Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 23, 1994 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Michael P. Gaffron Zoning Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Item Description: #1968 Keith and Vivian Bangert, 3500 Bayside Road - Variances - Resolution Application: Request for variances to construct driveway in 0-75' zone, also lot area and width variances. List of Exhibits A - Revised Plan B - Cross Sections C - Retaining Wall Detail D - Conceptual Tree Removals/Replanting Schedule E - Wall Exposure Analysis (By Staff) F - Hardcover Analysis (0-75') G - Staff Alternative Concept Plan 1. Conceptual Grading 2. Cross Sections 3. Wall Square Footage Calculation H - Tree Removal Comparison I - Plan Comparison Summary J - Notice of Council Action 11/2/94 K - Council Minutes 10/10/94 L - Draft Resolution M - Memo and Exhibits of 10/3/94 Summary of Action To -Date • Planning Commission reviewed application on September 19th and voted 4-0 to recommend denial. • On October 10, 1994 Council voted 4-0 to grant conceptual approval subject to: 1. Limit portion of driveway in right-of-way to just the access. 2. Applicant to provide revised plan addressing City Engineer's concerns, to be approved by City Engineer prior to final Council approval. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 5 November 23, 1994 Zoning File #1968 3. Applicant to provide tree/vegetation removal and replacement plan for staff review and approval. 4. No future variance is allowed. • Applicant has submitted revised plans and cross sections and a tree removal/replacement plan, which were submitted on November 21st. • City Engineer has briefly reviewed the additional information with staff. Staff notes the following: - A small portion of the driveway in addition to the driveway entrance apron is still within the right-of-way. - Driveway slopes are acceptable (8-10%). - Safety concerns have been addressed by: Adding a guard rail at the southwest curve. Increasing the radius of that curve. Placement of only deciduous trees between driveway and road to avoid shading in winter. Catch basin and culvert discharging to existing catch basin to accommodate drainage. - While it would be appropriate to push the driveway back into the hill an additional 5' to keep only the access apron on the County right-of-way, it is unlikely the County would object to the current proposal, and pushing the driveway back will have a slight impact on the size of the cut and height of retaining walls. - Minor plan details will need to be finalized prior to issuance of the grading permit, such as catch basin detail, guard rail construction detail, etc. • While the tree removal/replacement plan is not as accurate in locating trees as a survey would be, it is approximately correct as to numbers and sizes. Staff would recommend it be modified prior to driveway construction as follows: 1. Surveyor to stake 75' setback on site. Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 5 November 23, 1994 Zoning File #1968 2. Staff and applicant to ribbon all trees >_6" diameter (19" circumference) in 0-75' zone by color as to "will be removed", "might be removed" and "to be saved". 3. Trees in 0-75' be inventoried and plan modified to replace all >_ 6" trees actually removed in 0-75' zone on a 1 for 1 basis. Staff Suggests a Different Concept • After walking the site with Mr. Roelofs, staff feels that the proposed plan, while feasible, will eliminate a significant number of mature trees on the site which currently provide a natural buffer to the future building site. Applicants' plan will significantly change the character of the entire 170' width of the lot. • Staff has developed a conceptual alternative which only disturbs the easterly 40% of the lot and which could result in the preserving of a significant number of trees in the 0-75' zone and just outside it (see Exhibits F). This alternative was not one of the options previously considered by applicants in their presentation to the Planning Commission. Comparison of Alternatives A comparison of applicants' plan and staff's conceptual alternative is presented in Exhibit I, summarized as follows: • Staff proposal provides: - Decreased grading in 0-75' zone. - Slightly decreased overall grading between road and building site. - Decreased tree removal in 0-75' zone. - Decreased removal of mature trees between road and building site. - Significantly greater (and more costly) square footage of retaining walls required. - Decreased square footage of retaining walls directly facing the lake. Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 5 November 23, 1994 Zoning File #1968 - Decreased hardcover in 0-75' zone. - Increased length of sewer connection. - Visual impact transferred to neighbor on east side instead of neighbor on west side. • Safety factors are approximately equivalent in both plans. • Area of the site draining to the driveway entrance is approximately equivalent in both plans. • Both plans have potential for vegetatively screening the upper tiers of retaining wall, but the visual impact of applicants' plan in staff's opinion is significantly greater than staff's plan as viewed from Stubbs Bay, the bulk of which is generally southwest of the property. Staff Recommendation Staff is of the opinion that, while applicants' proposal is feasible "as is", its environmental impact is significantly greater than staff's concept for the following reasons: • More grading in 0-75' zone. • More hardcover in 0-75' zone. • More tree removal in 0-75' zone. • Removal of mature trees across entire lot versus only in eastern 1/3 of lot. • Retaining wall faces more exposed to lake. Staff's plan will require significantly greater expense in retaining wall construction, and this therefore is one of the concerns expressed by Mr. Roelofs. A second concern which may be valid is that the staff plan creates a "canyon" working its way up into the lot, creating as contrived a look as does the applicants' proposal. This is subjective and for the Council to determine. Staff's recommendation is as follows: 1. Review the positive and negative impacts of both plans. Request for Council Action continued page 5 of 5 November 23, 1994 Zoning File #1968 2. If Council finds applicants' plan acceptable, adopt resolution which requires minor plan revisions prior to construction, adherence to erosion control practices, etc. 3. If Council concludes that staff concept plan is more appropriate, advise applicant to revise plans and either table the application or refer it back to Planning Commission for review. (Note that if applicants' plan is approved Monday night, they intend to proceed with grading as soon as possible if weather permits.) Options for Action 1. Approve applicants' plan per resolution. 2. Conceptually approve staff's plan, direct applicant to submit revised plans, and either table to a future Council meeting or refer to Planning Commission for review at their January meeting. 3. Other. ch KEN RQELOFS CONSTRUCTION 6 P'k.%k � N C. eo- (o / � r \ 9575) fra f (953. 9 .0) I \ \ (948.4 \ 9S4 9 95j- 95l. ti yr `• ti+., rw yr �-- `Z(949-3 9g f a \rvy 2 >4, ,♦g r \ a �D_ /Aa/eras �f � O �C4f ✓FAQ � R 0 0 LL r x e- a -a- _e p _ .o C N � � V F u p o N V b` d - ✓' V b CV _ P C C � o W p E � c , o_ c_ v 5 L 0 � L' Np � O L V O p O N V L � O V - E � N T p _ o @ _ � < Z < ƒ q Cl) 0 E } / E \ < -00 Cj(D *m_� =§ \\/ \ I�/§ xx== y a \ \ ° } 7 2 c ƒ e�--- � .® -- --- Co / § —� ---- ---- -- --�to S a @ a a m - wa�9y I\ )\\) \ \� /z \\ \ r \/} > (/\ �«a § )\\ _./, / � §� ccLo z$ x7eis ��t§ § 2§2s c! � ƒ§ Lu \\ 3\ \ƒ//)\\\7/\(\/) CO �§a- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ICEI I I rI 2 ICE \ ) \ \ \\\\\\/\ \0 a- CL§.°u< CL- -F— �\)\ .\[§ \\\\\(\\\\\<R§ ;R)/LOU)LO \\\.\\\\\\\\ /2CI)� ID � co ))\/\/\\// ± \ EL )\)\ 2 ) § 0 § i §} ) $o § 00 \ \ ± _ g! R\ _ } /\\ � # ,. /\\ \// , �\ } LLjcc �)/\ �Q.\cv I §(2� O 2� � \}z, _! em rod R6rtz+i-c.c... at,-ly ENGINEERING CONSTRucnuN-COMRIiTEPs CAD CERTIFICATION dr.,rcwasFdF,ar�t,YTe«�"damYdx, supe uncn andthat mt a u' raq rred Engineer °"°e"b2law5"`" a r """�tla R, 3500 BAYSIDE ROAD ORONO,MN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION SECTION R-,> oR.vor, RSH 3/8" =1' ROyerB l}al ReglJo 7707 'JHEET 30 gam* r 4?Gptg,C �a�4t1l6� LXLAJAT °1J 101 O�° 1 °p I 00 ACCQEX. -0 pf e ° a I �++p. CIO W.0; Ot v f O2 p� bLL 1Du A S d riLdyaE�u rntQ 000 maw _ ihusr�ra � --o- - �en75t�io . D �-ro be PI0.w�) i —9 1 14 HLR:LUrb UUN 1 IVN p Ws,,p o.t )� SJZLIiSu 8 �e Nr• a V V . ' br `V Pot` �j PNs o r q5e W Dr, V4 A 60 "�E. �OC°'[. •new: �iiNiJu.l�.(.✓IY1.LS O � � �l ^w' 5T ' Oil T qf? J O o 0 IQ. O � rq � —� o �� • Qit \ T p oo 7. ® �Ap 1k ls1 y�wrzt.J 3 i k -�02- '/�► of � � i 0 / . of \ I II I1 1 CD LO x 14 tQ y ) CD x ft/T Lf?I c T°' .. [�a•��"'"". - ;'as,.�aaca�ssa�w�� �43a.'�'1•. IWAA r w 1. i f� 1�# I . L11w,�S of ate' W,GC A (~� " 7' L1f -f 1 1 _Ti' J o 10 10 3o i C1se,1S 01= CUT to to go iin S'� 9.. 13 I-- Liw-,-,s of cur 55, w,�>E C o to 10 30 'i0 - 4U l0 0� q I 4L 4z' v"oE i \! S 6 LWE r 0 PA> :Nw i to w 3o 40 SD by 90 9a 10 100 �"-- LIw-,T3 01= C. v YtI I �r w, . L 17 O IY0 ` Rio o to 00 3`J `lo 3v 40 -7o 130 90 tm 1Fo 0 `o 0 11 � ` `R oj i� r�r w.a•t-� W s�rx rIDL-, lb' Nis!! 1e�� r(�OrsC A- u 6 . jo' N- , '°7' 4k1(,Id y Sze' : 3Sv:,� Av% 12' �c H&- 9' AF16 IX (co) V yo-tC. A4VG • O' 6;v, %- W IN War t, L 11 j-C . 11/o -S�, Vg a --f ��*3 ': �, s8a�/ s , IAAt,L rA� . '�o L n T Goa pr ���" ,a � .��� .�� gyp• >� „� �� �- � o00 o N6'01 I 1 929vq ,�,P,r,x A.,N^r- '_��R "/ 14vlkatEz of `T"Iams—cu4r ± /S w 2 2 l 00 s F._ - - } 3 cI b O s . ge-141AJ ram LOA14 s kzoui2elJ a. a� art-rNiN� w►�,r,s --- — v-�1.€A _ E'ffl'P E-Yi-'� Uf�sj N►N G_ -. e QNSZc OF SSW( C,�h.'IL'i9 m 0---iS' P",—'Llcovep.. Y, ` a Lass t-Y2 _ 12.y1 (off"-fgwov- Pt. C4j.*-Wp OF A-t-L-TTzmlvrs,- 67 !'?c1l , S CITY OF ORONO APPLICATION NO. 1913 P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date of Notice: //2/94 473-7357 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TO: Keith & Vivian Bangert COPIES: Gerald Roelofs 130 Manor Circle 1650 Shadywood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Wayzata, MN 55391 Shirley A. Larson 1823 Colfax Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55403 Stuart Hoarn Burnet Realty 19400 Highway 7 West Excelsior, MN 55331 Chris Berndt Suite 110, 3433 Broadway St. NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 10/10/94 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Grant conceptual approval subject to: 1. Limit portion of driveway in right-of-way to just the access. 2. Applicant to provide revised plan addressing City Engineer's concerns, to be approved by City Engineer prior to final Council approval. 3. Applicant to provide tree/vegetation removal and replacement plan for staff review and approval. 4. No future variances allowed. Staff discussed the specific additional information required with Mr. Roelofs on Friday, October 14. Information must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, October 18 in order for this item to be scheduled for final Council approval October 24. (Deadline for the November 14 Council meeting is Friday, November 4, 1994). If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ch NIlNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL EXfI r MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 1994 (:11 - Item 91967 - K-P PropertiesrRobert Olson - Continued) Gaffron reported the gmal recommendation was for the Geffre property to be included in the plat. The 14-acr0utlot C would require a continuous platted road corridor to Bayside. The Peterson p4n did not include the Geffre property and proposed the City accept the development Bement between the Olson!s, K-P Pro es and Geffre. The agreement indicates if Outlo C is replatted to buildable lots and tlot B is used for a road, then Geffre will receive tlot A in exchange for be o part of the future plat creating an outlet to complete th road connection through ffre's property. If the White property was acquired the%son ad would ce from the west. A potential problem with this would be the Oldence wo possibly not be served by a future interior road but access directly oide Ro . Barrettwas concerned with the risk of co a ncy noting that the City might not be able to enforce the agreement placed upon t Geese roperty. Gaffron also commented that the resolution was trucri red uch t t Outlots, A and C could not be separated or conditions of the agreement revi without City appro L If the Outlot was buildable right away, there would be a k Dedication fee paid. ivided later, the fee would be deferred. Gaffron also not that there is a 1979 easement n the Geffie property in favor of the Olson prop �ity allowing for a road. Hurr moved to a rove with the Staff reco.mmerda6ons. There was no second to that motion. Calahaa�oved, Jabbour seconded, to return the request to the Planning Commission with a dance from the City Attorney on legal questions. Ayes 3, Callahan, Goetten, and Jabbour, Nays 1, (412) #1968 KEITH & VWUN B.ANGERT, 3500 BAYS] --DE ROAD - VARIANCES Applicant Vivian Bangert, Builder Roeloffs, and Property Owner Shirley Larson were present. Graffron reported the applicant wants to construct a driveway access into property located on the northside of Bayside Road in order to construct a residence. The request is for variances for lot width (165' where 200 required), lot area (1.97 acre lot where 2 acres are required), hardcover (40% in 0-75' zone), land alterations (live tree removal in 0-75' zone) and bluff impact (topographic alterations/grading and filling in 0-75' zone). MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL NESTING HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 1994 (Item '�12 - Bangert - Continued) Gaffron said the Plan -ring Commission looked at the property and agreed that the eastside entry to the property with driveway going across the front slope and up into the property on the westside is the best of the choices available. None of the options are ideal but this particular one would have the least impact on slope, grading, and vegetation. The Commission recommended denial and felt consideration should be Teen to altemative access through an easement with a neighbor. Callahan said we can't ask the applicant to obtain ar. easement Goetten commented that by giving this property access to sewer, the City deemed the property to be a buildable lot, requiring the Council to work with the applicant in finding a workable solution. Larson said the option of an easement from a neighbor was not feasible. One neighbor. when approached on the subject, asked SM,000 for the easement. The other two neighbors have their property for sale and an easement would be a hindrance to either sale. Cook said going straight in would be a better alternative as far as navigation but would ruin the landscape. Gaffron also said there would be huge retaining walls or wide cuts in that scenario. Screening would .help to protect headlight r e+lection. Winter conditions could be treacherous but navigable. Cook also said the present plan would cause the least amount of destruction to vegetation. Gaffron reported the County Engineer required the driveway to enter within 70 feet of the east side of the lot. The DNR is concerned with this project and stated in their letter of 9/29 that the requested variances be denied due to the considerable grading and removal of vegetation. Planning Commissioner Nolan commented on the loss of trees. but said if there were no other means, this was the best plan. Safety was still an issue and suggested possibly heating part of the driveway. 7abbour asked Yf a landing would be appropriate. C-aeon said if it was feasible, it would make sense. Roeloff responded that the 8% grade was not excessive and the rise of 9' is over the length of 115'. There would also be a flat spot in the bend to allow a car to reassess their drive. Hurr brought to the Council's attention that the driveway as proposed will cut into the right of way. Goetten remarked on the need for the applicant to work with the City on tree replacement. Barrett noted the DNR has the right to sue the City over a resolution of approval but the City can only ask the property owner to consider an easement with neighbors, but not require it. Y1Pi11TES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 1994 (912 - Bangert - Continued) Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the lot area, width, and hardcover variance noting only the driveway access will be in the right of way. The Council asks the applicant to work with Staff on the tree removal and additional planting. No future variances will be allowed and the Engineer is to look at the driveway configurations prior to final approval. Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour reported that the LMCD has a multi -page procedure regarding quiet water. Jabbour informed the LMCD of the need to go through this formal process with regards to Deering Island. ENGINEER REPORT No report at this time. CITY ADMIT IISTRATOR'S REPORT (*#13) APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR GENERAL ELECTION - RESOLUTION 93481 Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution 93481 appointing election judges for the 11/8/94 general election. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (-#14) ESTABLISH DATE AND TIlVIE FOR CANVASSING BOARD MEETING Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the date of 11/9/94, at 4:00 p.m., for the 1994 Canvassing Board meeting. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#15) SUMP PUMP INSPECTION ORDINANCE 9129, 2ND SERIES Moorse reported that this inspection program is to allow the inspection of all homes with City sewer service to confirm that the sump pump is not directly connected to the sewer. The current ordinance prohibits the direct connection of a sump pump to the sewer system but has no means of enforcement with regard to inspections, a timeline for compliance, or fines. This ordinance would carry a $100/month surcharge for those with sump pumps not in compliance with a 3/1/96 date set for compliance. The inspections will be conducted mainly by in-house staff. If it is found to be needed, additional personnel will be hired to complete the inspections on time. Hurr felt the fines should be charged if the sump pump is not in compliance within 14 days after the inspection. t4�xk . M l Z a, --'� V BEQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Michael P. Gaffron Zoning Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Item Description: #1968 Keith and Vivian Bangert. 3500 Bayside Road - Variance Zoning District: LR-lA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres. Application: Request for lot width, lot area, hardcover, land alteration, and bluff impact variances to construct a driveway access into the property and construct a residence. List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/22/94 B - Comments from DNR Received 9/29/94 C - 9/19/94 Draft Planning Commission Minutes D - Memo and Exhibits of 9/15/94 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended denial on a vote of 4-0. Discussion The applicants intend to purchase this property for construction of a new residence subject to approval of the necessary variances. The property owner is Shirley Larson. Please review the memo and exhibits of September 15th. Additionally, please review the comments from the DNR recommending denial, and the minutes and notice from the September 19th meeting. The following variances are required in order that the lot be considered buildable: Lot area (1.97 acre existing, 2.0 acre required) Lot width (165' existing, 200' required) The following additional variances are required in order to construct the proposed driveway: - 40% hardcover in 0-75' zone - Live tree removal in 0-75' zone - Extensive vegetation clearing on a bluff, on a steep slope, and in 0-75' zone - Topographic alterations/grading and filling in 0-75' zone Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 3 October 3, 1994 Zoning File #1968 Ceil Strauss of the DNR has confirmed from information provided her by staff that this is a bluff, subject to the special protections afforded the bluff impact zone. She has recommended denial of the proposed driveway. Hennepin County Department of Transportation has indicated they will approve an access at the proposed location, although they note that such location does not meet their sight distance requirement but is the best location as compared to others along the property's road frontage. City Engineer Glen Cook has reviewed the application and his carefully worded letter does not specifically recommend approval, but recommends that a number of issues be addressed if the proposal is approved. The property was provided with and assessed for municipal sewer as part of the Stubbs Bay project. A well would have to be developed on the site. One of the Planning Commission's specific concerns was that access for service and construction vehicles (such as concrete trucks and well drilling rigs, and even the moving van) would not have adequate access to the house. Planning Commission felt that the detrimental impact on the environment as well as the questionable safety aspects of the proposal, outweigh any hardship shown for approving this specific access. Discussion at the Planning Commission led staff to conclude that the lot area and lot width variances were likely to be accepted if an alternate access is proposed that avoids the above mentioned negative environmental impact and addresses the safety issue. As a point of information, the dock located across Bayside Road from the property has existed since 1970 or earlier based on available aerial photography. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission that the proposed access location and design have severe negative impacts which likely can be avoided by acquisition of an easement through neighboring property. The applicants and their builder, Mr. Roeloffs, are in a better position than staff to define the relative costs of such an alternative access. Staff recommends that the application as proposed be denied, but that the applicants be afforded the opportunity to bring in an alternate access proposal. Council may wish to discuss with the City Attorney any potential ramifications of complete denial of buildability of this lot. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 3 October 3, 1994 Zoning File #1968 Options for Action 1. Conceptual approval, directing staff to draft an approval resolution. 2. Table to allow applicants to propose an alternative access plan or for other reasons. 3. Conceptual denial, directing staff to draft a resolution for denial. 4. Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff and applicant. ch CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Keith & Vivian Bangert 130 Manor Circle Long Lake, MN 55356 ZONING FILE #1968 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 22, 1994 COPIES: Gerald Roelofs 1650 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Shirley A. Larson 1823 Colfax Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55403 Stuart Hoarn Burnet Realty 19400 Highway 7 West Excelsior, MN 55331 Chris Berndt Suite 110 3433 Broadway Street Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55413 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances/Conditional Use Permit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 09/19/94 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. 1. Proposed driveway location and design, while potentially being the least environmentally disruptive of the alternatives reviewed by applicant for a driveway directly to Bayside Road, appears to have potentially severe safety problems. 2. Hennepin County Public Works indicates that no location along this property abutting Bayside Road has good sight distance, and that their approval is merely for the 'most acceptable' location. Planning Commission does not feel that allowing this access is in the best interests of the City or the property owner. 3. Other means of accessing the site may be feasible via an easement through adjacent property. 4. Drainage issues are of great concern since Bayside has no roadside ditch and runoff from adjacent properties already causes problems on the road at this location. Notice of Planning Commission Action September 22, 1994 Page 2 5. Proposed driveway results in many mature trees and most other vegetation being destroyed in 0-75' zone and on what appears to be a bluff by definition. 6. Major disruption of hillside will have a negative visual impact as viewed from the lake. 7. Hardships presented do not outweigh the negative aspects of the proposal. 8. Other reasons as discussed by Planning Commission at the public hearing. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, October 10, 1994; meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. lsv MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTENIBER 19, 1994 (#15) ITEM # 66 - GUSTAFSON DESIGNIDOUGLAS OLSON, Z LAFAYETTE R AD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARI PUBLIC HEA Z' The Affidavit of Publica ' in and Certificate of Mailing wgre'noted. Dale Gustafson of Gustafson�esign was present .on behalf of Mr. Olson - WEST Gaffon stated this application is a uest for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for replacement of existing retainln!�alls and construction of a spa in the 0 75' Lakeshore setback zone. No survey has been rgceivjed. Peterson stated there are potential problems''rth erosion, hardcover percentages, and retaining walls that need replacing, although he`U no conceptual problems with the spa location - Nolan Nolan noted he is concerned with the lack of a survey. "There are many areas considered hardcover t ire not listed as such on the drawing subr*ed. He noted the excess of hardcover d said there are many areas where it can be reduced. Nolan has no problem with th pa itself but is looking for concessions from the owner\and requested his pres ce at the next meeting. Nolan moved, Berg seconded, tot le Item #1966 pending receipt of survey and complete hardcover facts. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#16) ITEM #1968 - KEITH & VIVIAN BANGERT, 3500 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Bangert and his representative, W. Roloffs, were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#16) Item #1968 - Bangert - Continued Gaffron said this is a two acre vacant, lakeshore lot on Bayside Road to be served by public sewer_ Applicant is requesting variances for lot area, lot width (165' where 200' is needed), and grading and tree removal in the 0-75' Lakeshore setback zone for construction of a driveway and a single family residence. W. Roloffs has evaluated several schemes for access to the lot. There is a steep slope in the front of the property, 15'-20' high with a 1:1-112 slope. The best of three plans involves a driveway running along the front of the property and then turning toward the back. Roloff stated the initial slope is 8.5%, with turn at natural grade and continues due north at 6.5% slope. There would be a retaining wall across the back of the driveway. Engineering concerns were 1)drainage with a culvert to prevent water going into Bayside Road, 2)approval by a registered engineer because of a wall higher than 4', 3)a guard rail on the west side, 4)headlight control on the east side, and 5)slope stabilization, erosion control, revegetation, and preservation with loss of large oak and other trees. Gaffron noted a letter received from Hennepin County Public Works stated the proposed curb cut is in the most acceptable access location of all choices, but none of the possible locations are very good along the 165' frontage. All other access possibilities require obtaining easements through neighboring properties. The building site at the top of the hill is potentially considered a bluff and the DNR has been asked to address this consideration. Roloffs asked for conceptual approval of the plan. Roloffs showed the schematics of the different proposals. A straight driveway up the east side proposed a major grade differential. The easement possibilities created major expense. Smith commented on the alternative easement route having the advantage of no major loss of vegetation. Nolan also reiterated this along with the safety problems involved in the steep driveway plan. Mr. Bangert stated he was not interested in a driveway on an easement over neighboring property. Neighbor to the east, Matt Manley, related the problems of drainage, a blind corner, loss of trees. Manley, personally, did not wish to deal with an easement issue as his property is for sale. Peterson questioned whether the lot was buildable without the proper access and noted the Commission's need for DNR input in resolving the bluff issue. Planning Commission urged the applicant to explore access through adjacent properties. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to deny Item #1968. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (^'�n STATE ��77T 2AA T EE O F � HHLEZ(0)U�=.1 DEPARTMENT METRO WATERS - 1200 PHONE NO. 772-7910 September 27, 1994 OF NATURAL RESOURCES WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 'SEP 2 9 1994 �FE UeB]RO°�6. RE: LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Gaffron: I have comments on the following land use applications. #1895, Pat Wolfe, 2871 Casco Point Road (27-133-11) The applicant requests after -the -fact hardcover, average lakeshore setback and lake setback variances for the reconstruction of a shed. DNR Metro Waters recommends that the city deny the variance requests as they are currently proposed. There are many alternate locations on the lot where the shed would be able to meet the city's setback requirements. We also question whether hardship exists. Avenue (27-133-11 Spring Park Bay) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit and variance for grading and construction of retaining walls within the 0-75' lakeshore setback. We understand that there is an existing erosion problem and that a replacement wall of some type is required. We do not object to the city approving retaining wall work at this location as long as: the city engineer agrees that the design is structurally sound and will prevent erosion problems, disturbance of the existing trees and vegetation in the lakeshore area is minimized, and any shoreline riprapping is done in accordance with the rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the DNR conditions for not requiring a permit. #1968, Keith and Vivian Bangert 3500 Bayside Road PID 05 117 23 13 0015, (27-133-23, Stubbs Bay) The applicants request several variances for construction of a driveway and single family residence. DNR Metro Waters recommends that the city deny the variance requests as they are currently proposed. In particular, we are concerned about the proposed driveway off of CR 84 (Bayside Road) which would require considerable grading and vegetation removal on a bluff. Further, it is our understanding that even if the proposed extensive alterations to the existing bluff were allowed, the applicants would still have a marginal access based on AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Gaffron September 27, 1994 Page 2 current traffic safety standards. We recommend that the applicants explore the possibility of obtaining an easement for an alternate access alignment. It should be noted for all the above variance applications that the courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof" to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on items #1895 and #1968 within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance requests are not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS/cds c: Lake Minnetonka files 27-133-11 and 27-133-23 To: Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 15, 1994 Subject: #1968 Keith and Vivian Bangert, 3500 Bayside Road - Variances - Public Hearing Application: Request for variances for lot area, lot width, 0-75' hardcover, and grading and tree removal in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone for construction of a driveway and a single family residence on this vacant parcel. Zoning District: LR-lA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Two Acre Minimum Lot Size List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' Last D - Survey E - Proposed Driveway Plan F - Cross Section G - Letter of Request H - City Engineer's Comments I - Alternate Plans Considered and Rejected by Applicant J - Hardcover Calculations K - Letter from Hennepin County Department of Public Works t — Access M - glv� f sleet�b.��is�u�rro.� Pertinent Code Sections/ Variances Requested 1. Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - In LR-lA district, required lot width is 200, (existing 165'), minimum required lot area is 2.0 acres (existing lot area is 1.97 acres). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover is allowed in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone (proposed 0-75' hardcover is just under 40%, all due to added driveway). 3. Section 10.56, Shoreland Management: A. Subd. 16 (G), Steep Slopes - Applicant must provide adequate information to allow evaluation of possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters prior to permit issuance. When determined necessary, permits shall be conditioned upon erosion prevention and preservation of existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf -on vegetation. e 4 Zoning File #1968 September 15, 1994 Page 2 B. Subd. 16 (I), Vegetation Alterations - Prohibits removal of live trees in 0-75' zone with a diameter of 6" or greater without City approval; requires equivalent number of replacement trees be planted; prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within 0-75' zone and on steep slopes (proposed grading to construct driveway has a significant potential for removal of the majority of vegetation in the 0-75' zone). C. Subd. 16 (J), Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling - Grading and filling standards for construction of driveways in the 0-75' setback zone (see code sections attached). D. Subd. 16 (K), Stormwater Management - Requires adequate runoff controls. 4. Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A) (2), Existing lot of record in "R" district of greater than one acre and served by public sanitary sewer - Such lots may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: A. It is at least one acre in size and the average width of the lot is at least 100'. B. It is served by public sanitary sewer. C. It otherwise meets the requirement of the zoning chapter. Background This vacant lot has been in single separate ownership for at least 20 years. The Bangerts are intending to purchase it as a new building site from the previous owners, the Larson. The lot was assessed for and provided with municipal sewer as part of the Stubbs Bay project. There currently is a very steep and poorly developed driveway cut at the west end of the property, but this driveway is too steep for residential use. Further, it is located at the west side of the lot where sight distance for entering Bayside Road is extremely limited. Hennepin County DOT has indicated they will only approve a driveway location in the easterly 75' of the lot. This presents a major problem in that a steep bank rises approximately 15' above the road at a 60% slope for almost the entire length of the lot. To develop a driveway in the easterly 75' will require significant earth removals in the 0-75' zone and result in the removal of a number of mature trees. What appears currently as a wooded slope will have significantly less vegetation as viewed from the lake. Both staff and City Engineer agree with the applicant that their proposed plan will have a less intense visual impact than the two proposals they rejected, which would run a driveway virtually straight up the hill and require major cuts into the slope for distance 100' back from the road. Zoning File #1968 September 15, 1994 Page 3 The DNR has been notified of the application and as of this writing has not submitted comments. Potential for Alternate Access Locations Staff has discussed with a number of potential buyers of this property the possibility of gaining access from adjacent properties rather than developing a new driveway on the steep roadside slope. Perhaps the most likely alternative would be a shared driveway with property to the west. However, staff is unaware whether the Bangert's have approached neighboring property owners regarding the possibility of such an access easement, and are led to believe the Bangerts would like to avoid a shared driveway. Issues for Discussion • Absent the access issue, is there sufficient hardship for granting the lot area and width variances? If variances were not granted, how would this property be used? • Should variances be granted for hardcover, tree removal and extensive grading in the 0- 75' setback zone? • From a "visual impact" standpoint, if the driveway is constructed, what specific plantings will be added to soften the impact of the retaining walls and remaining steep slopes? • The City Engineer's letter clearly shows great concern about the safety of this driveway and its impact on neighboring properties and the road, as well as slope stability concerns. Please review his comments. If the driveway proposal is approved, a revised plan addressing all the Engineer's concerns should be submitted by applicant and approved by the City Engineer before this is presented to the City Council. • If Planning Commission concludes that the negative impacts of this proposed driveway outweigh the justifications given for granting the necessary variances, what other options does the property owner have? Is Planning Commission interested in withholding approval until property owner or applicant have explored all other options? Is Planning Commission convinced that all other possibilities have been exhausted? • Please review the applicant's letter of request carefully. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval subject to the applicant providing a revised plan addressing the issues of concern noted in City Engineer Glenn Cook's letter of September 14, 1994. Zoning File #1968 September 15, 1994 Page 4 Further conditions should include: a. Provide a detailed plan showing which trees will be removed in the 0-75' zone and on the steep slopes, and how and where replacement trees and vegetation will be added. b. Property owner to obtain a driveway access permit from Hennepin County. 2. Table for additional information. Depending on Planning Commission's intent, this might include: Tabling until applicant explores alternative access locations through neighboring properties. Table until a revised plan is submitted for Planning Commission review addressing the City Engineer's concerns. - Other. 3. Recommend denial, finding that the requested variances are not supported by sufficient hardship or justification. 4. Other. lsv G` °\,i IW- TV ��.wss �o�� 4 -#-/q&V CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION A PROPERTY INFORMATION yY Site Address 3s60 OAYSvot ?,A,:-) Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) rssi� �z s+3 ee iS Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prope Acquired ?/I,y (month/vear) I (do) go not -'Also own the Present use of property: Zoning District:_ Ln: VI'`uti`i Yl tat.!* ?Zit, u'.. Initial Application Fee $200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non -conforming structures $200 After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) tdjacent parcels of land. ^� residential _other (specify) APPLICANT Phone(home) fyr-a>ar Name *<a,ra : Oium.-) 13•Fuszn r Phone(work) Y>s-zi,,9 Address: /3o 1%4w ,e-C.«w City: Qie. o Zip: ssast OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: City: Phone(home) Phone (work) Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: Sz2 477*f &W (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED x Lot Area xx Lot Width wqc Hardcover _Lot Coverage Setback: _ Front Side _ Rear _ Average Lakeshore pp Other (specify) l4ev o=>s 6;wd � ..., o->s HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 N REQUIRED SUBi`1ITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: Completed Application Form ?. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (-You must obtain Ibis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). ?. ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a Iicensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 81h," x 11" for reproduction. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition. provide one (1) copy 81/z" x II" for reproduction. 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 81L'" x 11"). 7. List of the legal rames (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 9. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNUTLRE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Imowledge. Applicant's Signature 1ate OWNER'S SIGNATLRE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.. Owner's Signature `"/ 47 S-- Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 5 kUMM 10 11 Nt —.— . 1 .1 . I . 48( (24) j 136.7 ?53 1* 303 116.?1 .1SL 37.65 pi 18) 4 (21) 20 ci r (6) .... ..... (17) PART OF LOT 37 A.- ---------- CD°r 4 *4?4. 0. 10. q?• (10) 147 * ------------------- PART OF LOT 37 .......... ....... . .......... -,.Sep. 34 5.85 t 38 30 (46) 5. A IND 111 6 .4 31 114,5 14 too v (5) 338, Z5: :",*f It "r� ( U1 ;t 33 4 7 to (48 p zm Too i379. 25 ...... 169.125 23r73 a eiJ. ... ... 14 j'2 514Z S10 125.25 gi 2 is 1 17) (23) N 13 4 \ as (30) U (47) ------- ------------ Z4 23 28 (14) (73) 20 7 10 (2e) > (27) 1-41 I f -HI 125. Z5 0.9. •'4(29) (29) T. 169. IT 4 2 NC (42) z is (30) -t (4 1 WA 125. Z5 t (4"0 5? 93.76 R. .49 14 (42) 6.041,L. + % . (45) tail. SO JN 6Ir 40 13 12 (43) 11 91 4e0vT 1. LOT 8 (34) (44) (46) EAST (35) K-E- - s- 150, ; 18 16: 502 :(39)"(38) 16): 3002) 17 -253.4 6 1 93 Z$a. •w ga Ha w O C c [C p y a w N O C M O O 2 M O Q N= H W O� N H I 0 M W W W o rl W U O W M y W W p N H M H Z Z O O H K y J J 1' Z O M HC W M WZZ $ Y f O i fl T Q Q O i O Z z O a W Zp 4 o W H H COW W y W N goJ m 0 W '1 Q W W y W ~ a H H Y Y H 4\} Y H a C a M, W W m J N m H a a i 3 3 G Q y G O O x x O O m Z m J p m S= m J U H H• NH h O U � Ho M H H O R UU F F. S N z N N>. 2 0 H H N m Maa� O m M JMO w o <Q. o M O Z Z M J M O Q Q M J M O z m M J Z f /1 w Q C W Q o w m C m Q LL m W HO �• HH a w y yaW O m ZO K p H W O Nwm ~ O K F 6 LL H O H = m J O H fY m J a FLn aO 3mH H Z� WSH fNHY WHZWZZ >>LWO O OQ N O m Q O=mm M mM O LL HyYW NO Q If M FWUQ HyWLLm MW 00 Z JOO Q�Mwzn mHMHKHz0 "WOOD W NO aOGO Hm1royw Qwm TH0 rwzaa mJ m�CmJOmUJm OOE mM Ho M Q HzO OJOs N2 Zmo wp mMUJMO mmWMJ Um MOCJONJ MOUMJ W HYoo O Z m W O W U N 0 7 Q 0 �Mf lI O� p p p M y M Z •'I y W LL p '•I y J O W M M H y J O W M H O W W (Y l!1 M W Z H O N (Y O y O M W H fY Q S W 4 W M W H fY Q �1' N M W W O L W o W 4 N J N w N T O Z n O lyi U' 3 N O Z Q h O Z 4 n W L f _J m U1 O a J 0 LA I <Z I E I TYOQ O m U J m M 4 U U O m J W M < a ZU O m J W Ifl W W W J O N f Y f Y m O J W O z m O M U M y O x Z N J M U M y O x Z N J N N Z W O O M 0 0 0 N J m O H m G M O» H E m O mom M O» Hz w w m O N O M O 7 7 N J W K o Oawo W (Y W fY = o O Z W a =afro O Z W Q =¢w O Z W o zf O a f Y m x aWe Q r\ a Y\ p Z W a a }\ w oz'a M<w 'Wz oWmzm wmz ox mmH am z o w l aZ F aZ m o H ems.. f.. y 0 I .Nor/F /mc plNEie 1 of Src. 5-N l-S3 O a' O Was, hn,sl NEh � r!r•�•nr:+� � eF,ye+. s-mi3 ,dI serm'o9-E n5.ia Nl., i nr(ar i e bu ee m . WN Roc ry I A`rgq w w..6ur e. I un nu CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SHIRLEY LARSON IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 5-111-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA Lou I de. In< E+sl 165.21 tart of LPe Yesl 808.66 to- or IM1at part of the Norl Print pal her el Section 5, IaunsM1io Ikl North. Range ]] West of the SIP linePrin"I Barrels. eridi+n dPand lirs non nerly of the northerly r(cm-al_ line pl ROad and soYl Perly a( IP! nort Perly 16+9,09 leer el said Nor" Pea" Ou+her. also. that part of the E+sl 115.2] teal of Ina Nest 008.66 tail el vid Section 6 r1111 ties seulh.rly of the seulnerl, right-of-r+v line of Baysits Road and northuly of Laks Minnetonka. No" Becune of the lack of disensiona on the plu of aud. Sub, xR. tw. and beuwe tb oderlyin9 legal demriptlona • not apecl4c tp directlen. the above legal deeerlvtlon ¢hova rNt (hero r oonl it er ihren tllllerenI abst rani r eaoinetl sU hom anclwr ao)utien ront ne probl<s. mere lore sane typeOfjudiclal proceedings oar be revu fired to 1lrsly establish bounderis'. this survey intend¢ to sheer the boundaries el the above described property- It does not purport le error any "her Lprovesents e e nvoachsenla, r Iron Marker at. rl no shown are based upon an assuned dittos. Inn.hr.UlnrNA dp-wr... ea-prrp.v.JM mc.nnnJ�. r anJrh+.I.+mn Jul......mnd Gdo (hmer an:la bun..nu Jlr Ih �lan.rl llr.",It.,I%I n—u un u..,l. n (,.,nl.,p kuo��.m1 Lnma �pmn� N 93OIc PROJECT SUMMARY - - 3500 BAYSIDE ROAD Site Characteristics: The subject property is a heavily wooded plateau located on the north shore of Stubbs Bay oriented generally North and South. A small but steep bank rises from Bayside Road approximately 15' in a horizontal distance of 30' and then rises gradually to a knoll that is generally agreed upon to be the primary building pad at an elevation approximately 24' above the road at a horizontal distance of 160'. The lot then follows a rolling contour through mature trees to its northern line. Variances Required: Five variances are required for project approval. Lot width variance from 200' to the existing 165' should present no problem as well as a lot area variance. The site per attached survey is 1.97 acres at a minimum. ( Currently, some confusion exists over the exact boundaries of the lot. Resolution of these disputes can only add to the area of the site.) Problems arise because the only access to this lot is through the 75' setback from the waters edge. This requires variances for hardcover, tree removal and grading in the 0'-75' setback. Further complicating the issue of access is the requirement from Hennepin County that any access to the site be made in the easterly 70' of the lot to provide adequate site lines on the curved road. That forces the access through the steepest part of the bank. Several scenarios have been explored to provide access to the building pad and evaluated as to their impact on the site contour, trees and vegetation, the amount of soil that needs to be removed, the drainage of surface water in the 0'-75' setback area and the visual impact from the lake. We have also considered the safety and serviceabilty of the driveway for the occupants of the home to be built on the site. Calling the access problem difficult is an understatement - it is a monster. Any generally straight-line solution in the required area results in destruction of all trees and vegetation in nearly 20% of the lot surface.A cut through the bank and contour slope averaging 14' to 18' in depth over a horizontal distance of approximately140' is necessary. Amounts of soil removed for these scenarios range from 1350 CY to 1700 CY in the 0'-75' zone only. The driveways for these routes average 15% to 16% grade over their entire length, steep by anyone's definition. All surface run-off in the affected area drains to the driveway and heads unimpeded out of the narrow driveway chute directly across the road and into the lake. This is roughly the same line that a skidding automobile would follow on a frozen driveway surface once downward travel on the steep grade began with no bail -out position. Proposal: The solution we propose is a driveway that enters at the eastern edge of the site addressing the concern for sitelines on Bayside Road, but then turns generally to the West and traverses the bank with a gradual 8% straight-line driveway that approaches the natural contour as it approaches the West line. A relief postion ( nearly flat ) occurs at this point allowing the driver to turn North and again ascend even more gradually ( 6% grade ) to the rear of the building pad. This second leg follows very nearly the natural contour requiring minimal revision of the existing surface. The benefits of this solution are found in every area of concern. This plan calls for the least soil removal and site revision of the available courses of action. Cuts in the bank average 10' in depth as the driveway crosses the lot requiring the removal of approximately 900 CY. Retaining walls would be installed on the uphill side of the drive as it traverses the bank. Only the minimum number of trees would be lost and the existing vegetation would only be disturbed in the area of the cut and to allow for construction of the retaining walls. The downhill side of the bank would be protected and left undisturbed as much as possible. The surface water run-off would be allowed to drain much as it does now. Water traveling down the West leg of the driveway would able to leave the drive and travel down the bank approximately 50' before reaching the road. Only water moving down the traversing slope would exit directly onto the road. The perception of the bank and the site remain virtually unchanged by this plan. The undisturbed downhill side of the drive combined with the mature trees remaining on the uphill side maintain the 'Wild bluff " impression from the water. Much of the driveway is actually concealed from view by the lower bank. There is no sweeping valley to reveal the homesite in the distance. Finally, the issues of safety and serviceability. The steepness of the driveway as designed will be manageable most of the time and challenging in the inclement weather but not nearly as difficult to deal with as a 15% grade under the same conditions. This plan has the additional benefit of a two stage descent allowing the driver an opportunity to slow down and reassess the conditions. It also limits the possibility of an automobile spilling uncontrolled into the street if things do go awry. Conclusion: We hope you will grant the variances necessary to provide access to this site. The access problems are extremely difficult but the building site can be terrific. We believe we are submitting the best plan for the access to this site and we hope after your thoughful consideration you will agree. sonestroo n Rosene Mderlik & Associates Engineer: &Architects BMett2q FbPenc MCe'ma anCAtuKure>: 1eK. nan AtAmfa ACto VEqual OAoottunryfmpoyrt One G 96n . n RE uow+b A LNnc. PE Mlmaei P RRu. RE Mark D VA%5. PE Reeen W Roune. PE' .Keth A. G6. PE Agnes M. Rrg A IC Mlles, E. Jensen. RE. Jesepn C AroeO PE Pee-. R PMRe9e RE Tnemal W Mg-10n. PE L PN!ep Guvet. RE. WMn L S aa. PE RChbC W Foeer. PE. MKneel C Lyncn PE Kean L Wrtmen. RE . S n , E. T rneP PE Dxv.e C lRAM. PE. James R. MLane. PE. Gay D yjp 0 E PE. GMn R Cook. PE R lry C RAM. Ae +yJ lgaP0.R�jlcr. PE Ketn'a YPgp RE. Iacoen G ECrunk:Pt. PE. Mart A eaRE Tnel'fdS E. came P.E. Mai A Ba.'Jon. E k-n J. AR]AnC PE. &o as, A ug.I. A. RE PE. K to R AMe'sen PE Snawn ❑ GuKAlan. RE. SdSan M ECeAn. C RA Menae. T ee teann. FE Mar+ R Rak PE Cmlm OSWer RE 'ke':or Con Ult TRC K F'id. PE. Mark A. 5eip PE Paul G. Peuel PE. T_T3S R. A ,TrSnn. AIA Wry W MonM. PE Jebn P Gereer PE. DaIdIG C 91p n t Pf Pxbl J Gannp9A! A, Chval A. Er.k= -vz,o, A SYFkA PE Dane i. Eogenoe, RE Lee M Pawelixy F•-Jcr.c : LIb rq_ Pc. .+ve V. L'.'. P[ A RK.S 5,110:, PE PI LP J Ca Sw - PE �anan M. Olsen James F EC3eraat September 14, 1994 City of Orono P,O, Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Attention: Mike Gaffron Re: 139-1968 3500 Bayside Road Dear Mike: We have reviewed the application for constructing the home at 3500 Bayside Road. The property owner has provided three options for constructing the driveway access. The site topography makes it very difficult to get driveway access from Bayside Road (Co. Rd. 84). The driveway access plan preferred by the owner is not good but appears to be the best option. We would recommend that the following issues be addressed prior to proceeding with construction: 1. Drainage a) Driveway should be curbed b) Culvert/other drainage structures to prevent water from flowing into Bayside Road. I Retaining Wall a) Must be designed and approved by Reg. engineer if over 4 feet high, 3. Guard rail/restraining Wall a) Protection should be provided at driveway corner on West side of lot. 4. Headlight Control a) Screening provided along east lot line to prevent headlight conflict with westbound traffic. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 City of Orono Page 2 September 74, 1994 Re: 3500 Bayside Road 5, Slope Stabilization/erosion Control a) The bank area disrupted by construction will need to be stabilized, silt fence should be provided along Bayside Road. 6. Check turning radi on driveway to insure access by moving and construction vehicles. The property owner will be required to obtain a driveway access permit from Hennepin County. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:lk J I 4 . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSBEET 35VO SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75 -250' 25-500' 500-1000' EXISTING JIARDCQVT�.A INZONE A. House x Length idii S.F. x. S.F. B. Garage x = S.F. C. Driveway x = S.F. x = S.F. D. Sidewalk x = S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck S.F. S.F. F. Laa;l;(-!,pe S.F. x S.F. P. x .1 I'A;- AAk DCG V i k IN ZONE, 0 S.F. A A 0 B 34RY x loo 0 % z", KL A. 11 S.F. L,,, lh widd, x = S.F. S.F. x = S.F. S'r. x 4A4.—, S.F. F. I ,ad.waye x S.F. Xjn&rl..,an x S.F. By Plastic x = S.F. G. Other x S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 1.118j' S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 341*11 S-F. B A B 399t, x 100 = 37.4 % 13 J S-ec) 3-tV9) P-L- off 13 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSIIEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 25-500' 500-1000' i EXISTINCB HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House x = S.F. Length Wi<,h. x g S.F. x " .7 S.F. x - S.F. B. Garage x = S.F. C. Driveway x = S.F. x = S.F. D. Sidewalk x = S.F. x = S.F. E. Patio/Deck x = S.F. — x = S.F. F. Landscape x = S.F. Underain _--_ x _ S.F. fy Plastic W -- - x _ _-- __ — S.F. G. Other —i x = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE C S.F. A TOTAL N'OPEATY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B _Y/,Soo PI Oi't)4 ZI3 il? ItCIi,OVI'1: IN LONF A. Hou::e x - _ - = S.F. Length Width x --T..— - S.F. -- -- - x = S.F. _,-._—- x _—sure _- _ /8C� S.F. B. Ga age --- - x ----- --- = S.F. C. E-iveway - — x _-_- _ _ S.F. x -- _ - _ S.F. D. Sidux•alk - x -- = S.F. - x = S.F. E. Patio/Deck x = S.F. - x = S.F. F. Landscape — x = S.F. Underlain x = S.F. By Plastic x - S.F. G. Other x = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE /droo S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ V/, soo S.F. B A /boo + B Coo x 100 = Y.3 % 13 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORkSHF,ET f SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 25-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. ! House x - S.F. f Length y i&h — x = S.F. x = _ —�� S.F. x = S.F. B. Garage x = S.F. C. Driveway x = S.F. It = S.F. D. Sidewalk x = S.F. x = S.F. E. Patio/Deck x = S.F. x = S.F. F. Laadscalte x --_ — S.F. Uttiicrlaitl —---------- x _ — -- -- — S.F. By hla"tic-------- x ------- _ S.F. G. Other ^^ x = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN 'LONE S.F. A "IOTAI. PR.OPLRI'Y AREA IN ZONE -- '--_ S.F. B A -- -- — - B — x 100 HARI)COVF14 IN ZONE Lt.�b:h �lidth T — ___.____...—._.-_---------_—.-- _ __ S.F. x _ ,--. S.F. x �— — — _--- S.F. 11, L:n ,;c x = S.F. C. Dr;veway ._ — _ x -- — —----..—.—._ S.F. x L. S i .valk _... x S.F. x — —__ S.F. E. Patio/Deck x —, = S.F. -- -- x _� — S.F. F. Landscape x = S.F. _ Underlain x = S.F. By Plastic x = S.F. G. Other — x = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE C S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN Z.ONF.. 34;3? S.F. B A o a- _ �i3Z_ x 100 — 0 % 13 Brad Fisher 1865 West Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake, MN �55356 Re: Access to 350 0 Bayside Road Site (CSAH 84) Brad: As we discussed, the only acceptable location for driveway access to the above site is within 75' of the east property line. Due to the terrain and roadway alignment, visibility on this segment of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 84 is generally poor. However, since access to the site is guaranteed, Hennepin County must permit access at the best available location which is near the east property line. If and when construction becomes imminent, please remember to have a permit applied for to address such details as approach geometrics, drainage, etc. Thanks for the timely inquiry and please call with any further questions. Sincerely, David�erstro m Entrance Permit Coordinator c: Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono REC D!Q/saa AUG 5 1994 f'- :',artrn. _:c of = ui>sU ".%;rks -)L0 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612)930.2500 FAX:(612)930.2513 s -,P, J -a 6, /s <TT-b s A -gLo FF " 4164 fo'M 7 1 is �(2 .ci o2 *CLAM jS -Owl t S W 51-4c� - 1,4-s�j t:� 1 r ,w "—A<-74. SLe)P, 'F�A 'q� A POO.J 7- 2-S' 4- 16,�weg is --2� © l o r Gfz-c- A' uL 7 D Fax-rIt i--, CMG 5n~5 k-r- ))AP, '/--16—y� Hennepin County 1 An Equal Opportunity Employer / Michael P. Gaffron September 16, 1994 Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE: Proposed Plat - Bayside Road CSAH 84, north side between Stubbs Bay Rd and Tonka Ave Section 5, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2180 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Gaffron: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: • No additional right of way is required by Hennepin County at this time. The proposed access location, approximately 20 feet west of the east property line will be approved. It should be noted, there is no location along the plats frontage with CSAH 84 that provides good sight distance to both the drivers right and left. The proposed access location simply provides the most acceptable location. The developer must have an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any access construction. The developer should contact Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for access information and entrance permit forms. All other proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930- 2550 for utility permit forms. The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Recycled Paper Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612) 930-2670 FAX: (612) 930-2513 TDD: (612) 930-2696 Michael P. Gaffron September 16, 1994 Page 2 Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM (A S I A) G t�5 /PAY 'Ccec" 3 r , �u 2 C a r O J r �I LO LO �� aLO m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m I; n c; Q W F= a O 'w' N W uj 'W Cc LU F O " O O 0] i I i I I I ' m 0 m 0 Ln OM V V V M (O M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m In LoLO V V V V V M Cl) m m m m m m m m m m ;I I J = W_ U) cc C L � w p z Q O H cc Z W cc p F. O co Z z Q O O 00 LL O O J L% W M O T caw1° n cT� Z.tz O ¢ H S 6E Ust�L >Y W Um_ n Zs4� Lc i.E m n � a cc zK' �a—Trcr M •- rc ¢�mV C7 3 O z �Ls W c W Z ?F Cl) 4 LIJ C c-7 -z 3 . L't , \ f � m '-Tm�� 3 / we j \\/ /@ x>== co /CD \ ƒ -- ® \ \ � — -- --- i F. z \ \$ =z \\ S R �! s $ / ^^ � )LL C~ !!If cc j \/! /§ { CERTIFICATION SECTION 3500 BAYSIDE ROAD Pa OEM h�.;bl�r,,,,,,,,ar,,,,�nar,�;�„�,�,�r,u e :at"asVepa,F ty, , Imd,rn,6ra1 ORONO, MN -- RSH ENGINEERING a;�rnhcnaoa;reu ama Aiyra�'sse�aa Engr,a r�na iaw;q (a ';Lr„Uinnescra 3l8" = 1' "1 ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION R2aer o ha Rea No 7707 - -- r- i ttP!ptz4( & L- i L%LAJpT4L IIJ�,UJ Lo£2GRtil> =7' Ar ob B zLD6 fP.4a M NVGQ6Y. L�LhTdLi = �i�NiJu..L%.�hi.LS G O '- �L C o • • M r ZLtbu Nr. 7 _ u5r x, n �To 6e P�aw�ed� TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deli/veer the following page(s) to: Name: 1 From: a Total number of pages g including this cover letter. Date: 6 � G !� r / S— IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (612) 473-7358 and ask for: p V4IG� our telecopy number is: (612) 473-0510 Additional Message: O b w CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Keith and Vivian Bangert 130 Manor Circle Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 1994 COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: APPLICATION NO. #1968 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: December 9, 1994 COPIES: Gerald Roelofs 1650 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Shirley A. Larson 1823 Colfax Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55403 VOTE: 3 FOR 1 AGAINST To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution attached. Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. You must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to commencement of construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.) Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than November 28, 1995. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. lsv Hennepin County' An Equal Opportunity Employer Septemberl16, 1994 Michael P. Gaffron Asst, Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box'66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE: Proposed Plat - Bayside Road CSAH 84, north side between Stubbs Bay Rd and Tonka Ave Section 5, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2180 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Gaffron: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County . review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: • No additional right of way is required by Hennepin County at this time. • The proposed access location, approximately 20 feet west of the; east property line will be approved. It should be noted, there is no location along the plats frontage with CSAH 84 that provides good sight distance to both the drivers right and left. The proposed access location simply provides the most acceptable location. The developer must have an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any access construction. The developer should contact Dave Zetterstrom at,930-2548 for access information and entrance permit forms. • All other proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930- 2550 for utility permit forms. ' • The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South R�ry,!'d PUP, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612) 930.2670 FAX:(612) 930-2513 TDD:(612) 930.2696 Michael P. Gaffron September Ib, I994 Page 2 Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, /J Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM