely limiting. Per 31.931 and 34.202, there can be no hardcover below elevation 931.5, or within 75' of the shoreline. And in the remaining area the maximum hardcover can be ;.o more than 253. The maximum hardcover allowed is therefore only 5526 sf. Any amount over th.s amount requires a varianco. based upon the house sizes proposed (excluding drivewy hardcover) the maximum density allowed by hardcover limitation would be 2 units, not 4. 0669 Tonka Lake Properties Page 2 Proposed Subdivision - PRD Any development, including the exist4ng house, requires a hardcover variance for the driveway (and City street) to access the building site. The developer claims various hardships and proposes variour, mitigating factors in his request for hardcover variances necessary to approve any construction on this property. Hardships 1. Lake on 3 sides - peninsula location 2. Driveway and street must be located within 75' of shoreline and partially below 931.5 elevation in order to reach buildable triangle. 3. Only 18.51 of the site is above elevation 931.5 and 75' or more from the lake. 4. The exist! g substandard house location predates the curron setback and hardcover regulations. Mitigating Jac ors 1. Site topography is such that most all drainage flows south so that even though the driveway is within 75' of the north shore,, the drainage actually flows 85 to 190 ft to the lake. 2. Holding ponds are proposed to retain direct runoff. 3. —he driveway will be relocated farther from the north shore, and resloped to assure drainage away from the near shore to the holding ponds. 4 The total hardcover proposed is 16.8% of the gross land area. 5. Excluding driveway area, the structural hardcover is 6600 of, 29.8% of the buildable area(above elevation 931.5 and outside of the 75' setback area). The bottom line is that any development within the buildable area, even one house, will require hardcover variances for the driveway. And the amount of driveway hardcover required is not significantly different for one house than for 4 or S. Thus the practical approach is to mi:.imize this driveway hardcover consistent with access safuty requirements, to redirect driveway runoff to the holding ponds and thense south to the lake the long way, and to determine reasonable d «rity allowances by review of structural hardcover within the huilc:able area, exci wive of the necessary driveway hardc.uver. s 9669 Tonka Lake Properties Page 3 Subdivision - PRD Thereforei Buildable areal 75 ft setback s above 931.5 - 22,105 of max allowable hardcover 25% - 5,526 of existing hoe, patio etc approx. 3000 of - 13.51 (no var. req'd) with second lot add approx. 2400 of Total -400—sue 24.4% (no var. rp' with third lot add approx 2200 of Total -'nd-6 of 34.31 (9.31 var.) with fourth lot add approx. 2000 of Total '960sf 43.41 (16.4% var.) FINAL DENSITY REVIEW 1. Clearly some 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 requirww nts and without further variances. 3. Allowing three units as in the previously approved plat would require a nominal 10% hardcover variance within the buildable area. 4. Allowing four units as proposed would require a s nominal 201 hardcover variance. 5. Five units as might be allowed by gross lot area density is clearly not physically practical within the setback rec,uirements. Recosmended Considerations for Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Determine reasonable density to be allowed ` a) 2 u- �o with driveway hardcover var nce only b) 3 u, j with driveway and 10% structural hardcover variance s e) 4 units with driveway and 20t structural hardcover variance 2. Conditioned upon a) drainage improvements per plan, including holding ponds, relocated and resloped driveway, building eaves troughs, maximum hardcover square footage depending upon density, and orosion control meauures. MCWD munt approve drainage plan. b) new driveway with turnaround per plan 1) minimum 12' paved width for 2 units 2) minimum 18' paved width for 3 or 4 units c) dedication of new City cul de sac and ritjht of way including paving , f utrect anti cul de sac and rip rappinn ut whore ab in previous applications. 0669 Tonka Lake Properties Page 4 Subdivision - PRD d) sewerage if existing house not later tjin July 31, 1902 ($5,000 security check i■ on file to assure this will happen regardless of whether subdivision proceeds or not) e) common open space to be hdid in undivided joint interest by lot owners, with open space and flowage easement to the City. f) joint dockage not to exceed 1 slip per lot, located as on plan. if 3 or 4 lots approved, then dockay should be divided as shown in , .ich case we recommend no need for a joint use dock license. g) removal of existing garage and sheds as shown on the plans (demolition permit required). h) regrading, landscaping and sodding of all disturbed areas. i` payment of extra fees, depending upon approved density, for park dedication and sewer units. 3. Note that the City 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 of way, but I do expect public condemnation will be necessary. EX,. r ..... Ernst Associates BALDUR PARK JANUARY 25, 19E2REV1SED JAMJARY 26, 1982 rIT F DATA: 1 SQ. FT. 1. TOTAL ACRME 118,017 2.r1 2. TOTAL EXISTING HOW COVER 11,170 :t 4 ASPMAV ORI~YS 8,250 STRUCTURES 2, S2 2A 1 ear 3. BUILDABLE AREA AT 75' SETBACK. 250300 •58 J 1 r jR0 4. PDXIKP4 HARD CUVER ALLOWED AT 25% 6,325 •11 S. TOTAL PROPOSED WMD COVER 17,900 .4, ASPHALT DRIWWAYS 10, ?60 - i1r 6140 If, ios STRUCTURES 7,640 6. AREA WITHIN 75' SETBACK SHOWN 92,717 2.13 7. ARIFJI BELOW 932 ELEVATION AND 60,113 1.38 ABOVE 929.4 8. LOT 1 (2240 SQ. FT. HOUSE EXISTING) 22,360 •5. LOT 2 (2000 SQ. FT. HOUSE) 22,500 .51 LOT 3 (1800 SQ. FT, HOUSE) 22,230 •51 LOT 4 (1600 SQ. FT. HOUSE) 25,550 OUTLAY A 10,530 •24 MITLOT 8 3,150 . Ut x OUrLOT C 2,340 0` OUTLUT D 30042 .07 OUTLOT E 3,135 • (04 Ernst Associates BALDUR PARK / TONKA LAKe PROPERTILS / CONTROL NO.669 M. JEAN MYBESH JM JARY 26, 1982 PAGE 2 6. 1408 BALDUt PARK RD, Rf OOE L EXISTING HOUSE C BUILT NEW GARAGE 1979 VARIANCE FOR GARAGE SETBACK FM4 75' TO 54' WAS GRANTED BY BY CITY I ,AW 2 7 W yy ITY OF OR NO 6,250 1,562 3,1Lo0 2.01 ♦101% N " BEFOIE T►f COW I SS 1 ON ON 1 FEB. 1982 WE WOULD HOPE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS CLEAR AND IF TFERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS rh"M DO NOT rfSITATE TO GIVE EITHER GARY PETERSON OR MYSELF A CALL. BEST W`GARDS, ASSOCIATES S. GENE F . EW T GFE/GFE C.C, TO WY PETERSON EXHICIT MINNEHAKA CREEK tames"I"GA WATERSHED DISTRICT p.o. hm 3j7, wayseta, Minneeeta 55391 •''" ' 6@" • ow► w.. M.. ► ► UM • USE r,,.r . �.. w.n.. • Ui... �....... Apri; 26, 1202 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth IVr �. Zoning Administrator �, I`,I MR2 T 1M e9 City of Orono ,IILA Sox 66 Minnesota 55324 ritY of OR 1 0 . Crystal Say, Re: Subdivision 1669 Tonka Lake properties Oear Ms. Mabusth: As per yor request for comments concermiag the above mentioned subdivision. ThI Minnehaht week watershed uistrict has Performed a preliminary review of the plat ►nd offers the following coe"nts . 1. The first floor building rievation should be At least 1 foot above the re91ona1 flood elevation of 931.5 MSL. 2. MO 1t11 material for the purpose of home 4Ad wed y construction will be allowed below the re iesal f�ON. elevation of 931.b MSL. - 3. A building ortloncofotheSDu•ldingefounda�loadAnd oh theMOMMst iekerar0 p (929.4 VAL, Lake Minnetonka) . rier will4. An erosion control bar rialduringeconstruction.prThis ter*SION transport of s011 mate control barrier will be m,lntsined throughout the project life. g. All dt�tyrondthesoil comDletlon Ofwill 11na1 sgai40�9r see►1!d aea mulch• p A permit must be b��nnbe ootained through,thisooffice�nsAructlon a,,d an application oo� -No. 40M. -40 hw� =77= La� ftomp, L."o-O rw nAft *--.w -41 *--a -ar. =ten.• E is N 13 .T .. Ernst Associates SIN IIARY 26,1982 MS. JEAN hWYBES" ORONO r LANN I NG STAFF CITY Of ORONO POST OFFICE BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MINAESOTA REF: ❑A1>UR PARK / TOP" LAKE PROPERTIES / coNTROL NO. 669 DEAR MS. MAOBESH: SINCE jA SIMTCM PLAN REVIEW ON THE 18 JAI,. JAR Y 1982, 1 HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE THAT SOI'E PAST DATA ON THIS PROJECT WAS NOT MADE CLEAR TO THE STAFF AND THE O"ISSION. WE ASSLKD THAT ALL PARTIES WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE EXIST- ING SITE A.READY HAS 11,170 SQ.FT. OF HARDCOVER AND CNLY 6325 SQ.FT. IS ALLOWED. AS YOU KNOW T/f VARIANCE THAT T1# APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING ON THIS PROJECT WAS IN REFERENCE TO WDCOVER. Wr HAVE SINCE PUT TOU HER THE FOLLOWING HARDCOVER DATA COWARATIONS FOR CIAR- IFICATiON AND YOUR INFORMATION. IN TK FOL''OWI G WE ARE COWARING;EXiSTIP SITE CO D I T I ONS, PLAN APPROVED BY THE C 1''Y (2 ADD 1 T I C fvAL HouSE S) IN 1978, PRD LAN SSI�NGL.E FAMILY SUBDITTED AND IVISION DiATEDD BY 5SION ON 25 JANL�ARB j 82 40 982, ADjACENTIEXDST�EPT ST��-E F::"IlY LOTS ON RA►L.dJR PARK R0: BUILDABLE ;,kci+ d 5 � S. F. HO,RDCO'11ER T 1 ME S � .Y 75' SETBACK ALLOWED SHI NN GREATER r 1. EXISTING SITE HARDCOVER 25,300 6,325 11,1" 1.7T 2. PLAN APPWAD 1978 BY CITY 25,300 6, 3?s 1e,090 2.86 +186t 3. PLAN PRESENT 18 JAN.1982 6,325 22,e.5 3.61 +261% PRD/ SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 25,300 0 4. REVISED PLAN CONCEPT tr 17 ,INN. 25, 19L12 ?5, 300 6, 3?5 `1,900 =•63 •1'� S. LOT 20/1376 BALDUR PARK R0. (NEW GARAGE 1976) 4.83 +3113% CM40'VATED K)USE 1980) 2, 3'• 1 , ►d � .__ 2, S?r LA1098"m AOowh �ONia•Mft&AmMo•T"&A tlKu►o! C�Mr�� ter► C�nwM•• � ZL"1L' Foen Nw Sit ._.. ----- � Bc�8it=1 2.5 is SJ'.3� ' a $�llf �pDptt�f t, x.�. W► : � '�-�--T-� M - ---� - _ . _ •stab . a.r..•a -. suss _ _._.a�.- ArnOld I. Sem- d Wd M&7U,110 S. Oosrnd, busbarA mW wile, 't•/. i.inn.� ot■ _ , MNWaw�d ■1�..obrA r.cr, �. of as Cow -or of �}M /►neD f n _ ...d "-A Par" ./ the seamed Pori. perae a o/ CY£ DLLS1'i-l.'� .D:1_'�t.YALtiADI.F rCR3ln-1AT1CNSe - - IMOLURs. Yr ,lhan Ime !tamed paid by, AU Said Port+.../ W arroad part. the rr••lIe eralr«J I r,...ap suss..+ d f J, A. 1ereft Orvwl. I6./isla, Arll, and Mmy "M w saw r►tlw •/ f4. - Pon &0 !v'•f h~.4 and a.t a. /oarare is .eeaaeaa, 04ir ari(k%4 the merein► ./ .a..• par"Sa. ead the hs:rs opal a„ �h,,lf/ ��. w,rttn►, 1e•we►, all I:. I.aA• or psnra • of tamed Iple ( a.d bone Is #be reaaly .f /men•?lire ..d Aeesr of dNaaas.te. d.m.wd M /e/1wt s..wt: L' tient!r (20), Block One (1). In Daldur `ark. subje,ct d r-s-rvtne !n �e �-enters hw--ln. their assllno. thw ♦: rvlvor ^1 arL1••e. and the helrs and osal(Ts of Lam• survivor. an easasarn, ryv-se7 over t.`.st ?or:len of said lot dencrlbpd ao 1^. otrrrrl at tt.w ::ru:-h.astarl7 eormr of sold 1.0% 20; tune• `iorLh vstwrl7 en fir. ,•,,o,�:!ts•sterl7 line, of sold Lot 20. distant 45.0 t•:-t; Lh*r.ce [arc` -masterly to a ;:olnt on the l:orthaasL-rly line of sold Lot 10 distant 1-et :orL.Legsterly irtr the 3trrt.`sse•L•rrl7 CON fer 01 ea-d let IN thane f-o-:.1oosL+r1Y erM L1• 1.orthaesLarly 11s+e of sold Lot x. :11sLent 0-r.0 1-Pot; t1-noo Sou:.1we•t•rIT to thee place of 5e61nnl" as now laid mL. and 216t prt of Lot Twenty-one the 1). Ald«rk1On* (1)in th+ Itor�••tPark deectrtlb*4 sp follow: Cotsenclr,; oor n: SaidJot 21; _h- eo :;4%-Lleee2terl7 en sold line dlatent 50.0 f•-L to may. le--tti.-SLorlc eomor of •old LoL 21; :hone _'ouL-heesterl7 on Ve" " b%wsterlj llrr 04 s.:: L%L 21. llatart 2'.. 'set; t`. rxe to �Sr.t on Lh• 30c iaoLetrly llna CA13 feet 3oetr.westarly 'rO& L►• �r-C.evsrt--1� cr. en-- Lo: :.lesot•r17 -41 t.ha ' t.`..a•t-pal} 11n. F: _•-t to tM plan- «f b«rl=lnL. S• �c r �\ �+At. fyrsaw rnM au w , ►.,a+s.....a...Rd thaw asses+ cow• eme .ear-+-a•►t .r e• .6.9w`m 0*40r6..•e.d. to .aa am" ps.eeer * M Poor �...med /r'1 n...r of saw pa.f•.a a" 6" how* A" r afee. de ea..araiear. /eev~. an ."a pre a) ,t.dsaeowed Lad :aTaa:1. 2. 3o><r9G -a.I Pot• 4 Lhmse 11•s. :.trs 1: A.rK ...I. eta .a.t .i..rr.t...N►. ws.aa..1 W.ta re,. " 00-s•me of ran aersad pest. W6~ a..to.^. the ........ ./ awJ pare.rt --a tar w... ..a osA.. . { re,. eewvM, saaa LH j are a.0 rod *a/r. of w Lab ..d pr....w a/r..../ a..+ tts • e tweed rip0 so add ..d erw+v the aar M aeeaa.► ated flee alm esau•d.: ••t 66.1 re,. sear .•. jr.e. /r..e aM .ara..iaa+ra JaJ /as aiw. W, fasa.d ..d j►v -e..! Ls.d...d prs.r�a eee ter e+••t aa.d ,....sew r­.. ./ .16. �.1 prreMa �/ &&e, soma rest. We► a.eiease re,. solvn • f "p gee'. 0.4 to. ♦......r .1 .a. .-...PW. at�.•a/ Off P�W~ &*Wfattp .{a'aeial or M r pass Was Waal. a►.sp rr.e !suss./, eea/we �• ..na,Iwrft0Ws S/ a.µ L__"Ote.e ewsemard. sb and part les •f Nr N /W/ ado w-eee seed I►1ka/ Do 9AW* w saffwL rb sued pa.tls • .1 1" 0-0 pWV Oa we &W"Maeao.�.e�t!e � a...I• Ue dap sad N✓ Ji.'A a►aa arrtsoaa �/ 1 /I L� ���'/`�`�\ ��J�/W #1618 1 Ernst Associates JM4JARY 2b, 192? "S. JE/NI w-YUs:S,I ICITY orff— OROM I'L OIdW. STArI- -�__,L CITY OF ORONO POST OFFICE BOX 66 CRYSTAL IMY, MINNESOTA k:F: I&ALI)UR PARK / TONKA LAKC i'RUi'CI{TIE*l' C01.'-POL 140. U9 DEAR M. MAYl3L51!: 'iltli:L (x1R Sr:1.;CH PLATI kLVIL'W U. :!t: Ji4iLl%kt :'+ :, I !V.1rL' tiL'CN MAUL AWARE TtV.T 5014: VA-JT DATA 114 T1115 PF{(`JI CT Wnj U)T MAIX. 1::.1'AR 70 THE STAFF k0 THL lfM►tl',ilOtl. WI' AS5,,kI.I1 TIVAT AU, '%+i{!li.'., Wt , R! WAR:: OF i11L' [ACT THAT THE EXIST- Il.'G 15,11L ALRLAUY !V%S 11, 11U �.1.!'t . . ! :':•.+;'.Ci'..K A:.D l+i..Y 6;25 5Q.1-T. I:: ALLOWED. A'j YOU ►d•Mn•/ T► d. 1h1I{ I M.1. T 1 tA1 i i !. :.: %� .: r:.;`, RC? ):''.. T Mo,, U.1 THIS PRW!'.Cl .,AS IN RI:Fk:Rt+J( !. :) 11AC)COV!.R. WI: IIAVL '•I1J(:f: i''J' '. ,GFT!g K ML FLii LOW0.ti tVk:sC0v! R I)AIA CUMARATIM5 FOR CLAk- IFiCATIgN AI.: MUi INFORMAT10J. IN '+:iL I'ULUMIN:, V.I. ARE COMPARItG;E,.ISTING SITE C MIUI T T(?(,' "I.AiN i+"I'F')VI L UY T14. C l'Y (: i Ul l ll ill 11OUSES) IN 1978, PVD PLAN t11►ttlTi!.: F'CVII Wl 1, '+Y 1'' hMl.,::tO'J of. iti ..;iA AJA{Y 11132. P.EVISED CONCEPT P1.l:J SIt4('1.f ' I .;;ti ;+ :'� .; %,T<1 1'.ii.. ;4OAUNT EXIITIfir, SR.' .E IiARDCOVER ALLOWED 51UWN GK'l-1TER + - 1. LXISTI;+LI tJARIX:OVt.k r:i,Suu f325 11,1: 1.77 +77g rh 2. PLAN Ai'PkM't'n 19 4 I+'t qp city 2S,;!)0 r.,325 18,090 2.86 +186 S. I'l14I PRESENT IS .M.1(02 S►t!Cil PUV, REVILW 4. RI.VISL1i I'L.AtI CLYA:LPT 5. 1.0f 23/1516 BALLAY.. I'Allt. � RL. (NJLW Li wwL I'm) (RI.NUVa1tU IiJ:SL 11180) 6. 11,03 11,1LCJT? PARK RO. P.UMEL CX I';T I?r,, ►UQ'lf. & !WILT W-W GAPVG17 19711 - J , Vail ,, 3: ` 22,815 (li►iJiO ijid i,, 3 5 17,900 3.61 +G1! 14 2.83 +i33' 1;5 2;314 4.83 +383. t' 2 7 iN -i 1�1_ _ _ ___j j Ci i Y ORONO i,V1. 3,140 ..C1 +10:`'. om MOFMAL. ?.,Lvpqlo"- I WT C-fpowz, Ftm A* ww.-# ftm FMC*'4 KtY mm, F%&W AJG* ompapat Tb N.Iv* FLAPP FL.4N 1NC*C~ odor. UNIM* em"Wan .We, owmer PLULO. "ON on4m* boAM4 mvows _+ p * . 00104 we" f, W"Mm& rrww— Ows, LA2 OF Ift 4wtj , It" ANA bgawflm 76'- W30, AMC s.,IA. Pfts4l ow-dW pooks"ev 10 04510C Poorer% C690040moo P"g*$"* saw* com"40 L^06. TwLpb "-OFF 04,000W py OMAW WA"P 00% A"Of," wr *Spa. 01 0"" 041""m do- -10' S-ma p"No. 1D OAT- &--Ili pft%o" u n C1 i5x o 18 ir c f 7 i PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR GARY P. PETERSON al � OF LOTS 22-299 31-33,o AND PART OF 21, BLOCK I, " BALDUR PARK " • ' t �.- ., '• .. f `=yam • `\' �i► t \ s 3 11r000 3 i - ' ! 'iron N �" • �• ` • , /. fto L l To the City of Orono Planning Commission, After discussions with some of the members of the Planning Commission, Jean and I respectfully withdraw our project from your consideration at this time. Please remove it from the January 22, 19111 Planning Commission meeting agenda. Respectfully, -' Kz� William and Jean Pucel 1 January 21, 1991 ZONING PILE 110. 1618 CITY OF nRONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal 12ay, MN 5532.3 473-7357 Date of Notice: 1 24 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Wm F. Piice;► COPIES TO: Hal Pierce 5705 Evergreen Lane Design Resouce Group Plymouth, rail 55442 7416 Major Ave N Mpls, MN 55443 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TYPO OF APPLLCATION: Conceptual Review of 4 Proposed Variance Applications ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 1/22/91 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against The Planning Commission formally moved to table all review of your application at your written request. Please advise the City staff 10 days prior to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission when you wish to be rescheduled before the Commission. If a new proposal is planned, plans must be submitted to the zoning office 25 days before the monthly meeting of the Planning Commission. Please note the Planning Commission meets every third Monday of the month. Because of a conflict with a holiday, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held Tuesday, February 19, 1991. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson lrm: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: March 13, 1991 Subject: #1618 William F. Pucel, Baldur Park Peninsula - Sketch Plan Review Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.32 - PRD Ordinance. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Homesite 1 requires lakeshore setback. Required = 75' Proposed = 50' Variance = 25' or 33.3% Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Lakeshore hardcover and land alteration regulations. A) Hardcover Facts: Tota: Area = 120,395 s.f. or 2.76 acres Area within 75-250' Setback Zone = 22,000+ s.f. or .5 acres* Allowed Hardcover = 5,500 s.f. or 25% Proposed Hardcover for Each Homesite/Pad = 5,500 s.f. (includes 3 car garage, drives, decks and sidewalks) Total Proposed Hardcover = 16,500 s.f. or 75% B) Land alterations within 0-75' setback area. Applicant proposes the installation of sewer lines within the southern shoreline located within the 0-75' setback area and floodplain. Note cul-de-sac will be located within portions of the floodplain. Land alterations within floodplain and 0-75' require variance and conditional use approval by the City of Orono. Such land alterations also require approval of the DNR, Corp c.f r'ngineers and MCWD. * with formal application, applicant will be responsible for submitting revised area calculations for 75-250' setback area. 22,000 was an approximation made by staff for previous sketch plan review when Lot 30 was excluded from proposal. Section 10.32, Subdivision 3 - Council discretion. Dwelling units permitted at discretion of Council subject to limitations provided for in each zoning district. Zoning File 11618 March 13, 1991 Page 2 of 6 I.R-lC requires 21,780 s.f. or .5 acre in area Total gross area = 12u,395 s.f. or 2.76 acres Allowed density = 5 units Proposed = 3 units* * Note in determining total lot area fur all lakeshore lots, the area in the 0-75' and floodplain are included in final. area calculations for a lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit D - Deed Reflecting Easement Through Lot 2 Exhibit E - Ernst Associates Letter 1/26/82 Exhibit F - Baldur Park Road - Existing Travelled Road Exhibit G - Baldur Park Plat Exhibit EI - PRD - Sketch Plan Exhibit I - 1982 Plat - 75-250' Building Envelope The applicant proposes three residential pads and an open space outlot that includes the private drive at a 16' travelled width. As already note above, the applicant wishes to be allowed 5,500 s.f. of hardcover to dev_lop each of the three residential pads. One of he proposed building envelopes will encroach the 75' setback 1 i ne and i s proposed at 50' f rom the 929.4' elevation. The applicant proposes three residential docks to serve the three residences along the north shore within the open space outlot. As already noted in app'irant's addendum, applicant has met with the adjacent neighbors, and as before, the neighbors have voiced strong opposition to development of the peninsula. Review Exhibit F, Baldur Park Road right-of-way (1ficially ends at Lots 17 and 18. The trave' led road extends through portions of Lots 19 and 20. App11ca- has provided a description and diagram (Exhibits D and F), depicting An easement through Lots 20 and 21. Applicant owns remainder of driveway tbit continues on to the pui nt of pen i su 1 a. It would appear the applicant has also had discussions with John Gerhardson concerning extent and type maintenance performed by City with upkeep of road. All of these issues snould he addressed by the City Attorney when a formal application is filed, in order to determine what bteps are legally necessary to acquire legal access for the applicant's nroperty. Zoning File #1618 March 13, 1991 Page 3 of 6 Issues for Discussion - 1. Lacking any clear direction ii, your PRD ordinance, does the PRD appear consistent with other Planned Residential Developments approved by the City (i.e. open space outlot, configuration of pads, etc.). 2. What is your position on the density at three units? A previous application for a three lot plat included Lot 30. Review Exhibit I that depicts the 75-250' building envelope. 3. What is the Planning Commission's position on the approval of the akeshore setback variance for building vad - homesite #1? Would the three unit density be m-re acceptable if lakeshore setback variance was not required and building envelopes were more clustered within the 75- 250' setback area? Is that possible with Lot 30 excluded? 4 What is your position regarding applicant's request for 5,500 f.f. of hardcover for each building pad? If you approve this percentage of hardcover per building site, would you seek a reduction in density? 5. -he applicant's addendum has set forth the hardships very clearly for this unique property? Do you agree that the property is so unique that the City would not be setting a negative precedent with the approval of variances for new development? with the preliminary approval of the previouo 3 lot plat in 1982, the City approved hardcover variances only for the two undeveloped lots; Lot 2 was limited to a 121 hardcover variance. Total hardcover at 37%. Lot 3 was limited to 37% hardcover variance for total hardcover percentage at 62%. Lot 1 would be allowed additional hardcover within the 75- 250' setback area, but only if there was equal or greater reductions in the existing hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. Planning Commission directives to applicant in the filing of a formal application for a PRD/s bdivision. The Planning Commission is asred to provide the applicant with specific direction as to what is acceptable or the degree of variance that would be allowed within this PRD development. 1. Number of density units allowed'.- Approximate total or gross area - 120,395 s.f. With formal application, this area should be reconfirmed now that Lot 30 is no longer included. Is 3 unit density more acceptable if there is no encroachment of 75' setback line? Zoning File #1618 March 13, 1991 Page 4 of 6 2. Allowed hardcover for each building pad. To..al area within 75-250' setback area is .5 acres or 22,000+ s.f. Once again, this area must also be confirmed in the formal subdivision PRD applicAtion. Applicant proposes 5,500 s.f. for each pad or 75% coverage within the 75-250' setback area. Based on the final configuration of the building pads and the design of the PRD, Planring Commission may consider the following options regarding allowed hardcover, as fellows: A) Allowed percentage of the total area within the 75-250' setback area and allow applicant/developer to distribute the allowed hardcover to each of the building pads, i.e.: Total Area = 22,000 s.f. Allowed = 5,500 s.f. or 25% Approved for PRD = 9,900 s.f. or 45% Homesites 1 i 2, Allowed = 3,000 s.f. each Homesite 3, Allowed = 3,900 s.f. B) Establish a fixed percentage of hardcover variance based on the pads within the PRD irregardless of size of each pad - similar to applicant's request. At Two Padss Total Area = 22,000 s.f. Area of Each Pad = 11,000 Allowed Hardcover = 2,750 s.f. or 25• or or A) Proposed Hardcover = 3,500 s.f. or 31.8% Variance = 750 s.f. or 6.8% B) Pr,)posed 4,000 or 36.4% Variance = 1,250 ;.f. or il.48 C) Proposed = 5,000 or 45.`_•8 Variance = 2,250 s.f. or 20.5% At Three Pads: Area of Each Pad 7,333 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 1,833.2 s.f. or 25% or or A) Proposed Hardcover - 2,500 s.f. or 34% Variance = 666.8 s.f. or 9% B) Approved 3,000 s.f. or 40.7% Variance - 1,166.8 s.f. or 15.9% C) Approved = 4,000 s.f. or 54.5% Variance - 2,166.8 s.f. or 29.5% Zoning File #1618 March 13, 1991 Page 5 of 6 or D) As proposed by applicant: Proposed = 5,500 sf. or 75% Variance = 3,666.8 s.f. or 50% If Members are agreeable to granting hardcover variances, will you also grant a setback variance as requested by applicant for new development. Staff's 'irectives to the applicant: 1. Youi normal application will include not only a subdivision/PRD, but must include variance and conditional use permit for hardcover variances proposed with application and land alterations %-thin the 6-75' setback area that will also exceed 100 cubic yards. 2. As filling and grading activities are proposed within the floodplain area and within 50' of the lakeshore, your application must be reviewed by the following agencies: Department of Natural Resources Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Corp of Engineers 3. Upon formal application, the City staff will present the information regarding the easements through Lots 20 -ri confirm the maintenance records of the City for Baldur ' K Road and ask for an opinion from the City Attorney a�. to legal steps that axe necessary to gain legal access for the proposed PRD. 4. The cul-de-sac area shall be shown as a dedicated right- of-way for Baldur Park Road. Applicant proposes the drive at 16' width. This will be subject to the review of the City staff and consultants. Applicant is asking that this road be retained as a private road. Entrance monuments and gate should be shown on the plan and profiles and elevations submitted with the formal application. 5. Applicant's engineer should make arrangements to meet with the City staff to discuss extension of municipal services and to work with owner of Lot 30 to determine share and cost of improvement. The formal plans for the PRD and subdivision should include the following information: - besignate the g29.4' elevation as ordinary high water wank of Lake Minnetonka. - Floodplain elevation at 931.5'. Zoning File 01618 March 13, 1991 Page 6 of 6 - Define each building pad or homesite. Within each pad define the 75' setback line. - Provide detailed to -scale drawings of each building pad showing access drives and outline of principal structure. Based on final recommendation of Planning Commission regarding options for determining allowed hardcover for each pad, applicant shall provide a break -down of hardcover within each site plan. - Preliminary subdivision should show extended sewer line within southern shoreline. 6. Applicant will be responsible for the demolition of the accessory stru cures on the property prior to final plat approval. Applicant should consult with staff regarding the removal/burning of debris and piles of rubbish on the site. BALDUR PARK 2-22-1991 We, Bill and Jean Pucel, are submitting the enclosed sketch plan for developement of the Baldur Park Peninsula. We realize this particular property has a long history before the commission. Several previous attempts in developement have failed to materialize, partially due to the expectations of the developer and partially due to the constraints imposed by the City. We realize the Commission and Council cannot use financial reasons for making their decisions, however, financial concerns are extremely important to the &-eloper. As the City requirements are placed on a property the developer must pass the cost on to the lot purchaser (Additional costs divided over the number of lots.) This particular property unique in its shape, long, narrow and smaller building envelope has water on three of its sides which has further reduced the ouildable land due to setback requirements. The conditions applying to this development are peculiar to this property because it involves a peninsula rather than a typical lot fronting water on one side only. The conditions at Baldur Park do not generally apply to other land or structures and nc unwanted precedent would be created in this situation because the variances would apply only to this unique peninsula. Road, cul de sac, sewer, site developement requirements, plus land purchase dictate to the developer the necessity of a four lot subdivision. We are trying to make it viable with three. When the word "we" cr "developer" is used, please note this represents Jean and myself, not some big corporation in downtown M;nneapolis. We plan on living on the end lot ourselves, so we are paying pu,:ticular attention to environmental conditions, aesthetics, (costs) and want to be part of the neighborhood and community of Orono. We have had several meetings with Jeanne Mabusth and are trying to incorporate her guidance to the best of our ability into the sketch plan. So let's start at thc, ',eginniny and give to you our thoughts and concerns. Jean and I have met with David Mess, cwner of the existing home on lot 30, to dis-uss our plans and pursure the possibility of purchasing h-s property and including it in the developement. The price is out of line with the value of the surrounding property and does not increase the buildable land nor give any other advantage other than change of appearance. Jean and I met with the neighbors in early January, 19`' to introduce ourselves and share our plans for the peninsula and to inquire if they would be willing to grant us a road easement . Attending were Mr. and Mrs. Storling (Wendy -owner of lot 20), and Mr. and Mrs. Keesling. (owners of lot 19). Unfortunately they entered with great hostilities towards us, probably because of their experiences with the previous owners. The result of the meeting -As, They didn't want their park built on, well maybe they would allow one house. They plan to stop developement by not allowing access to the property. '''he enclosed road survey shows that a point of lot 17 and 18 (Mr. Berry's property, who could not attend, but was contacted later and would get bark to us) extended 3(_oss the existing road. The original road has teen allowed to gradually erode and migrate through use onto their P c property for several ,ears as Hurd aerial surveys show. The Keeslings (owners of a home on a 50'lot, lot 19) have a few feet of the road now on their property. Wendy Storling (owner of a 50' lot plus portions of lot 21) stated that we have no easment across her property. I stated that was not the case and she was fully aware of the easement which is recor6--d against her property and is an attached Exhibit A for your reading with this sketch plan. The Keeslings and Wendy stated they would not give an easement. I have an easement across lct 20 and if I steer a little to the left I don't touch the Keeslings foot or so. Please note that Wendy must trespass (if they want to use that word) onto my property (lot 21) to get out of her garage. I searched the 'iorrens Certificates and The Storlings and Keeslings do not have a recorded easement to cross lot 17 S 18. However, in consulting Robert Mitchell from the Linquist-Vennum law firm, he feels access is not the problem. The public use of said property for more than 15 years allows access. In addition the City has maintained winter snow ret, —al up to and through lot 20 for more tfan 6 years thereby making that portion a public street. As you can see by the survey, I have a nonexclusive driveway easement for the rest. If the city must condemn the necessary land so be it. To minimize environmental impact and hardcover, I am proposing a 50, surfaced cul de sac with 100' right of way as indicated on the sketch plan and a 16' hard surfaced private drive following basically the same path as the existing road (which is partially hard surfaced already). The position of the cut de sac will provide a greater read distance from Wendy Storling's property. Entrance enhancements and gates will be constructed as to City approval. The issue of the access road hardcover was accepted by the Planning Commission previously. Water run off from the road will be collected into a drainage pipe aryl directed to a holding pond. I called John Gairhartscn (sp) to inquire on the depth of the sewer manhole nearest the project (lot 20 is hooked up to the sewer). He stated the depth to re 4 112 feet, so a lift station will be necessary to provide waste disposal from the sites. With sewer being brought out to the point, the existing home (lot 30) will now have sewer available and should share in the expense of providing such. Sewer and other utilities access will come along the southwest shoreline side of the porperty to a;oid damage to the root system of the large trees along the road area. Environ,-nentaly, great care is to be taken to preserve the natural setting that makes this site desireable. At Jeanne Mabusth's suggestion, other than existing, only a 50' strip of grass will be allowed around the home site. The shoreline vegetation will remain intact. Dockage will be along the norhteast shore with three private docks positioned along the 400'shoreline. The homeowners associatin for th,s project will be jointly responsible for maintainence and upkeep. The large outlot A includes the road and open space areas from the cul de sac on up to the first homesite. The outlot would be kept natural and as :s (minus brush and debris presently onsite.) The site name of "San De Mar" stands for sand and marsh representing the substantial sandhill, sand} shoreline and 'she marsh like area. The marsh area is not a dedicated marsh area as far af the DNR :s -oncerned, however it will be maintained as such. Land contours will not be ..,ltered as in the Marco Franklin proousal. We wi'1 build on slabs for site one and two and excavate for a basemente for site thicc leaving all other 07' 1. 43 1- e-0 topography as is. 'Nees in the 0 -75 area are not shown on the sketch an approximation of trees inside the 75 - 125 are indicated. I would like to keep all trees if possible and the home design demonstrates this. The homes to be built will average approximately 5,500 sq. ft., three car garage (no boats will be allowed to be stored outside), normal deckage, and sidewalk from driveway to main entry. The existing PRD code is very brad and subject to approval of the council to grant \,ariances and in this case the undue hardship caused by the unique peninsula leaving a great amount of open land requires variances. I have proposed an optimal configuration for the city to give variances for proper placement of the three home sites rather than cramming into the envelope and destroying numerous trees. We would lik^ the Planning Commission to consider: TOTAL SITE 120,395 SQ. FT. BASED ON STAFF'S BUILDABLE ENVELOPE 22,000 SQ. FT. THE PER CENTAGE OF BUILDABLE LAND TO THE TOTAL LAND IS 18% With PRD format of development an applicant may gain benefit of total gross area for density credit. Total gross area 2.76 acres Allowed density is 5 units Refer to Exhibit B: The City approved plan of 1978 had a :iardcover of "i2% A revised PRD plan concept Jan 25, 1982 the hardcover was i4% Marco Franklins proposal 1990 Staff calculated at approximately 60% The City approved at Lot 20, 1376 Baldur Park (the property adjacent to the proposed site) a new garage in 1976 and renovated house 1980 with the HARDCOVER OF 121%, and I believe this home has been added to SINCE that time again. At 1408 Baldur Park Rd the Ci*y approved remodelirr the existing house and building a new garage with a variance for garage setback from 75' to 54'. We request a variance to allow a total of b6% hardcover in the buildable envelope to include the 3 homes, garage , decks, sidewalks, and driveways inside the 75-125 setback. This represents less than 12% of the total PRD land. In addition I am requesting that portions of the homesite number 1 be allowed a lakeshore setback to the DNR requirement of 50' as shown on the enclosed site plan. ,n turn, I will hold back from the 75' line on homesite 3. This will allow keeping of existing trees. As this is a sketch plan I am showing approximate pl:;i i^r a nl size of the homes. Some repositioning or shifting of homesites maybe necessary but within uie vva hardcover allowance. We have met with Jeanr. Mabusth on several occasions. ine have attended an Orono Planning Commission meeting as observers. We have met with the neighbors. Jean and I would very mu,-h like to become part of your Orono community and have put our hest faith effort forward for your review. We hope you look kindly on it. Thank You. r ZONING FILE NO. 1618 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 3/22/91 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Wr F. Pucel COPIES TO: Wm J.M. Franklin 5, 5 Evergreen Lane 1000 West Broadway Plymouth, MN 55442 Mpls, MN 55411 TYPE OF APPLICATION: SkP*ch Plan of Subdivision/PRD -------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 4/15/91 VOTE: None Required Planning Commission noted the following in consideration of your proposed three -unit Planned Residential Development: 1. No setback variances would be granted that would involve the encroachment of the lakeshore protected area (0-75' setback area), lakeshore elevation determined at 929.4'. 2. It would be doubtful if Planning Commission would grant approval of hardcover variances with an intense Planned Residential Development. 3. Upon filing of o formal application for a Planned Residential Development, applicant is advised that an updated survey is required that would confirm the following: A) area of 75-250' setback area; B) location of 929.4' elevation in order to determine total buildable area of property. Staff will advise the City Clerk to send copies of the approved minutes of the April 1991 meeting of the Planning Commission for your consideration. P1- -ontact the City offices if you have any further questions. cc: Dorothy Halli-, City Clerk CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #1618400 P. O. Boz 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: March 22, 1991 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: William F. Pucel COPIJSS TO: 5705 Evergreen Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan PRD/Subdivision --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 3-18/20-91 VOTE: No action required of the Planning Commission Planning Commission recomaends the following: Applicant is asked to advise Zoning Department if you wish your sketcn plan application rescheduled before the full body of the Planning Commission at their April 15, 1991 meeting. If it would be of any assistance, staff would be happy to send you the rough draft copy of the minutes of the sketch plan review before the Planninq Commission. Staff will await your decision concerning the rescheduling of your application before the April Planning Commission meetinq and if you desire copies of the draft of the Planning Commission minutes. lsv To: Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mahusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Date: April 5, 1991 Subject: 11618 William F. Pucel, Baldur Park Road - Sketrh Plan Review At the March 20th meeting of the Planning Commission, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to brin,l the sketch plan review before the Planning Commission at their April 15th meeting. It was hoped that the full 7 members would be in attendance for comment. The Notice of Planning Commission Action repeated the same offer to the applicant. Applicant has contacted staff and asked to be rescheduled before the Planning Commission. Members are asked to advise staff after receipt of your packets delivered on Wednesday, Apri 1 10 if you wish to be recopied on this item for inclusion in your Friday packets. lav ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (49)ZONING FILE J1638-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED additional cuestion. '•parse asked if the City 'dill In _fact remove this structure if a City facility is constructed else.dnere. 'Mabusth stated :hat the City def:n1te'_, will remove the structure aid th-t it will serve as a storage facility for sand and salt. Bellows amended her motion to s _ate acidities illy that the structure is temporary. Cohen second?d the amen-...-nt. All voted aye. :M.)tion carried. (#10)ZONING FILE ;1618-WILLIAM PUCEL BALDUR PARK PRD/SUBDIVISION-SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. Pucel asked Mabusth if she would review his sketch plan again `.or the benefit of the Planning Commission members not present at the Mar,7h 18, or Marsh 20 Planning Commission :meeting. Mabusth displayed M.-. Pucel's sketch plan and brieflyexplained his proposal. She also showed the Planning Commission the three -lot subdivision proposed for this property by Marco Franklin. Mabusth noted that Mr. Franklin's proposal did not include any encroachment of the 73 foot setback area, that it did not require any setback Variances, and nad smaller house pads. The gradinc- plan did n•.)t include any grading within the 0-75' setback ate.. The issues involved with hardcover and the road would have needed to be addressed. Coher. said, "In my opinion, this prooer_y will not suop,.=rt three units, it will support one house. Mr. Puce! a.�kad what other issues the P'_anninc Commission would like him to address other than the road. He stated that he did not feel he had received sufficient direction from the Planninq Commission on what he could do to develop this property. Johnson question3d whether Mr. Pucel was planning the same stormwater treatment and grading plans as those s-.ibmitted b; Marci Franklin. 'ie stated that evan thoui ,ih this .3 a sketch Plan, Mr. Puce = provided enough information to enable hi^+ to determine er issues that need to be addressed. Johnson did a3ree tha 'RD is the way this parcel needs to b-a developed, but not state whether or not he would approve any Variances. Mr. Puce_ raj. u, "Th.? road would sixteen feet and the-e would be a draina3t area that would f.-w int-) a holding pond. There would not be any grading as we woe j build on site without havin3 a change in the topograph,_• The sewer would have to be installed along the s-)uth side. Before I invest more expense into this, I want to be sure I am going in the right direction. Bellows stated that sie would not bye in favor of recommending approval (j•: Variances to Great a PID on this site. - 13 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15. 1991 (#10)ZONING FILE 11618-PUCEL CONTINUED She said, "i agree %ii1 :1 .eLL t.^.3� �fle 11L�r^3L��n � �� has been prvv ided to as is insufficient in order for us to mace anv real - determinations. I have said in the past, and will reiterate, that in ,,v opinion, access to this property firs` a,d foremc,st, must be solved before construction of anything can b;? considered. This is the first time I have heard Mr. Pucei mention his plans nor the road, drainace, or sewer. I nave serious questions about whether or not this property can be developed beyond a single unit. The only way I can see development occurring is under the guidelines o` a PRD. However, it would have b? a PRD that is in strict conformance %,th all other zoning regulations." Mobs agreed that ,Mr. Pucel had not provided sufficient information, given the sensitive nature of the this property. She stated that she does not believe t e property %rill support more than one home. Rowlette stated that construction of three additional home-; on this property, with the pad size indicated by Mr. Pucel, would create more hardcover than she could approve. Hanson .;tated that becauze this property is ,o sensitive, he would not consider any application that will require Variances. He did say that he would consider a variation from the Code in order for the provision of adequate access. Cohen said, "l 3m consistent with my recommendations for denying hardcover within the )-75' setback area, and would itinue my polity in this case. I cannot sae more tha: one additional home on this property." Bellows explained to Mr. Puce-1 that tee idea o` a PRD is not to p,jsh the intention of any of the City's Zoning Variances or restrictions in terms of allowing someone to build something that exceeds what a proper-y can sustain. She sail, "Th-e point of a P?D is to give a landowner some degree of latitude. Lt is designe.' •-o allow someone to develop a piece of property that has some unique features oy clustering, or other means, that will result in a minimal impact on tnat site. In my opinion, Mr. Pucel, your proposal goes against the spirit of wha` a ?RD is. You have simply taken three, very large, foot pads and put them out on a site on land. That is not the point of a PRD. You have heard very clearly from the Planning Commission that if we are to recommend approval of a PRD on this site, we would not allow any other Variances." Jabbour suggested if the property owner proceeds with development plans that the survey be confirmed before he is given approval. He stated that the s:.)ithwest corner of the point continues to slide n'o the lace a -id the survey Mr. Pucel has provided is three years old. 25 EXISTI '� \ THE \ ,\ EXI TIN \\ \ r41 AB00. IL B' \ \ SMOkfLIN 22 � 1 � \ 1 WATER \ \/ TREATMENT 1 t • \ POND ' a.an Wft tan fr.A 6l0 follarinq: �b \ Y AROUND "Soot 0,01AN xir 0 i �fi•��Q� FrU� 1�HIGH w`R ELEV. 929.4. R le1 I� J'50' SETBACK ,6 5 i + .A I �� 1 � 1 C LNG 00 000l ` `944. J ell, — 9' � 1 ZCob, 'J \ Q36 BACK v 3 i � s ��.49 3� p� ►#k +E�,p f10 } i EtAt Lo"r'F (� 33