The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutProject PacketCHRONOLOG #2550 Van Eeckhout -Proposed Subdivision, 120 Brown Rd. S. PW Paul Weinberger CVE= Charles Van Eeckhout PC = Planning Commission ****************************************************************************** November 1, 1999 Initial application date November 9, 1999 City Engineer Comments Letter November 10, 1999 DNR Comment Letter to City November 15, 1999 CVE Comments re: Staff Report November 15, 1999 PW Memo to Planning Commission/ PC Meeting: PC voted 7-0 to recommend denial of 7-lot plat based on too high a density, insufficient information and issues needing to be resolved but applicant wanting to move forward to Council. December 6, 1999 2nd DNR Letter to City December 6, 1999 PW Memo to Council December 13, 1999 Council Meeting: Referred Back to Planning Commission December 29, 1999 PW letter to CVE: Extension to 3-2-00 January 3, 2000 PW Letter to Paralegal Chadwick Requesting Easement Research January 10, 2000 PW Memo to Planning Commission January 14, 2000 PW Memo to Planning Commission January 19, 2000 PC Meeting: Vote 6-0 to Recommend Denial, Also Recommended Reduction to 6 Lots January 21, 2000 City Attorney Letter to CVE February 14, 2000 PW Memo to Council/Council Meeting: Tabled 5-0 Page 1 of 3 March 1, 2000 CVE Letter of Extension (no deadline set) April 4, 2000 Svoboda Letter to PW re Wetlands June 1, 2000 CVE Letter to Council Requesting Access Approval or City Action to Seek a Declaratory Judgement re Access July 6, 2000 PW Memo to Council July 10, 2000 CVE Letter of Extension to 8-31-00 July 11, 2000 Notice of Council Action: Referred back toPC August 9, 2000 City of Long Lake Letter to PW re review status August 14, 2000 City Engineer Comment Letter August 14, 2000 PW Memo to Planning Commission August 15, 2000 CVE Letter of Extension to 10-31-00 August 21, 2000 Comment Letters from Mr. & Mrs. Miner of Apple Glen Road and the Vande Vegte's August 21, 2000 PC Meeting: Recommended 6-0 to Deny 7-Lot Plat August 24, 2000 Loucks Lot Area Tabulation September 7, 2000 PW Memo to Council September 11, 2000 Council Meeting September 23, 2000 Letter from the Dunn's (Owners of Access Parcel) September 26, 2000 Svoboda wetland report October 30, 2000 PW letter to CVE requesting extension November 8, 2000 TEP Panel Findings (Hafner Memo) December 8, 2000 PW Memo to Council Page 2 of3 December 11, 2000 City of Long Lake Letter to Moorse December 11, 2000 Council Meeting: Voted 5-0 to Direct Staff to Draft a Denial Resolution for 7-Lot Plat, But Noted Council Would Consider a Six Lot Plat if Proposed. December 12, 2000 PW Memo to Ron Moorse December 15, 2000 CVE Letter to City December 15, 2000 PW Memo to Council December 18, 2000 Council Meeting: Tabled to Allow PC to Review the Proposed Revision to 4 Lots -CVE signed extension to 2/28/01 with conditions January 5, 2001 City of Long Lake Memo January 8, 2001 PW Memo to Planning Commission January 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting: No Formal Action Taken, Advised CVE to Resolve Access Issues Before Returning This to PC for Further Review February 23, 2001 PW memo to Council February 26, 2001 Council Meeting -Adopted Denial Resolution No. 4611 Page 3 of3 ZONING FILE #04-2998 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 23, 2004 TO: Henry J. Lazniarz COPIES: Tom Goodrum 1117 Marquette Ave., Suite 2509 Minneapolis, MN 55403 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: March 15, 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 1 Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Rd. S. Long Lake, MN 55356 No action required. Planning Commission indicated that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) with clustering of single family homes, similar to Concept Plan E, would be generally acceptable for this site, to allow for preservation of the variety of unique site features. Planning Commission was in favor of preserving the high ground south of the creek. VOTE: -FOR -AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: (Not applicable; the next step would be to make a preliminary plat application) If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Date Application Received: 2-20-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 2-20-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 4-20-04 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director March 12, 2004 #04-2998 Henry Lazniarz, 120 Brown Road South -Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-lB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. 20 acres Total, 14 Acres±._ Dry Buildable Lot Area: Application Summary: This is a sketch plan for a proposed 7-lot residential plat or PRD of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long Lake Creek. Five concept plans have been presented for consideration. Each proposal includes development of a private cul-de-sac road accessing from Brown Road South, plus extensions to serve various outlying or back lots. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The site is wooded and contains an existing single family residence constructed in the 1920's. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Planning Commission and Council during the period 1999-2001. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed, but the ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The owners of the property, the Van Eeckhouts, have taken legal action to have their existing easement declared as usable for access to the property. The City Attorney is still reviewing documentation provided to him, but his initial conclusion is that the 40' easement does in fact provide the applicant with the right to create a road to serve multiple lots over that easement. Henry Lazniarz is purchasing the property and is proposing to develop 7 lots on the 14 acres. He apparently is open to suggestion as to the best layout for accomplishing this. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will provide a number of issues for discussion or to be addressed when the formal application is submitted. List of Exhibits A -Application & Letter of Request B -Concept Plans A-B-C-D-E C -Plat map D -Airphoto of Site E -PRD Zoning Code Standards 1 #04-2998 March 12, 2004 Page2 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 1. Conformity with 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) The property is guided for single family residential use at a density ofl unit per 2 acres. Four of the five proposed layouts contain 7 lots on 14.1 acres. Based on the City ordinances that exclude road right-of- way from a calculable area, the only way the code density requirement could be met for 7 lots is via a Planned residential Development (PRD ). The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and private wells. The proposed use for residential purposes would be in conformity with the CMP as long as density standards are met. 2. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property is abutted on the north by the City of Long Lake, with housing of significantly higher densities than allowed in Orono. The south boundary of the property abuts the Luce Line Trail. Property to the east and west is developed generally at a 2-acre density. South of the Luce Line, the Fox Ridge neighborhood is zoned for 2-acre lots but was developed prior to the 1975 rezoning, with 1 acre lots. In general, the proposed layouts create lots that vary in their degree of consistency with surrounding development. 3. Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is in the RR-1 B Single Family Rural Residential District, which allows for single family residential use, with a minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres. None of the five proposals have all their lots meeting the 2.0 acre minimum lots size. Each proposal has at least one lot ofless than 2 acres in area. The ability to achieve the densities and lot layouts proposed relies solely on the City acceptance of the PRD development process, and relaxing a number oflot standards. 4. PRD Process. The PRD process "is available to land subdividers subject to Council approval, as alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents." (Section 78-601) #04-2998 March 12, 2004 Page3 The PRD process allows the property owner to submit land subdivision plans for any "R" District without adherence to minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, provided that the total number ofbuilding lots, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district. The dwelling units permitted may be, at the discretion of the Council and subject to the conditions set forth by the Council, in detached, attached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of the Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes, such as easements or other forms of dedication, covenants, etc. The City Council has broad discretion as to whether a property will be allowed to subdivide using the PRD process. The PRD should be considered when unique land configuration or natural amenities can be best protected and preserved by relaxing the lot subdivision regulations. The nature of this property is such that a relatively small portion of the 20-acre total is suitable for actual construction, due to the existence of wetlands, drainage ways, the creek, and steep slopes. The property is a candidate for development as a PRD, in staff's opinion. 4. Site Layout and Lot Standards A few general and some specific comments are offered here regrading the various concept plans: 1. Each of the five plans show a lot along the Luce Line, requiring a creek crossing and yielding a very narrow and limited (but perhaps highly attractive) building site very near the Luce Line Trail. This lot in each case is served by a driveway within a narrow corridor between or adjacent to other lots, making it by definition a back lot. It is not clear whether the area calculations yield 2 acres of dry buildable land. Staff would suggest that the setback along the Luce line must be considered as a rear lot line for this property and subject to a 50' setback, not 30' as shown. This leaves a buildable area of about 7500 s.f., mostly situated on a steep slope (perhaps bluff, perhaps not) overlooking the creek. Staff would strongly recommend that this lot not be created as a building site, and that it be preserved either as parkland adjacent to the Luce Line or via some other restrictions. Staff would suggest that preservation of this area of the property and avoiding any vehicular creek crossing to access it, should be a primary goal of the City in allowing development of this property. #04-2998 March 12, 2004 Page4 2. The various concept plans presented have been developed generally using the City's I -acre zoning standards, in terms of setbacks, lot widths, etc. In the context of a PRD, this may be appropriate, as long as the overall density is maintained. However, in a number of plans the narrow corridor leading to the southerly back lot yields potential building sites very close to the driveway serving that back lot, not meeting the City's goal of retaining greater open space in back lot situations. 3. In all plans, the narrow corridors leading to back lots are shown as either part of the main road system or as part ofthe lot they serve. In no cases are they shown as separate narrow outlots as our code would require. Staff will be prepared to discuss additional details related to each concept plan for Monday's meeting. It may be a fair statement that the plans provided have been developed with the PRD concept clearly in mind, as noe would be devoid of variances under standard platting ... 5. Road Layout and Standards The proposed road corridor within the site is 50' in width as required by the Subdivision Code and CMP for a local private road. The standard paved width for this road would be 24-28' depending on the configuartion and number of lots served by each segment. The use of the front/back lot configuration as opposed to continuing the cul-de-sac to serve the end lots is a key element of some of the applicants proposals Lot 2, is worthy of discussion. The subdivision ordinance regarding applicable uses of the back lot states: "a. Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. c. A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth." #04-2998 March 12, 2004 Pages 6. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed The City has no current plans for trails or parks that specifically require dedication ofland from this property. However, the southerly part of the property abuts the Luce Line and would make a nice addition to the trail corridor, with potential walking access to the creek. This unique configuration should be looked at by the Park Commission to determine whether the dedication ofland could result in regional trail access to the creek. While this might not be within the property owners' expectations for the property, the City does have an 8% Park Dedication requirement and the public benefits of such an access must at least be considered. Absent dedication ofland for parks, the Park Dedication Fee would be expected to be the maximum fee which by ordinance is capped at $5,550 per new lot. 7. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The City will require Road, Drainage and Utilities Easements over the private roads, which should be platted as outlots. Access to Brown Road. fu addition to the 40' easement shown on the applicants drawings, an additional 10 road easement exists along the north 1 O' of the plat of Kallestad Acres. The total corridor width is 50, and the road should be located to make use of this width. The City will require that the current driveway be upgraded to City standards all the way out to Brown Road. 8. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed Development of the propertywill likelyrequire creation of stormwater management facilities which may include storm sewers, swales and runoff rate/quality control ponding within the site. Thepropertywill be subject to the Storm water and Drainage Trunk Fee, established currently at $2700 per acre for the 2-acre zone. 9. Utility Locations and Availability The property would be served by private wells and municipal sewer. Municipal sewer with capacity to serve the small number of units proposed is believed to be available in the Long Lake system into which Orono lines in this area discharge. These added units will have to be discussed with and approved by the City of Long Lake. 10. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees Whether a sewer unit connection charge for use of the existing sewer system would be required of this new development, has yet to be determined. The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with bringing sewer laterals to serve the proposed new lots, as well as for obtaining appropriate easements as required. #03-2998 March 12, 2004 Page6 11. Conformity with Shoreland Regulations The setback to the creek bank for Long Lake Creek for this sewered property is 7 5' Wetland setbacks of26' must be adhered to. The MCWD may require greater setbacks for this wetland. 12. Wetlands On Site and/or Impacted The wetlands on the property were delineated a few years ago to help determine the amount of dry buildable area. The City will require aFlowage and Conservation Easement over all wetlands designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wetlands which can be avoided by proper site layout. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the City's LGU for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act rules. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is heavily wooded with a variety of tree species. Orono does not have a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-75' lakeshore and creek setback zone, where clearcutting and removal of trees 6" or greater in diameter is prohibited. The developer may be required to provide boulevard trees along the private road at appropriate locations. The developer is encouraged to preserve as many trees as possible to retain the wooded character of the property. 13. Archaeological Site Proximity or Study Needed Given the unique nature of the site in its proximity to Long Lake Creek, the developer is advised to contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological study is warranted. 14. Potential Bluff Impacts While there are steep slopes on the site, none appear to meet the criteria to be considered as bluffs; however, staff has not done a detailed analysis, which should be completed before any conclusions are reached. Summary The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of the various proposals. The above comments reveal a number of issues for subdividing this property, and also suggest some opportunities for preservation of unique amenities associated with the site. During the sketch plan review, the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted present particular problems, so that those issues can be discussed and the potential for approval or denial of variances to code standards can be addressed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. City of Orono Subdivision Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application# Z.. q CJ S Date Received=-: -2--~'2..~0----0-· ...,..1/,,___ Amount Psiid: 4, '3.SQ ~ Staff: z01\i-'-,-·'-\i-=--·~=-.i.--.-=------ Fee: ~~rota Renewal: This application form must be completed in full. PROPERTY INFORMATION: r , SiteAddress: /20 Groi.-V\ u(oc,ck Property Identification Number (PIN): O 3 ~ JI 7 -,;23 -I ,2 -r)()O ~· (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (monthryear): ____ □ Abstract or 10"Torrens, please check one Present use of property: !2i'Residential □ Other · -------------------Zoning District: (< k~ -.. 1 ¥') . OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: Phone (home): ------------Phone (work): Address: Email: Fax: ------------------EXISTING LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: Development Size: Present Use (check one) Present Zoning District Proposal: J -~;_y,__ __ Acres Dry Land (o Acres Wet Land --~--~:J~O'----Acres TOTAL, all parcels o:i--Residential; Number of Units: _j_ □ Other: (Specify) (((<-:1r3 □ Division for Tax Purposes □ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ~ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites --~--Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use ( check) G New Units 7 Total Units ,;;z~ ~ Units per / Acres c lu s-f .Q v~ Square Feet Dry Buildable Land 0""' Residential □ Other (specify) -10 -..... '\ .J MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below). 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of 4· Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this 5· application. MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if applicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. A,Pplication Base Fees: _V_ : Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & Ill) $350.00 __ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $600.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $600.00 __ Preliminary Subdivision Application $750.00 + $30.00/lot (Class Ill & all non-residential) __ Final Plat Application (Class Ill) $250.00 __ Legal Review and Filing: __ Subdivision only $140.00 __ Subdivision w/easements and covenants; minimum $280.00 + any additional costs __ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 82-227) __ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) __ Renewal of Class I, II, & Ill Subdivision and of a Lot Line Rearrangement Application $300.00 8. Special Improvement Fees: __ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + $.50 per lineal foot; ___ lin. ft. x .50 = $ __ __ Proposed Public Roads $950.00 + $.50 per lineal foot; lin. ft. x .50 = $ __ __ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 __ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 + $25/stub __ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 __ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivisions) $60/per lot x _ new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Miscellaneous Fees Variance $600.00 __ Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefiting property ($600 minimum per application) Easement Vacation Associated with a Subdivision $100.00 __ PRO Application with Subdivision $35.00 per dwelling unit TOTALS 3:s-o. oo The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by Planning Department Staff, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature: ---;d~. ~ Date: d/i,;/o I Owner's Signature: _______________________ Date: Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 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 City Planner assigned to your project of this change prior to the meeting. -11 - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR 120 BROWN ROAD Homes By Design is interested in the development of the 20-acre parcel located at 120 Brown Road. It is understood that the City has considered the development of this site previously but the issue on access was never resolved. This issue has now been resolved and access to the site via a public/private road from Brown Road is now possible. With a road now possible, Homes By Design has prepared several concept sketches on the potential development of this site. The sketches range from the city standard 2-acre lots to several options utilizing the PRD cluster development. Due to the many natural amenities within the site ( especially the wetlands and natural corridors) and the surrounding neighborhoods the ability to cluster some of the sites is appealing for home placement and environmental sensitivity. Site data that were made available to us from previous reports include: • Total Area 20. 7 acres • Upland Area . 14.1 acres dry buildable • Wetland/Creek 6.6 acres, the creek divides the south from the north • Zoned RR-lB (2-acre lots) • Luce Line Trail to the South • Sewer services are available from Long Lake or along Brown Road. • Long Lake abuts to the north with sewered small lots. • The Fox Ridge Subdivision is just south of the site and contains 7, 1-acre lots. The sketch plans are being presented to demonstrate that although a six-lot 2-acre subdivision can be achieved to meet the current zoning requirements, that the site is best served by being developed as a PRD. It is our intent to preserve the wetlands and the natural corridors that exist in and around the site. The home placements will also protect these corridors and match the surrounding area. In preserving these amenities we are requesting that the city, under the PRD standards, support a development using a cluster design that incorporates seven lots. With over 14 acres of dry buildable land, seven lots appears to be a reasonable request since there is enough dry land for 7 two-acre lots. There are three distinct buildable areas within the site. 1. The northeast corner. This area is next to Long Lake smaller lots. The knoll in this area provides a nice view over the wetland to the south and east. 2. The central area. This is where the existing home sits. It consists of a large lmoll that provides beautiful views in all directions. There is room for several walkout style homes with easy access to Brown Road. IT is far away from other surrounding homes to create its own sense of a neighborhood. 3. The southern knoll. This site offers a majestic view with an element of privacy due to the creek to the north and the Luce Line trail to the south. It is a premier lot within the site. See the attached aerial showing optimum building sites. ,, ' ,..:;.~ .. ,, Each of the concept plans provides their own unique qualities. Following is a breakdown of each plan. Concept A. • This shows how the site can be developed under the RR-lB standards. • Each lot has a generous building area with a nice view. • The street location is not best suited for the neighbor to the NW. • Does not preserve any natural corridors or greenways. • Requires the removal of the existing home. Concept B. • All lots average I-acre in size. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and no1ihem knoll. • Creates uniformity throughout the development. Concept C. • Clusters smaller lots near similar size lots in Long Lake. • Transitions into larger lots in the central and southern end of the site. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • However, the street to the north dissects this open space. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Concept D. • Clusters I -acre lots in the central area as a uniform neighborhood. • Separates the smaller 1-acre lots with standard 2-acre lot to the north and south. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Concept E. • Clusters six small lots in the central area. • Preserves all of north side as open space. • Creates a distinct uniformed neighborhood. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Homes By Design appreciates your comments and guidance in the development of this site. The lot is a unique site that provides great opportunities to creatively design a development that preserves its' natural features and its' transitional location between Long Lake, the wetland, the Luce Line Trail and surrounding homes. A cluster development would provide a nice transition between the small lot single-family homes to the north and the 1-acre single-family homes in the Fox Ridge Development to the south. The vast buildable area within this site allows the development to appropriately place new homes to blend nicely with the existing homes to the west. We look forward to working with the City on our development plans. .·,:,.·, . . :\ A n 'W~~ e .. , . , ~"'-'" / '---....... '---' -'' ,, I I - '\ 0 '2 '2 s. ~ o. \...-If,/// "'1"'-\ ~~.UD l'I\,;} ~-~ .. ,b \'.<. BUILDABLE AREA: ,,..-1,,--~,. """""-._ . I I I 48.844 Sf 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET I S ICl'OO',OCl"W,,,i4J,fJ __ ~ ' I ~ '~ -~ ~~ I .It I, , - <D st ~~v--c_~~l .....:... I --", .. 'ti.., . . l./',,.,_ . -·-. "'\ BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD : 50' SIDE YARD : 30' ci ~l 0 /I I / 1///~//:y,.~ IT\)", \~:~~~~<\\ \, ' , '~ e BACK YARD: 50' (.) ~ Q:-- CJ '(" <:::J '(" · ~iif~6¼ I I -BUILDABLE AREA J..... 1/; A8LE 0 /%3,},'168 /, t ... -WETLAND /CREEK 14lt/,,'.1;✓ ,,/✓ 0 ~,,, / ~/ ,,/ / I I -LOT GREEN AREA \t j '-J ~,. I I '-J ,,, , I I -RIGHT -OF -WAY ',' '(" ~ [ 120 BROWN ROAD OR ONO, MN )( OPTION A 2 ACRE LOTS J ~-,,_ \-'< .. ~ s 90"00' oo· w '\ ...... s 90"00' oo· w % 0 .... , \ () '/ ,__ ..... , j l-- A /,.,_ --- 0 100 200 300 I_ ,L,_.. ___ ___.i SCALE IN FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: 50' 30' 50' SIDE YARD: BACK YARD: V'J_2Zi1 -WETLAND/CREEK ~ c:i i! u L I'(. '--· s. "- Q "(" I-._ VJ 4, '-I '-I "(" ..\:- \'-Io. VJ 0 <c- (; 'Sf '\ 0 7.. 7.. 120 BROWN ROAD ORONO, MN ~.,. , \l'\t. iRl'-1\. t:ii"" \.UCt. ~ ) n 'W e ,b 0 100 200 JOO SCALE IN FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD : 35' 10' 35' SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD : 30' OPTION B BUILDABLE AREA WETLAND/CREEK LOT GREEN AREA GREEN CORRIDOR RIGHT -OF-WAY ACRE CLUSTER LOTS 8 ---- --✓ GoNGEPT B s. S IIO"OO'OO• W ..... ._ "\ _,-.._ /V s IIO"OO' oo• w __ ...... _ -' \._) ~ N ,-, .,.... -j 4._; Cc- G w 8 I z '' : ;_ \ .. .i , ,4 I / / / .<9 I / /,:;4' // / .,, / / /~\• I / / / / / / / / / I I I I I I I \ I 1 \ I I \ I '- I ---.__ '..._ __ ,1a--__ \J I I 'Jft_ ---/ ---- 0 100 200 i r SCALE IN BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: 300 i FEET 35' 1 o· 35' 30' p;::.;'~ -WETLAND/CREEK [ ~ ci () i \_.. s. 1'-1 o. s.. 1_~00"· ---· .'l c, <::) 'f 1--.... VJ t.,_, ......, ......, '< -\:- VJ t.,_, Q- C, 'f 120 ~01 '2 BROWN RAOD ORONO , MN ~.,-, .-,£_ -,;R/>.IL :;.,,-LUCE. ~"' n 'W e J, 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: 35' 10' 35' SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD : (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: 30' OPTION C BUILDABLE AREA WETLAND/CREE K LOT GREEN AREA GREEN CORRIDOR RIGHT -OF-WAY J SMALL LOT CLUSTER IN NE CORNER C - I '-<./ GfJNe, E PT s. S IIO"OO'OO" W /'.J r S IIO"OO'OO" W I '-.f.· ___ / % .-·-~ , t.-- .. I / I ,.P I / ,$.Ji I / s'"' // ;" I I I/ t t / / I / I I I I I I I I I I I ' / 0 100 200 300 i --- !1 SCALE IN FEET "' BUILDING SETBACKS ~ ~ . FRONT YARD: 35' "' SIDE YARD: 1 o· SIDE YARD: 35' (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: 30' -WETLAND /CREEK 1'f'--_,,,.--- \ I \ I I \_\~t. ,RP..\\... LUC£ L i d ~la u e R \.., s ,_ <::) ~ ,-.. VJ ¼./ " " ~ -<" \',IQ. 0 '-v Q_- (.; ~ 120 ~ 0 '2 2 BROWN ROAD ORONO, MN ) n 'W e ,h 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD : 35' 10' 35' SIDE YA RD : SIDE YARD : (ADJ CENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: 30' OPTION D BUILDABLE AREA WETLAND/CREEK LOT GREEN AREA GREEN CORRIDOR RIGHT -OF -WAY CENTRAL AREA 1 ACRE CLUSTER LOTS 'D \ .... -- 0 t-DNGEPT \"-\ C. s 90"00' 00" w s IIO"OO'OO• W --.,~: % {\_ \_} I I I I D I I I I \ I \ \. '- --f ----"-.. -- ---,,,.,_ --- I I I / u~£. -n~.ft..\L Luc£. 1:, 0 100 200 i ; ' SCALE IN BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: 300 i FEET 35• 1 o· 35• 30' V7Z%Za _ WETLAND/CREEK L "' -<I' d u i \'.<. \_, s. C) 'f ,.__ V) 4J ....., ....., 'f -le- I'\ o. VJ !.v Q:- c., 'f ~ ~~~ ~\ ?;-2 2 120 BROWN ROAD ORONO , MN ) n 'W e ,b 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD : 35' 10' 35' SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD : 30' OPTION E BUILDABLE AREA WETLAND/CREEK LOT GREEN AREA GREEN CORRIDOR RIGHT -OF -WAY CENTRAL AREA SMALL LOT CLUSTER ~ GON&,,EPT s. ;--·-: '\ \.). \-~ s 90"00'.00" w '\ r-. -... _j S IIO"OO'OO• W (; r\ ·-.. _., % I I I \ I \ I / / / \ --- 0 100 200 i ' ------SCALE IN BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: SIDE YARD: (ADJCENT TO STREET) BACK YARD: < .,,. 313.5 JJO I __ .;:::::;:__-4 '° --_162).l!a -j -• - lf,p. £ l ,.,. 0 ~ ~ ~ " :' z . ' i~t.i (141 2:!?.04 OUTLOT B 1191 "'"' se9•44•42•• 171 5'4 00 14) II) ll ll g If .. ~ I I .. J ll,33 3 ., (9) I ll.U ••l R L 8 MO 6:1'11 l! _ _ IJ~>-_ J cm = --------L------ • • --JI!----=r ,_ I UO>, _____ C83l _____ L •• _ ◄}9.0-4 I E I I 12° /ll /Srov--"'\ ~ lb ~ IM© ~~~ (51 --.. ,,; _______ .,,..., I ., I I I ' ' I ,,. , . 1:1,. -.,t;.'l'l J--. -. -. -.-.rii••· --------· 131 O()C NO ,4I.~ 156.5:5 (I) 13) ,.,' ., .. ., 2648.22 RES @ ., ,., .. _,. "'·· (31 --------------------------~L~-----• I :.:: ,...., ·~ u ,...., :.:: <t _, ,<.:> 15 _, "8UIDDYR810N 9180 'II 81! 1/ ~ OIF 81! IIIIIIDDYIIDOM IHIO i SW '11/ tG OF 81E AMII) 8Ullll>UYl810M il!O 1 OIF LOT ~( SIECV'GON 3~ TOW~81h1UP '1111 RA&aGIE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS: •PLAT OF E 8 SMITHS LANO IN / SECTION 34 TOWNSHIP 118 RANGE 23' /.,' .," _,., ., ,,.., ., (I) Ill ., ., , I < ZONING REGULATIONS § 78-609 DMSION 10. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 78-601. Purpose. This plan is available to land subdividers sub- ject to council approval, as alternative to stan- dard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recre- ation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of city residents. (Code 1984, § 10.32(1)) Sec. 78-602. Submission of plans. Landowners may submit land subdivision plans for any R district without adherence to minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, pro- vided that the total number of building lots or dwelling units shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. (Code 1984, § 10.32(2)) Sec. 78-603. Council discretion. Dwelling units permitted may be, at the discre- tion of the council and subject to the conditions set forth by the council, in detached, attached or multiple-family dwelling structures, subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning dis- trict. (Code 1984, § 10.32(3)) Sec. 78-604. Open space. The dedication, ownership, use and mainte- nance of open spaces created by the application of a planned residential development shall be sub- ject to conditions deemed necessary by the council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. (Code 1984, § 10.32(4)) Sec. 78-605. Dedication of open space. The dedication and ownership of the open spaces referred to in section 78-604 may be through: (1) Homeowners' association; (2) Landlord maintenance; (3) Special service district; (4) Municipal ownership; or (5) Any other method deemed appropriate by the council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. (Code 1984, § 10.32(5)) Sec. 78-606. Site plan. The proposed site plan, including location, spac- ing and basic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer (public or private) plans, and plans of open space available for park or recreational purposes shall be submit- ted for approval by the planning commission and the council. (Code 1984, § 10.32(6)) Sec. 78-607. Hearings. The council may direct that a public hearing be held to review plans governed by this division. (Code 1984, § 10.32(7)) Sec. 78-608. Final approval. Final approval of plans governed by this divi- sion shall not be granted until all conditions set by the council are met, and, further, the council shall not approve any such planned residential development prior to the legally binding estab- lishment of the open space dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means satis- factory to the council. (Code 1984, § 10.32(8)) Sec. 78-609. Subdivision requirements. All provisions of subdivision procedure estab- lished by chapter 82, except as modified in this division, shall govern applications under this plan. (Code 1984, § 10.32(9)) CD78:109 CITY of ORONO January27, 2004 Tom Goodrum Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10580 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 1 Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Brown Road property -Wetland Delineation Report Dear Tom: Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Enclosed is Svoboda's wetland delineation report for the Van Eeckhout property, as you requested. Also enclosed is a the current subdivision/sketch plan application form for your use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-4600. Sincerely, Mike Gaffron Planning Director encl. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us ~~~ ,?-, CITY of ORONO December 19, 2003 Tom Goodrum Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Documentation from File #2550 -C. Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South Dear 1-fr. Goodrum: Enclosed please find a variety of documents including copies of staff reports, exhibits, and Planning Commission and Council meeting minutes during the period 1999-2002 regarding Subdivision File #2550 for the property at 120 Brown Road South. Please feel free to contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mike Gaffron Planning Director encl. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us CHRONOLOG #2550 Van Eeckhout -Proposed Subdivision, 120 Brown Rd. S. PW = Paul Weinberger CVE= Charles Van Eeckhout PC = Planning Commission ****************************************************************************** November 1, 1999 Initial application date November 9, 1999 City Engineer Comments Letter November 10, 1999 DNR Comment Letter to City November 15, 1999 November 15, 1999 December 6, 1999 December 6, 1999 CVE Comments re: Staff Report . PW Memo to Planning Commissioic Meetin( PC voted 7-0 to recommend denial of 7-lot plat based on too high a density, insufficient information and issues needing to be resolved but applicant wanting to move forward to Council. 2nd DNR Letter to City PW Memo to Council ✓ December 13, 1999 Council Meeting: Referred Back to Planning Commission December 29, 1999 PW letter to CVE: Extension to 3-2-00 January 3, 2000 PW Letter to Paralegal Chadwick Requesting Easement Research January 10, 2000 PW Memo to Planning Commission January 14, 2000 PW Memo to Planning Commission/ January 19, 2000 PC Meeting{Vote 6-0 to Recommend Denial, Also Recommended Reduction to 6 Lots January 21, 2000 City Attorney Letter to CVE February 14, 2000 PW Memo to Council/Council Meeting: Tabled 5-0 March 1, 2000 CVE Letter of Extension (no deadline set) Page 1 of 3 April 4, 2000 June 1, 2000 July 6, 2000 July 10, 2000 July 11, 2000 August 9, 2000 August 14, 2000 August 14, 2000 August 15, 2000 August 21, 2000 August 21, 2000 August 24, 2000 September 7, 2000 Svoboda Letter to PW re Wetlands CVE Letter to Council Requesting Access Approval or City Action to Seek a Declaratory Judgement re Access ✓ PW Memo to Council CVE Letter of Extension to 8-31-00 · Notice of Council Action: Referred back toPC City of Long Lake Letter to PW re review status City Engineer Comment Letter PW Memo to Planning Commission CVE Letter of Extension to 10-31-00 Comment Letters from Mr. & Mrs. Miner of Apple Glen Road and the V ande Vegte' s/ .✓ PC Meetmg: Recommended 6-0 to Deny 7-Lot Plat Loucks Lot Area Tabulation PW Memo to Council September 11, 2000 Council Meeting/ September 23, 2000 Letter from the Dunn's (Owners of Access Parcel) September 26, 2000 Svoboda wetland i:eport October 30, 2000 PW letter to CVE requesting extension November 8, 2000 TEP Panel Findings (Hafner Memo) December 8, 2000 PW Memo to Council December 11, 2000 City of Long Lake Letter to Moorse Page 2 of3 / December 11, 2000 Council Meeting: Voted 5-0 to Direct Staff to Draft a Denial Resolution for 7-Lot Plat, But Noted Council Would Consider a Six Lot Plat if Proposed. December 12, 2000 PW Memo to Ron Moorse December 15, 2000 CVE Letter to City December 15, 2000 PW Memo to Council December 18, 2000 Council Meeting~abled to Allow PC to Review the Proposed Revision to 4 Lots -CVE signed extension to 2/28/01 with conditions January 5, 2001 January 8, 2001 January 17, 2001 February 23, 2001 February 26, 2001 City of Long Lake Memo PW Memo to Planning Commission/ ✓ Planning Commission Meeting: No Formal Action Taken, Advised CVE to Resolve Access Issues Before Returning This to PC for Further Review PW memo to Council Council Meeting{ Adopted Denial Resolution No. 4611 Page 3 of 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Title Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential List of Exhibits: A Extension dated 12/18/00 B Denial Resolution C Plat Map D City Attorney Letter Regarding Property Access Issue (January 21, 2000) Background: DATE: February 23, 2001 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning The primary unresolved issue with this application was the applicant was to secure legal access acceptable to the City Attorney for a proposed platting of the property. As of the date of this memo, no access to the property has been secured by the applicant. The applicant has reviewed two options for access: 1. Via a platted 40' corridor that is owned by an adjacent property owner. 2. Via access to Apple Glen Road which requires approval from the City of Long Lake. Staff has made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Van Eeckhout about further extension to the application deadline. The latest extension expires on 2/28/01. Staff has drafted a denial resolution attached as Exhibit B. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the denial resolution based on the findings noted in the attached resolution. December 19, 2003 Torn Goodrum Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Documentation from File #2550 -C. Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South Dear Mr. Goodrum: Enclosed please find a variety of documents including copies of staff reports, exhibits, and Planning Commission and Council meeting minutes during the period 1999-2002 regarding Subdivision File #2550 for the property at 120 Brown Road South. Please feel free to contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mike Gaffron Planning Director encl. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us A ~,-~~ v V\ Io+ -No T U;h-h~¼ ov s ~ .Joe 'S +'--JL - 7 1 Oy L,{}-l4J w I t0il u'Y' ~:::, ~ t R '}h.,l -~ U/\.-\v fJ Lco-v.J1 + ? I . Au,,' s <; -C!rLL, ~°' t w I -d ~ -':,,U.-) /5nQ.._ I ~ t- ()J l-de -Sal-(1,, ()J'\ vLC-le s s ou+\D--t to ~ S~r'i ~ to+ Wvvt~ YV¼.>st t'V'J.J .• A loa-uG.. lot -,J -----I 5;.t:)3/,0 (/ f 2-a C V / s s ~ ta._ve,( ~ T? %~-i,½_? ttvd-S -=:() 5 l✓.fbdt C,-/C--Jo t.A,A_ C e_ LI rl..ll_ * f5Y\. \ 01 ~ l o-\··s C4,__y\, oc cX.l.Jv ·<--v-p_,.J u vld Llr ~ tL(L-\6 ~+iu ---~L o.vd-S V/-U'\ ,~v~t\ ~vQ_ \\ 1 ·s , , u dY_lj cU. v ./ s -IN s p!tu1 1 JI vs-fr d-,,, ~ -,-t,., a_;r \~" /JJ uf.-U._ V ~ Ill tt.,1,,u,-e.S tv.£.d U /zv A,. -fe,u,,J I 0+5,( 2 -:S) ~ t , ~ t ss 1.,,\.-e_ w/ 5ov-the...,r fl;J lor ~ i-wl-d-€-$CLC~ vaqu ,'v-eo-wl ~ vt(C.t'S.S !!JI).. f lo-/ ~ '-f/_Q__ bh -ov·f WI -de--sa c__. • 01)-1 Io t Y / s u 11 s u 1 · rJ-LU ;:_ w a__ vcl-. I DJ} ouJ 66 I o1 w) It tJV s ~ c1--/tJJW cl-r / ve wa lj ~ w11 I b< s d -v p. * tJ /'\R.-I 01 cUJ ,lj 11 I -f -rfr71Yt f -ru (A) 1-d ./ .-Su c... q.- lA) t)W J 1/ft{t//~-t. tlll--t"'SS lz:v 2, fio'YM--tS 61-f ~ trv-f loi • IAJ ~ --1/4.__ v a. V) 1 afl c.. -ts rr 2 . ff v / r u/_ , VhL /rrr w~l/!d hA._v.t.. ~-fao/-O"rt -fr,,,,Jo W/-d~ -S~ c.-5 1 I/ S W,-.. lj 1 /2,.., (). U<I' .$ Uf.J~ t.-1C (, ~ ~u.,,.vf_ 5 1 w fAI._ M v t0v / tLY1. c: <-tJ r fLCj v , ',.-~ Av f 4..R.. -Z. 11.J 6 c-ov--n1. r I ors - ___ ~_)P_cJ_!!_~v~ __ _fp__f ____ LS5V£ _S __ -__ (_(J?:1-nj u vl v s/11:JO& a,..?'-{ _______ ---~-_)!_1 f_ ___ ~ ~r_1~ __ _j~_t llt:;_11_-,P:(!tj_ _ ff'-!!~-wr~+t_ v ll _ /_ a r , _________________ , __ /f!(_t!_ __ =---s~~~J ___ :ht2:r1:_i~=~~--_s htt..A_r i~-c.OJ .. "s 1'd .e_ y ~ ______ 1 ________ _ ~-f ~ 5-f-7'--f.)u)c 5 -.olah s Ju:.nA,,1 V"?.t:1 36 1 ,----------------------------"-------·-.... ·---·------. ---------···· ---------------.. ------~F-~~---------------------•.s~~-----------~-;)------------------~---·- -s Lfb a,e.)L<-./1..¥· t:1-✓ i _ ·:·-kl~ s 6YL -rM e; Io f -----·---------•·----·-•"-·----·-----------.2_-·-------·------------__ . ______ J -··--·-·-------------·--··-·-·----------------·-. ----------••----_ .~ /D __ '_____,Jfal ~--s~±bt'Lf..,,,1-8 ___ a_ _ _,.-e_ __ :Showru _ -•--_ ----i---------:, w ✓~n. .v a t/f 'rft_n t_fl s -·-·---~~!:--fl-o/ ¥-1-..JL Jals ______ \ _ -------{/\ -----·,J,,.{,.._.P..__ _ /IJ b vO"'( 11 C-V------------ -----~--3_/)_~ ___ Sl~fbvJL ___ !_S ______ ;~>'h~Jf'1 ~fi~zr7v_1 _lfJl e_ _ l/f\ _e_ - ________ tl-cc e 07Y:2f__g ?_? " s~ ~1,_v_t"-1,,1,/~~-__ c)-t_j·_~{._t,t._-!~-4) --·---··-- ! tLfj o t,.11 s. ____________ ._dot S ___ lJi. · __ [rlLl.j Cl.-____ l~O'?'o ____ ;:_~_f v/ rt__t!'··--~~~t __ ~-t -ff,~ _ ----~-J21!f IO r_ _ L . /A.L t1!-cl-ts s -----t~-tI'r1-at.f S _¢7 __ f?l_ t v yV L ·------·------·----~ -~ ___ {./II · '-U..e,_ ·----Yo e::t ti--_, ___ j-f . YL,] v I a r _ Io 1 ~ wJ_~'!4~-_ _ __ _ __ \fJ?ikJ§~_f:: ___ ~Lt. ____ t-1!:f_(,) 1 ·r ~~-· _______ f __ jJ 5.vf'l ft . 1/~ ___ tt,c/r ,,t_ S _ S-e)-b ~!'vlG S f--~_p._ . .,<J/ 4.J----z::1 5 A 7 < ---~ ~ ______ l!Ji_ ____ ad Jj&~~-~rtt ~~~ --~~_fLS5-_ _ c;;__u-fl ul_ ~---v ________________ .SD_Ui'hR. .. vty ____ )_o t ____ Sh_ow5 ___ ~----IP_' _ .J'?fj:z_q Lit-_ -/p_ __ v·ot1-I. D v f Io/--· -·--·----~---------~----· ------------,.---~----,-·•-----·· .. ----,.---------------~L----·---~~ .. -------------------~----- u_.11 -----------· --·--· ----~ --- ------···-·--·---·-----_____ S/Jd!JL __ L~_SJ/_!_5 __ a__s. __ plq.ti: ___ Q_ gct./2i ~ ____ _L()f_ __ t-"'-. ~ AL€: __ _ . --------------____ c_c_C_Q(.!l_?-~LS_ ____ ~L{t}'} {j~, tf!._1 ?-Jl cf' /MI _ Af _ __t)+f<..~.t!.J,~_ _ r of s _ ---__ _ gt,---/ :ft'r1.M I~ ces, Inc. ~ ' (8) • (101 TI.81 11.39 10.•1 Revised June 2002 ' 116) 318.01 ii (9) 2658.64 RES 200.0I r-,c,--,_ tj I (23) ®~!Li~ W@@@ N9g-J2'52-w ]83.6.B 56 1---2,-,-.. -, -"22"".06"'--'-us 2 (241 Ill 1 u2I (4) 58'3°~·•2·• 340.09 (10) • (7) 13) "2 JJO <S ~ ii~ fl ~ ~ 0~ (l~I (COLIN ORl 232.04 I OUTLOT 8 (191 325 HB~r 56'27-W IO'J0.85 oO 1:,3.1,, /""" ,,,,.-' • ...,. .. N, I •-•-•-•"'r""•-,• -~_,,..._ ... I_, \-.... ,_.,. ~ t ~b I Nr' I :/: : ~ 5 I " \ I I I : (8) /1,, I " : t@ rt'-Jf D rg ,' "-'Sa 1 in b I ~ z I l ' -: (i0 I I I l I ,, l 192 I I I ,I[> ,' ~- ,/ ... --, I .,/ ,-' ' ~ .,.,,,,/ f I ,, I I I I ,, 10 1Z ,o 1, I)> I?"' 00 (II} ! ; rn le, I ;lJ 'rn l['1 (41 ~ I I?'< I I I I I :nlJJ I 23:5.68 2 (II) (2) .. , 'il R ft. 8 NO 6:111 il 174) : (731 • --210---~ _-_ --318--~-:.-.:-;:r--- l ', (83) I (70)' -----_____ J.. __ ,, , 439.0◄ I E I I --- (51 I ./ I I I / I ... _______ .,,.,,,,,. (2) -----j~-; 75,◄I 176.l? -0-., o .c"'ii e51 • ~ ,p 1-~-".,c'-------"""---+---_.::s,~, 158.Sl Ill (3) 1325.56 .,,, ,. , / , 5 2648.22 RES @ (31 --------------------------~L~----------------------;-+----- ,, ., ,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,.' ,, !!l I / I ,,. I / I / I ,.,. ,~ / : g -SUIIDDYU81ON IIBO 11 81E 'II/ 4 OIF 81E 11/ 4, / 1 u 811111DDYIS0OM NO 11 SW 11/ 4 OIF 81E 11/ ~ / •~ AMI!> 81Ullll>llYl8DOIM MO 'i OIF ft.OT MO 3 /~ :5 81EC'VUOilll 3~ 'VOW~Sl!QUIP 11'il IRAIH!GIE 23• ,.~ij It.:> ,✓ c_:; 'z ,.,..{;y 1 ::'; SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS: / -....,'?' 'PLAT OF £ B SMITHS LANO IN /"a~e:, SECTION 34 TOWNSHIP 118 RANGE 23' / -...., / ,,,,. ,, / / / (I) ,, / , / ------~----~+--------------------------------------1--------- Ill '305.BS sag• 54'18'E a", 120 n N 0 0:::: r--- I- N 0 u w V) To: From: Date: Re: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner January 8, 2001 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Site Area: 20 acres (14.1 acres drybuildable) Request: Proposed four lot Planned Residential Development (PRD) of a 20 acre property located at 120 Brown Road South List of Exhibits: A Revised Concept Plan B Summary of Request (Chuck Van Eeck:hout -120 South Brown Road) C City Council Minutes D Plat Map E Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact (November 8, 2000) F City Engineer Comments (August 14, 2000) G DNR Comments (November 10, 1999) H DNR Comments (December 6, 1999) I Comments Regarding Apple Glen Road Extension -Apple Glen Residents J Property Owners Notification List Application Background: On December 14th Staff had a meeting with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss a revision to the lot layout. Previous proposals had requested 7 lot arrangements, this most revised plan would eliminate 3 lots, reducing the total lots to 4, 2 with driveway access to Brown Road and 2 with driveway access to Apple Glen Road. The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review a new four lot concept. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout I 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/17101 page--] Please review the minutes of the December 18, 2000 Council meeting attached as Exhibit C. The primary issue with the seven lot requests was access to the properties since Mr. Van Eeckhout did not have access to the property. The two options for access had been for the applicant to either purchase access or obtain an easement for "road" purposes over Tract G to Brown Road South, or seek approval to access Apple Glen Road from the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has not been able to successfully negotiate road access to Brown Road or Apple Glen Road. The revised concept plan would allow access to four lots via two shared driveways. Mr. Van Eeckhout will meet with the Long Lake Planning Commission to discuss the issue of driveway access for the northern two lots to Apple Glen Road on January 9, 2001. Review of Wetland Boundary Issue: The other issue appears to have been resolved regarding the wetland boundary determination. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was assembled to review the wetland boundaries. The TEP was made ofby representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District, Board ofW ater and Soil Resources, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The TEP met on Mr. Van Eeckhout' s property on October 16, 2000. The TEP determined they did agree with the delineation as presented by Svobota Environmental Services. A copy of their findings has been attached as Exhibit E. The TEP findings are consistent with the applicant's drawings and delineation and result in a dry buildable acreage of just over 14 acres. The concept behind the PRD request is to allow for an alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision, to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design. The plan does protect a generous amount of open space most notably the area south of the creek would be left natural and protected with a conservation easement. 4 Lots vs. 7 Lots The revised plan does not entirely resolve the access issue. Throughout the process it was the intent of the applicant and City to have access for all lots out to Brown Road. However Mr. Van Eeckhout has an easement for "driveway" purposes over an adjacent property, not for road use. The City Attorney has determined the easement to the subject property(ies) could not be used for road purposes. Therefore, access to Apple Glen is required. The City of Orono permits only 2 lots to be served by a driveway. More than 2 lots would require a road. The Brown Road access would share access with the property located at 130 Brown Road South. A total of 3 lots would be utilizing the corridor. The City of Orono has approved this access arrangement elsewhere when findings were made to justify not building a road. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1117101 page--2 Apple Glen Road The City of Long Lake has requested a cul de sac be constructed at the end of Apple Glen. The cul de sac would provide adequate space for commercial and public safety vehicles to turn around, and minimize the use of private driveways for maneuvering vehicles. The subdivision request would require the following approvals: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development --This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. 2. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to allow sewer connection to the site. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as approved by the City Council, has included the 120 Brown Road South property in the MUSA. The CMP has not yet been approved by the Met Council. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. ( approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-1 B. To the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 2. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 3. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1117/01 page--3 4. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 5. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of$3, 100 and a maximum of $5,300 per lot. Shoreland Overlay 1. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. 2. The portions of the lots within 300' of the high watermark ofthe Creek are subject to hardcover regulations as regulated by Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L). Staff Recommendation The proposed preliminary plat is in a format that could be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Such approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road. 2. Road cul de sac shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be consulted for comments regarding construction and maintenance of a cul de sac. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 4. Granting of Conservation and Flowage easements/Drainage Easements shall be dedicated on the final plat across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 5. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted forreview as requested by the City Engineer. 6. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted forreview and #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1117101 page--4 approval by the City Engineer and City of Long Lake. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. The storm water management plan shall be designed to handle run off from Apple Glen Road in addition to the proposed development. 7. Applicant shall obtain sewer service from the City of Long Lake and the City of Orono enter into a sewer agreement with Long Lake or applicant shall provide septic design for two site ( one primary and one alternate) for each of the four lots. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1117101 page--5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Title Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD Zoning District: RR-lB One Family Rural Residential List of Exhibits: A TEP Panel Findings and Determination B Letter From Apple Glen Road Property Owner (August 21, 2000) DATE: December 15, 2000 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning C Letter From John and Mary Dunn -adjacent property owners (September 23, 2000) D Plat Map E Proposed Lot Layout On December 14th Staff had a meeting with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss a revision to the lot layout. The revised plan would eliminate 3 lots, reducing the total lot, to 4, 2 with access to Brown Road and 2 with access to Apple Glen Road. The previous application requested an extension to Apple Glen and access for 7 lots through Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout is scheduled to meet with the Long Lake Planning Commission on January 9, 2001 to discuss this issue. While a resolution for denial of the subdivision would be made available to the Council at the December 18th meeting, the applicant would like to have the opportunity to present the revised proposal to the Orono Planning Commission at their January 17, 2001 meeting. This option would require the Council vote to return the subdivision request to a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The Orono Planning Commission would have their first opportunity to review the proposal after the Long Lake Planning Commission has had an opportunity to comment on the issue of access. The three primary issues that have been identified throughout the process have been the wetland boundary determination (in November the TEP determined they agreed with the wetland boundaries as identified by Svobota), the number and size of the 4 proposed lots at the north end of the subdivision (applicant proposed to reduce the number oflots from 4 to 2 adjacent to Long Lake) and resolution of the access to the lots (this will be reviewed in January by Long Lake). The new plan would remove 3 new building sites from the previous proposal and only 2 lots would access Apple Glen, rather than 7. This is an opportunity to develop the 20 acre site (14 + acres dry buildable) and protect the environmentally sensitive areas along the Long Lake Creek and Luce Line trail. Any future subdivision of a lot would require an amendment to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) in addition to meeting the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Request for Council Action continued Page2 December 8, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 4 Lots vs. 7 Lots The revised plan does not entirely resolve the access issue. Throughout the process it was the intent of the applicant and City to have access for all lots out to Brown Road. However Mr. Van Eeckhout has an easement for "driveway" purposes over an adjacent property, not for road use. The City Attorney has determined the easement to the subject property(ies) could not be used for road purposes. Therefore, access to Apple Glen is required. The City of Orono permits only 2 lots to be served by a driveway. More than 2 lots would require a road. One other lot shares the access corridor to Mr. Van Eeckhout' s property. That property is located adjacent to Brown Road. A total of3 lots would be utilizing the corridor. The City of Orono has approved this access arrangement elsewhere when findings were made to justify not building a road. Council Action Requested Motion to refer the revised proposal to the Planning Commission for review of a 4 lot plan with 2 having access to Brown Road South and 2 with access to Apple Glen Road, subject to review by Long Lake. Application Deadline: December 31, 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Title Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential DATE: December 8, 2000 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Application: Seven lot Planned Residential Development ofland located at 120 South Brown Road. List of Exhibits: A TEP Panel Findings and Determination B Letter From Apple Glen Road Property Owner (August 21, 2000) C Letter From John and Mary Dunn adjacent property owners (September 23, 2000) D Plat Map E Proposed Lot Layout F September 7, 2000 Staff Report The City Council last reviewed this item on September 11, 2000 and tabled the application citing two main issues. The first issue was the MCWD acceptance of the wetland delineation report. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was assembled to complete a wetland determination on the property. The TEP met on Mr. Van Eeckhout' s property on October 16, 2000 and has now made a determination that the TEP approved the delineation as presented by Svobota Environmental Services. The TEP findings are consistent with the applicant's drawings and delineation and result in a dry buildable acreage of just over 14 acres. The lot is located in the RR-1 B, two acre zoning district. The developer has requested a CUP to allow the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). A PRD would allow the developer density credit for all dry buildable land on the property. Under a PRD the property could develop to a maximum of7 units. The concept behind a PRD is to allow for an alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision, to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design. The plan does protect a generous amount of open space most notably the area south of the creek would be left natural and protected with a conservation easement. The second major issue is access to the property. You may recall the original plan had requested access from the west. The applicant has not successfully negotiated access from an adjacent property owner that would have provided access for the new lots out to Brown Road. The developer amended the plan requesting access to Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is the only direct road access to the property. Since Request for Council Action continued Page 2 December 8, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout property. An extension to Apple Glen required crossing a questionable wetland basin. Long Lake is now being asked to comment on the issue of access. No additional requests for comments from Long Lake had been made until the feasibility of the wetland crossing had been determined. As stated previously, the TEP concluded they are comfortable with the wetland boundaries as presented by Svobota. The findings agree with the applicant's position that the proposed road does not enter the wetland boundaries. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he would be submitting drainage area information, storm sewer and ponding calculations for review prior to a formal preliminary plat approval. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission last reviewed this application on August 21, 2000 and recommended denial on a vote of 6 to 0. The denial vote was based on two primary concerns: 1. The four lots located on the north end of the proposed development should be reduced to three. By reducing the number oflots the average lot size would increase. The total number oflots would be 6, not 7. 2. The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding wetland determinations within the development. Council Action Requested: Council can provide direction to the applicant regarding the lot layout and number oflots. The development as proposed under a PRD would meet the one unit per two acre density that is required in the Comp Plan. The Council does have discretion regarding lot layout and density under a PRD. Final number oflots and lot layout are issues that should be resolved before the City of Long Lake could complete a full review of the impacts on the proposed use of Apple Glen Road. MEMO CITY OF ORONO TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: January 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Access to Property Previously we had discussed a 20 acre site located at 120 South Brown Road that is proposed for subdivision by Charles Van Eeckhout. The primary issue concerning the site is legal access. The property has no direct access to a pub lie road. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he was granted an easement for road purposesovera40' corridorlegallydescribedasTractGofRSLNo. 1022 (PID #03-117-2312 0004) which is not owned by Mr.Van Eeckhout. The property is owned by John Dunn. The City has confirmed an easement for driveway purposes has been granted in favor of Mr. Van Eeckhout over Tract G, but we have not located any easements for roadway purposes. A second easement was dedicated to the City of Orono over a lot located at 130 South Brown Road for road and utility purposes. I have been in contact with the Recorder's Office and believe the Document No. for this easement to be 4348630. The easement was dedicated on the Plat of Kallestad Acres over the north portion of Lot 1, Block 1. A second issue with access to the property is whether Tract G must be replatted, or if an easement does exist for access is that sufficient for private road construction? The private road within Tract G would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, but the corridor is owned by Mr. Dunn. The City of Orono is researching to determine if the proposed road arrangement is legal. I have included the Staff report without detailed discussion regarding legal access to the property. This information should be available for the meeting on Wednesday evening. To: From: Date: Re: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 9, 1999 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Comprehensive Plan: Site Area: 20 acres (14 acres dry buildable) Proposal: Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. Exhibits: Application Plat Map Section Map Site Survey Engineer Comments Property Owners List Wetland Map Shoreland District Boundary Map MUSA Map fG.1'-1 etc. dry Ld-s. l-7 t. (p & ct c . J 1 j O vi \c + s A + J3 A B C D E F G H I J K L Planning Commission Minutes (May 17, 1999) City Council Minutes (July 26, 1999) CMP 4-12 through 4-22 Land Use Policies Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision I 1115199 page--1 Summary of Request: The City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The request would require the following approvals: 1. 2. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development --This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using clU::,7:er development and preservation space. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40' in v,idth where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50'. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24' width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. 3. The subdivision will require a road crossing of a City Protected Wetland and locating a NURP pond within 26' of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD shall approve any wetland alteration on site. 4. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan l:rban Services Area (MUSA). A :MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 5. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Van Eeckhout would install sewer to the south boundary to provide service for the Fox Ridge Sewer Project area. Fox Ridge and Mr. Van Eeckhout's property are divided by the Trail. The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. 6. A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has 'indicated it would require the west 33' be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. 7. Tract G is owned by Mr. John Dunn. Mr. Dunn is not a co-applicant. He would be required to sign the plat documents and dedicate easements over the lot in favor of the City of Orono. The easements would be necessary for public utility and drainage purposes. The standard road easement would be required should it become necessary for the City to acquire the road and open it as a public road. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout I 20 Brown Road South Subdivision ll/15/99 page--2 To: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date: September 9, 1999 Re: #2550 Charles Van Eeck:hout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: Site Area: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) 20 acres (14 acres dry buildable) Proposal: Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Section Map D Site Survey E Engineer Comments F Property Owners List G Wetland Map H Shoreland District Boundary Map I MUSA Map J Planning Commission Minutes (May 17, 1999) K City Council Minutes (July 26, 1999) L CMP 4-12 through 4-22 Land Use Policies Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15199 page--] 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development Summary of Request: The City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The request would require the following approvals: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development --This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. 2. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40' in width where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50'. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24' width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. 3. The subdivision will require a road crossing of a City Protected Wetland and locating a NURP pond within 26' of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD shall approve any wetland alteration on site. 4. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 5. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Van Eeckhout would install sewer to the south boundary to provide service for the Fox Ridge Sewer Project area. Fox Ridge and Mr. Van Eeckhout's property are divided by the Trail. The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. 6. A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has indicated it would require the west 33' be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. 7. Tract G is owned by Mr. John Dunn. Mr. Dunn is not a co-applicant. He would be required to sign the plat documents and dedicate easements over the lot in favor of the City of Orono. The easements would be necessary for public utility and drainage purposes. The standard road #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11115/99 page--2 easement would be required should it become necessary for the City to acquire the road and open it as a public road. 8. A Homeowner's Association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road and drainage structures within the development. The owner of the 130 Brown Road property, southwest of the development and south ofTract G, has access from the private drivewaywithin Tract G and shall become part owner of a private road. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached Minutes (Exhibits J and K). The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono has no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer service. Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The RR-lB zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas oflots 1, 2, 3 and 4 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 3 5' front yard setback, 1 O' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. Lots 5, 6 and 7 are located south of the proposed private road and be subject to setback standards for the RR-lB zoning district. They would be developed with an average size close to two acres. They would be a transition between the higher density to the north and the RR-lB two acre south of the Luce Line Trail. All lots appear to provide suitable building sites based on sewer service being available to the property. Lot 7 is very wide and has very little lot depth. The property is bounded to the north by Long Lake Creek and the South by the Luce Line Trail. The rear yard setback is along the Trail. The front yard setback is 5 O', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shore land protection area. A 75' setback for structure and hardcover is required the same as they apply to lakeshore areas. More detailed grading plans are required. The surveyor shall indicate on the plan set the OHWL of the Creek and 75' structure setback. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11115/99 page--3 Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit E) the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. Further, he recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50' width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The grades are a concern regarding driveway access to several lots on the property. It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2, 3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as the City recommends that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlot B will require the construction of a bridge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossmg. Outlot B would be a shared driveway in favor of Lots 6 and 7. The drive would be required to cross Long Lake Creek which is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. A variance would be required to allow a driveway to cross the creek. Driveway locations and proposed grading shall be shown on the survey. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10: 1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where storm water can not be treated by the NURP pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided for review by the City Engineer prior to further review. Sanitary Sewer A MUSA amendment is required to allow sanitary sewer service to the property. Sewer service has been discussed and a feasibility report has been completed for the Fox Ridge neighborhood south of the Luce Line Trail. The report identified a pressure sewer system as the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15199 page--4 Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckhout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sewer to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood if the DNR issued permits for to cross the Luce Line Trail. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topographywould allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s. f. ( approx 1 / 4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-lB. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 2. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 3. The DNR has made efforts to maintain a wooded and natural corridor along the Luce Line Trail. They have requested the applicant dedicate a 50' conservation easement over the southern portion oflot 7. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Issues for discussion 1. Access to the property is via a Tract G which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15199 page--5 of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50' in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. The Tract should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. 2. Several lots would be served by driveways with severe slopes exceeding the recommended slope by at least 30%. 3. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 7 5' setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek. A variance would be required for the alteration, however the building pad of the lot is restricted bythe lot requiring a 75' OHWL setback. 4. The private road would require the City approve land alteration and mitigation of the City protected wetland. 5. Is the proposed lot layout acceptable with 4 smaller lots to the north and 3 larger lots to the south? Does the plan meet the intent of the PRD for creation of open space areas. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the application to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues. A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted ifhe will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted forreview to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwaterwill flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. City Staff, the applicant and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. Ifit is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 1 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 1 Ill 5/99 page--6 E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. The Planning Commission should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. The applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted forreview as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted forreview and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. 5. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 6. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision ]]/] 5/99 page--7 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: May 12, 1999 SUBJECT: #2490 Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South -Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, septic/well Proposal: Subdivide 20-acre parcel to create 9 sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres m area. The proposal as presented would require: 1. Rezoning from RR-lB (Single Family, 2 Acre) to R-lA (Single Family, 1 Acre) 2. Sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake 3. Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) 4. At least two variances to the "Back Lot" ordinance 5. Creation of a private road in a substandard ( 40') corridor 6. At least two lot width variances 7. Creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek 8. Construction of road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands. 9. Creation of a wetland outlot for "Park" which would be in conflict with City requirements that wetlands in plats be platted as part of adjoining lots. 10. Construction of an 800'+ private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. List of Exhibits A -Application B -Area Plat Map C -Shoreland Map D -Survey/Sketch Plan with Topography E -RR-lB Zoning District Standards F -R-lA Zoning District Standards G -Land Use Policies: CMP pages 4-12 thru 4-22 H -Current MUSA Map Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not conform to the RR-lB Zoning District Standards nor to many of the rural area goals and policies contained in the Land Use section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (See Exhibits E, F and G). Applicant has suggested to staff that the 197 5 rezoning which changed this area from 1-acre density to 2- acre, should be considered as a 'taking' of value, and that this property should be allowed to develop under I-acre standards. Staff strongly disagrees, and would note that dozens of properties #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page2 similarly rezoned in 197 5 have been developed under the current 2-acre zoning standards in the quarter century since that rezoning. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. ( approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. It might be argued that the 1-plus acre lot sizes proposed are a reasonable transition from Long Lake's higherdensitySFRdevelopments to Orono's low-density rural area. However, Orono has a number of successful 2-acre developments adjacent to Long Lake's higher density areas, and the need for a transition is questionable at best. Lot Layout and Lot Standards The proposed lot layout is clearly intended to make use of any and all high, dry ground on the property for building purposes. For instance, the majority of proposed Lot 4, Block 2, is no more than 3-4' above creek level, and can only be accessed by constructing a driveway directly adjacent to the creek within the 75' required creek setback where no structrure or hardcover is allowed. Lot 4 clearly should not be considered for development. Lot 3 block 2 is a 3/4 acre high knob south of the creek adjacent to the Luce Line, proposed to be accessed by a 300' driveway outlot between lots 2 and 5, diagonally down a 40% slope along the north side of the creek. It would require a bridge over the creek. In order to make this driveway useful, it would have to be extended significantly along the slope adjacent to the creek. Under the 2-acre standards, this lot would not be buildable unless many variances were granted, and it certainly does not have viable septic sites. The knob nearly meets the requirements to be considered a bluff, which would complicate matters even further. Under 1-acre standards with sewer, access to the site is still the primary concern. Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, Block 2, appear to be viable building sites under a 1-acre standard, although Losts 2 and 5 would likely need width variances. Under a 2-acre standard without sewer, perhaps only 1 additional lot besides the existing house could be developed in the area south of the main driveway, Outlot A. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, each back up to the Long lake boundary and would be served by a private cul- de-sac, although both Lots 2 and 3 are back lots, and under the 1-acre standard Lot 2 doesn't #2490 - V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 3 meet the 150% area requirement. Wetland appears to be a factor here which has led to the shortened cul- de-sac and two back lots being proposed. In general, there is a significant of disconnected dry buildable on this property which begs the use of aPRD, regardless whether it is platted under the 2-acre or 1-acre standards. Road Layout and Standards There are a number of problems with the proposed private road system: There is only a 40'corridor coming in off Brown Road where 50' would be required. Outlot A should be extended to serve at least Lot 2, Block 1 rather than stacking back lots on a narrow drivway outlot. Outlot B would probably work OK if Lots 3 and 4 weren't developed, but may neeclignificant: land alteration to result in the maximum 12% slope allowed. Outlot C in staffs opinion should be avoided as an access to Lots 3 and 4. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed? The Park Commission will review this proposal if it goes forward as a preliminary plat. Neither the City's park plans nor County plans indicate a need for any acquisitions at this location. The apparent proposal to deed Outlot E, the wetlands, as Park area is not likely to be accepted since the subdivision code would require that a Drainage Easement or Flo wage and Conservation Easement be dedicated over the wetlands and creek as a condition of plat approval. The Park dedication ordinance requires that lands dedicated as park be suited for defined park purposes. This area does not appear to have such a purpose, and the City likely would require a park dedication fee rather than land dedication. However, there is a possibility that the proximity to the Luce Line Trail would suggest that some land adjacent to the trail may be suited for park use ... Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed A dedication of33' of right of way for Brown Road would be required. Comments from Hennepin County Public Works would be solicited if/when a preliminary plat application is made. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The sketch plan drawings do not propose any storm water facilities which would likely be required. The property appears to accept drainage from the adjacent developments in Long Lake, and due the proximity to the creek, storm water management, especially from a quality standpoint, will have to be developed if this subdivision goes forward. #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page4 Utility Locations and Availability Orono does not have sewer or water available to serve this area. The City has considered options for serving the Fox Ridge neighborhood with sewer via a force main discharging to the Long Lake sewer system as an alternative to running it south to the Webber Hills area. Long Lake staffhave indicated while their system likely has capacity to serve additional homes, they will not formally consider a request from Van Eeckhout for sewer until/unless Orono approves the development. If this property was to be served with sewer via Long Lake, the developer would bear all costs of making use of that system. Septic Testing and Site Availability No septic testing information has been provided, and staff would note that it is highlyunlikelythat suitable sites would be found on all of the lots in the current layout. The applicant acknowledges this, and that is one reason he is requesting the rezoning and sewered development. Conformity with Shoreland Regulations Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. The plat drawings show a number of areas where conflicts with the Shore land regulations may occur, and some of these have been noted above. The key conflict would be establishment of a driveway within 75' of the creek for Lots 3 and4 which requires a variance to Section 10.56 Subdivision 16(J)(3). Wetlands The sketch plan indicates that wetland have been formally delineated, but no Wetland delineation Report has been submitted. All wetlands on the sketch plan are shown within Orono's 1974-75 Protected Wetland fuventory, and the formally delineated boundaries would ultimately become the boundaries for easement purposes. The developer will receive no lot area credit for delineated wetlands regardless of wetland type, unless other separate basins of lesser wetland types not shown on Orono's Protected Wetland Maps are found by the delineator. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Portions of the site are heavily wooded. The same 0-75' tree protection standards that apply to lakeshore would also apply to areas within 75' of the creek bank. #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 5 Archaeological Site Proximity SHPO would be contacted for a review of this site if a preliminary plat is submitted. The high hills overlooking the creek are a natural feature that triggers an archaeological review to determine whether archaeological sites may be present. Bluff Impacts A cursory review of the topography map indicates that while slopes exceed 30% in many areas ofthe site, most such slopes do not rise the requisite 25' above the creek level in order to be defined as bluffs. There are many 'steep slopes' on the site (by definition averaging 12% or more) that will trigger the need for careful review of any grading plan proposed. Issues for Discussion 1. Does Planning Commission find any justification for supporting the rezoning of this property from RR-lB 2-acreunsewered, to R-lA 1-acre sewered? Is the 1975 rezoning a justification for honoring such a request? Isn't such a rezoning in direct conflict with Orono's goals and policies for the rural area? 2. Whether or not the property is rezoned, is the probable lack of suitable drainfield sites to serve more than a few lots, justification for developing with sewer? 3. If the site does in fact contain 11-plus acres of dry buildable land exclusive of proposed road and driveway outlots, and given the non-contiguity of the dry buildable due to wetlands and the creek, does this suggest that development via a PRD might be appropriate?Ramrhr that area credit for wetlands is no longer available even if the property is sewered, regardless of a rezomng. Staff Analysis and Recommendation The property can probably support only one or two additional homes under the City's rural development standards, and even at this level of development would likely need one or more variances. In staff's opinion, the 197 5 rezoning does not justify a claim of'taking' and should not be a factor in any determination for rezoning or variance approval. #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 6 The Rural Land Use Policies clearly indicate that the rural area will not be urbanized, i.e. it won't be provided with urban services and it won't be expanded by rezoning. The City has held fast to this policy, and has only veered from it in a few unique circumstances: Sugar Woods on Brown Road North: The 1987 Hwy 12 CMP amendment recognized that a service road should be developed between Brown Road and Willow Drive north of 12, allowing commercial uses abutting 12. The plan suggested that single family development north of that service road on the undeveloped 40 acre site would provide an appropriate transition between the commercial uses along 12 and the 2-acre density residential to the north. Due to soil and topography constraints, the site was provided with sewer, which allowed the planned density to occur and preserved trees that would otherwise have been lost to septic sites; Fleming Trail Addition: Orono agreed to annex the Long Lake sewage treatment plant site to Long Lake, subject to a platting of the site at densities providing a transition between the 1/3-1/2 acre lots nearby in Long Lake and the 2-plus acre Orono Oaks development in Orono. The Fleming Trail site, which had been owned by the City of Long Lake for many years, ultimately was platted into 1-acre single family lots with sewer. Orono has provided sewer to many existing rural neighborhoods where it was concluded that septic systems were not a viable long-term alternative for replacing non-conforming systems. The City amended CMP in 1998 to expand the MUSA for existing and new development along the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay, but did not change from the existing 2-arirm.rn lot size zoning. There are two innovative options Planning Commission might consider for developing the V anEeckhout property that may be consistent with the City's rural area goals: A. Based on the proximity to the creek, this is a sensitive Shoreland area. As was done with Little Orchard on Maxwell Bay, it may be reasonable to allow the developer to prove how many lots he could develop under our rural standards (by actually doing septic testing and re-working lot layouts as necessary), then allow that number of lots to be developed with sewer. This preserves the rural density while eliminating potential pollution from septic systems near the creek. B. To go one step further, the City might allow the number oflots that could be developed using septic systems, to be developed via a sewered PRD by clustering the homesites near the existing residence and leaving the majority of the property as preserved open space. This #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 7 could potentially cut down on the costs of road and driveway construction while yielding homes that all have views of and access to the creek. Either A or B might be accomplished without rezoning, but both would require a MUSA amendment. While the Little Orchard MUSA amendment was found acceptable by Met Council due to proximity to Lake Minnetonka, a similar case would have to be made for this site. Planning Commission Action Required Planning Commission should provide applicant with direction as to the rezoning and sewering issues, and advise applicant of any other specific issues that will help applicant move forward. No vote is required. However, this application will be forwarded to Council since it proposes a rezoning which is a policy decision that only Council can ultimately make. City of Orono Subdivision Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono , MN 55356 Main : 952-249-4600 fa x: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Bo x 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Applicat ion # 'Z.. q ~ S Date Received=-: ~2.--~~~o-... -e....,.J/...--- Amount ~i ~ '3.S-0 ~ Staff :~ Fee : ::(:'~roe Renewal : This application form niust be completed in full. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address : / :2.o rs r-o L--V\. RO c...J Property Identification Number (PIN): O 3 ~ )( 7 -;23 -/r2-C)OQS (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey .) Date Property Acquired (month~ear): ____ □ Abstract or tB'Torrens, please check one Present use of property: ~Residential □ Other · Zoning District: (<., (2 -1 Y) ---------------- OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name : Phone (home): Phone (work): ------------Address : Email : Fax : -------------------EXISTING LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: Development Size: Present Use (check one) Present Zoning District Proposal: I -~/_,_'-/ __ Acres Dry Land _ __,,{p~--Acres Wet Land --"2.,.__,,.0e.__ __ Acres TOTAL , all parceis [jJ---'" Residential; Number of Units : __j_ □ Other: (Specify) (ZR-:1() □ Division for Tax Purposes □ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ~ Subdivision for New Bu ilding Sites Number of Building Sites --~--Exi sting Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ~ New Units 7 Total Units d<..~ a---Units per / Acres c Ju s±..Q. ,c-Square Feet Dry Build able Land £?"" Residential □ Other (specify) -10 -1·:9;."''l?t\ ,., i "~~~-...... :,";If" 1 (', __ ,_.p/ • MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRl ,=OR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLIL i"ION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below). 2 . Completed application form . Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3 . 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis , telephone 612-348-5910). 5 . As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if applicable). 2 . Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion . 4. Easements , covenants, etc . 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. A~plication Base Fees: ~ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & Ill) $350.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $600.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $600.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $750.00 + $30.00/lot (Class Ill & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class Ill) $250.00 Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $140.00 __ Subdivision w/easements and covenants ; minimum $280.00 + any additional costs __ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 82-227) __ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) __ Renewal of Class I, II , & Ill Subdivision and of a Lot Line Rearrangement Application $300.00 B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $650 .00 + $.50 per lineal foot; ___ lin . ft . x .50 = $ __ Proposed Public Roads $950 .00 + $.50 per lineal foot; lin. ft. x .50 = $ __ Request for City to Accept Exi sting Private Road $950.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Ex tension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Ex tension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $25 0 .00 __ On-Site System , Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivisions) $60/per lot x _ new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Miscellaneous Fees Variance $600 .00 __ Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefiting property ($600 minimum per application) Easement Vacation Associated with a Subdivision $100.00 __ PRD Application with Subdivision $35 .00 per dwelling unit TOTALS 3SV . 00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by Planning Department Staff, City Engineer, City Attorney , Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees t pay all additi nal fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature: Owner's Signature: Date: ----------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 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 City Planner assigned to your project of this change prior to the meeting . -11 -1 . ' Kot~ I O=l. FAX 100 PAGE 01 FEB. -19' 04[THU) 19:55 EDINA PAR!(WES.T TEL:591 6382 City of Orono Subdivisio~ Application. Street Address: Application # P. 001 2750 Keiley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 oate Received: _____ _ Amount Paid: ------~ Staff: Merin: 952-249-4600 Fee: fax: 952-249-46'\6 Renewal: Mai! in g Address: -------- P.O. Box68 . .. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 This application form must be complated In full. F'R PERTY INFORMATION; Sit Address: . / 20 (S ro t...-"'- ?ro erty Identification N1.1mber (F'IN): Q s 7 Ll 2 -ci2J ~ /J..:-ooa.s: (Att ch legal description to application if not included on the survey,) Da Property Acquired (month{_year): I □ Abstract or IB"'Torrens, please check one Pre ent use of property: ~esidential D Other Zo ing District: _gJ2 -1 0 / I . (Complete legal narne~ and marital status required for each interested party) -r i · OIM Fax: ~='""-""'c..t..L.J.OG.L...~:!=-~,JJ!.2-.._,,_=-'-!-1--- (Complete I gal n.?Jmes n' marital status required for each lriterestad party) Na e: .,G· --5:, , . Ph ne (home): .f?S:J:f{7 'is>;--p~--5'-1 . i:9one (work): Ad ress: laQ ~I.d:1_6~1,,J fD:z/_ E: ail: i · · Fax: EX SflNG LANO USE: , l Nu nber of Tax Parcels: De elopment Size: ; 'f Acres D I Land f.p _ Acres Wet Land _:.2_0 __ Acres Tf T AL, all parcels Pr sent Use (check one) ~ Re~idential: Number of Units: ,1.. D Other: (Speelfyj Pr sent Zoning District RR-.:113 I . I Pr posal: i D Divis!on for Tax Purposes / □ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildirn/· g sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites N ber of Bullding Sites --~--Existi~g Units Pr posed Gross Density Mi lmum Lot Size Pr posed Use (check) G, New Ulnits 7 Total Units ~~ a---. Units per L Acres 1fPlsf..g.c . Squa~e FeetDry Builci~ble Land Residential . I I !I t.,,), r='1 0,,\ (,qp=«,,\ CJ Other ($pec1fy)1 ,.,,.,r,·:L, ,,,) ./, •·-.... ,-"' ,:>",-,,,,. -l O -1 eott,B If~ ~~;1 q,__dW _J -- l uu, JJ U"I \ 1 llV / l J "Ju [JU 11111 [ /\l\l\llCn) I P. 002 MUM M RIAL E UIREO FO COMPL .. lCATION Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below). Completed application form. , ! 1. 2. 3. 4, ~reliminary plat informitlon on Certificate of Surv~y. _ _ . , Certif; ad -F'roperty Owners List of owners within ~50' (you rnust obtain \his 11st from Hennepin County Department of Finan~e. Governmef'lt Center, A-603·300 South 61)1 Street, Minneapolis, telephorie ?12-346-5910)., ,. . 5, As-·an addenaum to tnis application, plel!l!e attach a separate list or any other persons you wish nvdfled of this application. · Ml M M MATERIA EQUIRED OR COMPLETe F!INAL APP !CATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision !Approval resolution and park fees if appllcable}. 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. · Title opinion. · 1 1 4. Easements, ccvenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement Md Letter of Credit. I L TlON F (Zoning Administrator to check )1 those which apply) A, pllcation Base Fees: . I · Sketch -Plan Review (Class f, II & Ill) $350.00 I -Subdivision of a Lot Line Reamrni;iement $600.0d Subdivision Application {Class I & II) $600.00 I --Preliminary Subdivision Application $750.00 4-$36.oo/lot {Class Ill & all non-residential) Fin.1I ?lat Application (Class 111) $250.00 . I L8 gef Review and FIiing: . j Subdivision CJnly $140.00 ; , == Subdiviaio_n w/easements and covenants; 0inimurn $280.00 + any additional costs Park Fees (to be determined per Section 82-227:J · Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Cl.aas I, II, & Ill Subdivision and of a Lbt Line Rearrangement Application $300.00 a. pecial lmprovvment Fees: I Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + $.50 per linea\l foot; ~-fin.ft. x .50 :: $_ Proposed Pub_lic Roads $950.00 + $.50 per lineallfoot; ___ lin. ft. x .50 =: $ __ Request for City to Accept Existir19 Private -Road ~950.00 Proposeid Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275.0p + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 ,.. $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 _ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicate to rural subdivisions) $60/i,er lot x _ new lots C. Flexible Application FeeslMiBeellaneous Fees variance $600.00 Vacation of Public Road $75 per benefiting prope y ($600 minimum per application) Easement Vacation Associated with a Subdivisio $100.00 TOTALS 3s-o, oo PRO Application with Subdivision $35.00 per dwelling unit T e applicant hereby agrees to provide all info!rmation required or requested by Planning Department St ff, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning cbmmission and Council necessary to process this a lication and further agrees t pay all additi nal fees established by ordinance. ~~~~~~'4:t=:-~---Date: d/Jf(t; { licant's Signature: ner'$1 Slgni!ture: I Date: ,;;}_/;CJ/~¥ plicant must have all submittals into the Ci~ Office 25 days before the Planning Commission m eting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants m st be present at all scheduled review meetihgs of the Planning Commission and Council. If an a plicant is unable_ to attend a scheduled meeting. please mak~ arrangements to have an authorized a ent attend in your place and to advise the c 1 1 ty Planner assigned to your project of this change prior to the meeting. , . -11 - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR 120 BROWN ROAD Homes By Design is interested in the development of the 20-acre parcel located at 120 Brown Road. It is understood that the City has considered the development of this site previously but the issue on access was never resolved. This issue has now been resolved and access to the site via a public/private road from Brown Road is now possible. With a road now possible, Homes By Design has prepared several concept sketches on the potential development of this site. The sketches range from the city standard 2-acre lots to several options utilizing the PRD cluster development. Due to the many natural amenities within the site ( especially the wetlands and natural corridors) and the surrounding neighborhoods the ability to cluster some of the sites is appealing for home placement and environmental sensitivity. Site data that were made available to us from previous reports include: • Total Area 20.7 acres • Upland Area 14.1 acres dry buildable • Wetland/Creek 6.6 acres, the creek divides the south from the north • Zoned RR-lB (2-acre lots) • Luce Line Trail to the South • Sewer services are available from Long Lake or along Brown Road. • Long Lake abuts to the north with sewered small lots. • The Fox Ridge Subdivision is just south of the site and contains 7, I-acre lots. The sketch plans are being presented to demonstrate that although a six-lot 2-acre subdivision can be achieved to meet the current zoning requirements, that the site is best served by being developed as a PRD. It is our intent to preserve the wetlands and the natural corridors that exist in and around the site. The home placements will also protect these corridors and match the surrounding area. In preserving these amenities we are requesting that the city, under the PRD standards, support a development using a cluster design that incorporates seven lots. With over 14 acres of dry buildable land, seven lots appears to be a reasonable request since there is enough dry land for 7 two-acre lots. There are three distinct buildable areas within the site. 1. The northeast corner. This area is next to Long Lake smaller lots. The knoll in this area provides a nice view over the wetland to the south and east. 2. The central area. This is where the existing home sits. It consists of a large knoll that provides beautiful views in all directions. There is room for several walkout style homes with easy access to Brown Road. IT is far away from other surrounding homes to create its own sense of a neighborhood. 3. The southern knoll. This site offers a majestic view with an element of privacy due to the creek to the north and the Luce Line trail to the south. It is a premier lot within the site. See the attached aerial showing optimum building sites. '!, Each of the concept plans provides their own unique qualities. Following is a breakdown of each plan. Concept A. • This shows how the site can be developed under the RR-IB standards. • Each lot has a generous building area with a nice view. • The street location is not best suited for the neighbor to the NW. • Does not preserve any natural corridors or greenways. • Requires the removal of the existing home. Concept B. • All lots average I-acre in size. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • Creates uniformity throughout the development. Concept C. • Clusters smaller lots near similar size lots in Long Lake. • Transitions into larger lots in the central and southern end of the site. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • However, the street to the north dissects this open space. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. ConceptD. • Clusters I -acre lots in the central area as a uniform neighborhood. • Separates the smaller I-acre lots with standard 2-acre lot to the north and south. • Preserves open area/greenway between the central knoll and northern knoll. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Concept E. • Clusters six small lots in the central area. • Preserves all of north side as open space. • Creates a distinct uniformed neighborhood. • Places new road on top of existing driveway. Homes By Design appreciates your comments and guidance in the development of this site. The lot is a unique site that provides great opportunities to creatively design a development that preserves its' natural features and its' transitional location between Long Lake, the wetland, the Luce Line Trail and surrounding homes. A cluster development would provide a nice transition between the small lot single-family homes to the north and the I-acre single-family homes in the Fox Ridge Development to the south. The vast buildable area within this site allows the development to appropriately place new homes to blend nicely with the existing homes to the west. We look forward to working with the City on our development plans. TRACKING SHEET FILE NO. 04-2998 Staff: ___ _ SITE ADDRESS: 120 Brown Rd. S Applicant: Henry J. Lazniarz Address: 1117 Marquette A venue, Suite 2509 Minnepolis, MN 55403 Owner: Sute Van Eeck:hout Address: 120 Brown Rd. S Long Lake, MN 55356 ✓Meeting with Staff Date: _______ _ ✓ Application Completed Date: □ Incomplete Notice Sent Date: _______ _ □ □ Copy of Application Sent to: __ Engineer _ County DNR MCWD Property Owners Notified: Date:_AJ_A_~_\ ____ _ Legal Notice Published PC Meeting(s): 3 lS" () Lj Vote: fV --~---~------ Vote: LMCD --------------------- _____________ Vote: _______ _ D Notice of PC Action: --------------------- City Council Meeting(s): _____________ Vote: ______ _ _____________ Vote: _____ _ _____________ Vote: _____ _ □ Resolution: