Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Project Packet
MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. JERRE A. MILLER JEREMY S. STEINER* WYNN CURTISS KIRSTEN A. ROLSETH *Real Property Law Specialist, certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association Mr. Mike Gaffron Orono City Hall 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH HOPKINS, MN 55343 Writer's Direct Dial No. 952-938-6219 July 16, 2003 Re: Van Eeckhout Proceeding Subsequent District Court File No. A-31531 Dear Mr. Gaffron: RECEIVED , /111 1 6 2003 CITY OF ORONO (952) 938-7635 FAX (952) 938-7670 Enclosed with this letter is a Notice of Duces Tecum requesting that you bring with you to trial certain documents. We will need to get clean copies of those same documents from you prior to trial so we can include those documents in our trial exhibit book. My associate Kirsten Hoiseth, will call you to make arrangements for a messenger to pick up the documents once you have a chance to gather them. You should receive your subpoena within the next couple of days. Very truly yours, Fo/9- Jeremy S. Steiner Enc. c:Dunn\gaffron.ltr STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN In the Matter of the Petition of: Charles E. Van Eeckhout and Sue L. Van Eeckhout, Petitioners, For an Order Construing an Easement DISTRICTCOURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Other Civil Court File No.: A-31531 NOTICE OF DUCES TECUM TO: Mike Gaffron, Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota 55356. You are hereby notified to bring the following documents with you to trial on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. at the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487, Courtroom A-702: 1. Copy of Chapter 6 of the Orono Code. 2. Copy of Chapter 10 of the Orono Code. 3. Copy of Chapter 11 of the Orono Code including as amended by Ordianance No. 122. 4. Copy of Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan pages 4A-26 and 4A-27. Dated: Julyl5, 2003 c:Dunn\NoticeDucesTecum MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. eremy S. Stei r, #12235X Attorney for Plaintiff 400 Wells Fargo Bank Building 1011 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 938-7635/Fax: (952) 938-7670 HC3751 (2/00) SUBPOENA Subpoena (Criminal , Civil , De position, Duc e s Tecum) (ORDER TO APPEAR) M.S . 357.22 & .24 State of Minnesota County Hennepin County RX.f.Natm~X In the Matter of the Petition of: Charles E. Van Eeckhout ans Sue L. Van EEck out Petitioners: For an Order Construin an Easement WITNESS ike Gaffror Ot:ono City ,Rall NAME 2750 Kelley Parkway ADDRESS Orono, MN 55.356 ZIP You are hereby commanded to appear as a witness to give testimony on the date , time and place indicated below, and from time to time thereafter as may be require d . DATE Wednesday, Ju.ls 23, 2003 TIME 9:00 a.m. V ADDRESS Hennepin County Government CenL J 300 s~uth Sixth Street MinneapoJis, MN 55487 Courtroom Ull A-702 WLTNESS FOR ~PLAINTIFF 0 DEFENDANT TYPE OF CASE 0 CIVIL 0 CRIMINAL 0 JUVENILE P e rs on requ e sting NAME subpoena Jeremy S. Steiner UPON RE CEIPT OF THIS SUBPOENA , PLEASE CALL: (952)3938-7635 District Court Judicial Di s trict Fourth District DEFENDANT □ DEPOSITION NOTE: Rule 45 .04 of Rules of Civil Procedure requires proof of service of notice to take a deposition prior to issuing a subpoena for a deposition. =~r DUCES TECUM You are commanded to produce the following items, records or documents: 1. Copy of ChapteT 6 f the Oron Code. 2. Cop of Chapter 10 of the Orono Code. 3. Co~y of Chapter 11 of the Orono Gode including as amended by Ordi ance No. 122. 4. Cop~ of Orono 2000-2020 Community MaDagment Plan Pages 4A-26 and 4A-27. □ SCHEDULE ATTACHED WARNING: FAILURE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA WITHOU'l; BEING EXCUSED IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. Mark S · Thompson , Administrator of the above named Comt, '----'-,----'--'------+-/,.__,,'y'--,.Jli-Nday of JLA--,-<...,.~ , 20 6 .S I . (SEAL) ( . tl/ f. RETURNED AND FILED ___________________ 20 __ , By --~::::::: ____________ _ Court Administrator/Deputy WI TNESS COPY ... ■ IL ■ ■ I ■ I~ -■ I. ■ I ■ I ■ ■ 11 I ■ ■ HC375 t Back B (2/0(lj ■ ■ •-,-I .. LU 0 s: ffi I ,n --■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ PlE.§SE RE~D CAREFUW --- -I I, -■ I I I . I • • A subpoena mc;1.y be served by the sheriff, by his deputy, or a'lYa,O ther ~erso n who is not a-party. Service of a subpoena upQJI a perso named the i shall be mape ,by ~livering a c py thereof t o such a pe r~on· or"by leaving a copy al •his ■• ._u sual plac of a de withs ei j:,er "orl of suitable ag ewmd dis tIon then residing therein. (Rule 45.03, .ules df Civil ,Procedure) • ■ I - ■ ■ l The fees to be pa1d .t i7nesses shall ~ as follows: (M.S. 357.22)(35 '52 4} 257.241) • • ■ (1)f"OJ alteJl ding in any action or_!?!'oceeding in an~ cou~t of record o l"bef n~any officer,,per~ii or board.authociled to 1 ake fhe examinati n of wit nesses, $20 for ea'f:h day; ■ L I I. ■ ■ (2)iFor 1ravel in going to ar!d returnin g"from fi.,e place of atte d ance, to be estimaf fro lff his r idence, if within the ■ state, o from the bound'ar l lin t of the stlite we,ere He tr.o !fu~the same, if from out of state, 8 cents, per mile. ■ Civi Case: No person ·s obliged o ';tte •d as a wi ness i n a'n y \:iv' ca 1,mless one day's attendance and l:-avel fees are paia' ~r tenclered m i 110 ct.vance •••■ ■I ■ I ■ I ■1• • • c':-imi~I or Juvenile Case: When the subp ena is issued on behalf of'1he state of Minnesota or an i tticer or ag ency J here fees and m'leag need tfl ot be tE ndered in advance."Ctieck h f nt of thJs subpoena to de1ermine whe er you were ts ubpoenaea b h ~te or Def nda t. Th~n refer to the ppropriate section tfelow. ■ ■ ■ ■ ----------------■---------------~---■ IF1YOU WERE "SUBPOENAED BY THE §]A'FE, COMP~E:Y-E J tt}SiSECTION-;--- To ceive payment -a wlt"nm for the State, you 1~ust complete the followirf'g certifieate, have the prosecutor sign i( and then tak~ the sub oena to the Court Administrator's bftice, a~r you testify. !Payment will be m111iled as soon ~ as possibl . • -• ■) ■ • ---■I ■ ■ ■ rtify that I attended as a witness for t e Sta e on th'e fo llowing date(,;) ---=-.. a--~--~-=-----------=---- ■ I certify that t~e attendance of this witness was necessary. ----rr----..:11---.,;-------------~---0■• P OSEC UTING ATTORNEY ■ ■ ...... -Address -----=---'==-c... ____________ • __ ■ - Date---='-"!-------=---, 20 ___ •_ .. ■ i~natu re ------==-:-----=-=----===--•--------= City, State, Zip-----¼--'-----~----------■-- ■ -... -■ ■ ■ IF YOU WERE SUBPOENAED BY tHE DEFENDANT, COMPLETE TiilS SEOTION; ■ ■ To r quest P.ayment as h witness for t e Defendant, complete the following certijjcate and give this subpo~na to ttfe defendant's attorney. • • d • ••• I certify that I tt~nded as a witness for thp Defendant n the fo ll owi ng ate (s) ----■--"-.---11■----------■ ~~-~----~---------, 20 ____ , and that I tra v e l ed-------~-miles round tri p for attendance on the above date(s ). ■I ■ -LU fh z ~ ■.;-. ■ ~ □ ., ■ City, State, Z i p ---'"'"---:-s-----:.,..-:-'-____ ----=-.:-:=-:::;:....,,--,--=:-;=--:-=--~ ----~----;--, 20 --- • • _cour approv· I or Defense witness: i;. .. -~-----=~----~--=cs.-=------------------- ~ • .& ur appr al for Paren\/Guardian accompanying Juveni l e: --ca-c::-------::::--~•-=-------::-------(See NOTES be l ow) ■ •■■--■ •■•■ ■ PLEASE NOTE: Minnesota-t w also provides that witnesses for the Defendant, if the court orders paymentof witness fees, and all witnes~s for the ate, shall receive reasonable expenses actually incurred for meals, loss of wages, and child care not to exce $60 per day. Application for" these. ipl:urre<l.Q._xp_enses ~ if any, should be 'tnade at the Court Adr:nil'}istrator 's office l!,.f.tpr_JLOu ap pear. If aj:fproved l expenses will be include"d and mailed with your witness ees ~nd mileage. (357.~4)(357.241) LEASE N : In any proceeding whe'fe 1a pare'fi t or guardian at ds the proceeding :with a minor itness and the parent or guardia i~ n~ a Ylfritness, one lli3ren or •gua[dian shall l:fe comP.ensate(j in those,. cases vqiere witness. compensation is" ndatory uncfer secti_ons 35~.22, 357.~ gr 357.~41, an may be ,compensated at the disc!t'etion of the ju<ige w)len the"lninor ■ i s,.a itness o QJ)ehal W>f a defe dant in a criminal case or on behalf 1of a juvenile i a juvenile court pro~eding. The ,court sh'a l B\Vard no more t ~n a com ined 'total of.$60 to•thtCP arent or guardian · nd the■min ol"'witness (M.S. 357.242) ■ Pl!eASE NQ.TE: A witQ~Ss b. Is not i} party to -the action or n employee of a party [except a perl on appointed purs ant to R\Jle 30 2(6)] who · requir o give :_l estimony r protjuce documents relating to a profession, business or trade is entitle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ,. I I I ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ • I ■ I I I •1 - ■ ■ to reas ble compen~o Lg ~ e time'and expensejnvolved in i:>reparing•t rand giv g such testiriiqny er pro ucing such .d ocuiif nt , Th!' JlBrty ~erving th ub oena s.tisll make arrangements for such rea!l,onable compen~ation prior to the time of 1---l==ta ... k_i_n:.g_-s_u_._t_e_s_ti_m-o ... n-=y:..... _B_u_le_4_5_.0--=6~ . ....;;•;__---=■-=--......::.•......::.r--"-_____ ~•--•-----•-• ___ ....;,-=-•-=•:....• ___ ;;;.• _____ •_~ ■ ~,.. ■ ■ ...... ■ :. ■., ■ ■ •■ ■II I. :-■ ■• :I ... ■ F:s ----■-•--•-~---.-.-+ .r _ ., r ■-- ■ ■ OFFJ CE I ■ tified to tll~uditor for paymeht • ■ • ■• ,~ 1 MI i eage . ________ _ I USE ■ ■ ■ .-■ ■ Exp nse -■--'-------- I ONLY'T 1:•r.•• : O! 1■ I •■ • Tota l $ ______ I ___ _ ■ ■• I ■- ■ ■ -.. ... ■ ■ ■-■ ■ ■ I -■ ■ -... ■ -■ a. •• • T ■ ■ ■ ■ HC3751 (2100) SUBPOENA !>ubpoena (Criminal, Civil, Deposition, Duces Tecum) (ORDER TO APPEAR) M.S . 357.22 & .24 State of Minnesota County Hennepin County PLAINTIFF Charles E. Van Eeckhout, et al. WITNESS Michael Guff ron NAME 2750 Kellev Parkway ADDRESS Orono .MN 55356 ZIP You are hereby commanded to appear as a witness to give testimony on the date, time and place indicated below, and from time to time thereafter as may be required. DATE July 23, 2 003 TIME 9:00 a/YJ,. ADDRESS Room A-702 vs Hennepin County Government Cente~ 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55467 WITNESS FOR TYI/E OF CASE Person requesting subpoena !Kl PLAINTIFF 0 DEFENDANT ~CIVIL 0 CRIMINAL □JUVENILE NAME Richard J/ 6c)ieffer UPON RECEIPT OF THIS SUBPOENA, PLEASE CALL: District Court I F~~rtitbistrict tro3,s~, I DEFENDANT Mary Ann Dunn, ~t al. □ DEPOSITION NOTE: Rule 45.04 of Rules of Civil Procedure requires proof of se1vice of notice to take a deposition prior to issuing a subpoena for a deposition. DUCESTECUM You are commanded to produce the following items, records or documents: Records or files containing examples of private d r iveways serving three or more Building sites or dwelling unitJtin which the City of Orono did uot obtain an easemen t f Or road purposes. No More than 10 e x amples need be provided. • □ SCHEDULE ATTACHED I WARNING: FAILURE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA WITHOUT BEING EXCUSED IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. I WITNESS, ~~'\ //}lj~;_ •:•-. Mark S. Thompson ..:. , Administrator of the above named Cowt, -r ··'.,. _, ...... -~.1,,;, I 7 /,,,.-~ ( JJY\ 0 Qi--:::? and the ~~~.1 ~1}ereof,'thip '• ._.;. l + day'of...µ_~_...µ...l\="----'---"""""'""""'---------, 20 ="-~=----- ' ;~ _: {(s~EAL) •. '-~ ( } Mark S. Thompson c Ad . . t ourt mm1s rator .~ ·,'_ ::·\ . ' , '" \.._../ .._ ~ ~ ~'---4...Q.__ Deputy ,- CML Court Use Only RETURNED AND FII;ED ___________________ 20 __ , By _________________ _ Court Administrator/Deputy WITNESS COPY ■ •■ I ■ ■ I ■: I I ■ ■ ■ - I ■ ■ ■ -■ ■ ■ -■ I ■ HC375 I Back B (2/00) I I ·SUBPQENA INFORMATION --~ A subpoena may be served by th'e sheriff, by his deputy, or any other p_erson who is not a pa;ty. Service of~ subpoena > upon a person named therein shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to such a person or by leaving a copy at his ffi ■ usual place f abode with some rso of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. (Rut 45.0:3, Rule of C ivil 0 : -_Pro~edure) ' ----+------------------------,------- - •en w w "" ■ Cl) VJ w z ... i ■ ■-W ■ I ~-~ en •■ ■ ■ •■ Cl) VJ w lz ... I ~-•w ■ en ,z w "" l&l ~ ...... -·■ -· ■ The fees to be paid to witnesses shall be as follows: (M.S. 357.22)(357.24)(257.241) (1) For attending in an action-or proceeding in any court of record or bPfor any offi .er, erson o board authorize<!, to take the exar:iina ion cif witnesses, -$20 for each day; - (2)for travel in going to and ret~rn g from the place of attendance, to be e~timated from his residence.I if with!n the state, or<rfrom the boundary lme of the state where h ~ crossed the · ame, 1 rom out of state, 28 cents per mile• Civil Case: No person is oblTged t" attend as a witness in any civil case unless e day's attll'J,dance and travel fey Pa re paid or tendered him in advance ■ Criminalol'l5uvenffe Case 11 When the subpoena is · su d oo behalf ~1 the state oU,,innesota or an otw..er o.c age~y thereof, fees and mileage need not beJendered i mtv nee. Check the front of this subpoena t~etermine whet'1 r you were subpoenaed by th State or ~fe_ndl!_n _. Theri, refer to f!)e appropriate section below. IF YOU WERE SiJBPOENAED BY THE STATE, GOMPLE-TE 'FHIS SEG-TIO : To.,-, rve payrii "t a-s a wit--or tfie a ej ou mus ;omplete the following certificate, have the pro ecu or•slgn it, and t~en take theisubpoena to the Court Adm"inistrato1•s •ottic_!?, after YO!! tes ify. Paym nt will be m lied a oon a ,p Ible. ■ -• ■• -■ ■ ---■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ I cerJ ify that I attended as a witness for ihe late on the following date(s) __ • I , 20 ■ , and that I trav:led ________ _ f~r at_!en~nc n hf! ab~ve d~te(s). ■ I certify. that the attenaa-nce of this witness was necessary. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - ■ ■■I -■ ■ ., ■- PROSECUTING ATTORNEY -■ ■ ■ iles r'ound I.rip ._ ■ Date ■ 20 ' ■ Addre s ~--------------~'-----~--.. ■ Signa ure ■ ■ ■ ■ City, State~Zip __________________ _ ■ ■ .. -----■ ■ -I m ■ IF YOU WERE SUBP.OENAED BY THE DEFENDANT, COMPLETE THIS SECTION: To request payment as a witnes~r th; Def;n~ant, complet; the f.ollowing _certifica~ and giv; this s~bpoena to the ~efendant's attorney. I • • I■ •■ ■ ■ -. ■ ■ ■ ■ .. -■ ■ I I II■ I certify that I att nded as a witness for the Defendant on the following date(s) ___ ■ ______________ _ --------------------■--, 20 ____ , and that traveled _________ miles round tr.ip ■ J for attendance on the above da e(s). _ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , ■ ■• ■ fl I ■ ■ I■ I■ • ■ 20 ---.--■ Addr ss ___ L __ ___,,■'-:-•-■----■--""""'l...._ __ .,._: __ _,[1,'----l--'-'-■■ I .... Signature • City, State, Zip ~~----------------;-.==---'•e.._____,■1• ::Ii I • • • • ■• · ■-I Court approval for Defense witness: -■----------------•-■----•-------•~•---• • -■ • • • • • • • •■ r Court approval for Parent/Guardian accompanying Juvenife: ------•------■---~~(See NOTES below) • - ■ ■ ■ ■ • I • • ■ ■ ■• ■-■ ■ -■II ■ I :.·-= -■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -■ ■ Court Adm nlstrator/Deputy ■ I ■ I -■"' I■ ■ •■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -■ ■• ■ I -■ I -■ ■ ■ ■I I -■ ■ ■ ■ -■ ■ _, ■ .. I ■ ■ ■ ■ :r ■I I .. ■ ■ ■ ■• .. -■ JUL-15-2003 12:29 MILLER STEINER & CURTIS 9529387670 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN In the Matter of the Petition of: Charles E. Van Eeck:hout and Sue L. Van Eeckhout, Petitioners, For an Order Construing an Easement DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Other Civil Court File No.: A-31531 NOTICE OF DUCES TECUM TO: Mike Gaffron, Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota 55356. You are hereby notified to bring the following documents with you to trial on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. at the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487, Courtroom A-702: 1. Copy of Chapter 6 of the Orono Code. 2. Copy of Chapter 10 of the Orono Code. 3. Copy of Chapter 11 of the Orono Code including as amended by Ordianance No. 122. 4. Copy of Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan pages 4A-26 and 4A-27. Dated: Julyl5, 2003 c:Dunn\NotlceDucesTecum MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. eremy S. Stei r, #12235X Attorney for Plaintiff 400 Wells Fargo Bank Building 1011 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 938-7635/Fax: (952) 938-7670 P.02 Exhibit A to Subpoena I. Copy of Chapter 6 of the Orono Code. 2. Copy of Chapter 10 of the Orono Code. 3. Copy of Chapter 11 of the Orono Code including as amended by Ordinance No. 122 4. Copy of Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan pages 4A-26 and 4A-27. Sll~n) ~ ~3Nl31S ~377IW 0£:60 r00c-sr-1nr HC3751 (2/00) SUBPOENA Subpoena (Criminal, Civil, Deposition, Duces :ecurn) ---(ORDER TO APPEAR) -M.S. 357.22 & .24 State of Minnesota ;PI,AfNTIFF - Charles E. Van:Eeckhout, et al/ WITNESS Michael Gnffron NAME -DEFENDANT Marf-Ann Dunn, □ D~POSITION NOTE: Rul~ 45.04 of· Ru"ies of Civil Procedure requires proof of service of notice to take a·deposition prior to issuing a subpoena for a deposition. · 2750 KeJley Parkway · '-ADDRESS -. , ·" ' ' ,;: 1·, J, : !" .. f i! {,-tf 1~ ·;p Orono MN .. --___ ?5356 -~·--Zll1 ' •.. , ,J [~] m;c~; ~i:tm/ --T. You are hereby commanded to appear as a witness to give testimony on You are commanded to produce the follo~ng items, records or documents: the date, time and place indicated below, and from time to time thereafter R - as may be required. ecords or files containing examples of 1------~--------------------1 private driveways serving three or more July 23. 2003 Building sites or-dwelling unitjtin which1 DATE 1-------1---------------------i the City of Orono -did not· obtain an easem~nt TIME __ 9 : 00 aJ Tll. 4"Ar r d N 1--------+--------------,---------1 ~ oa purposes. o More than 10 examples need be provided. · -ADDRESS WITNESS FOR TYPE OF CASE Person requesting subpoena RoomA...:702 Hennepin County Governrilent'Cente 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55467 !Kl PLAINTIFF □DEFENDANT XJ CIVIL 0 CRIMINAL 0 JUVENILE NAME Richard JJ Scjieffer UPON RECEIPT OF THIS SUBPOENA, PLEASE CALL: I~ ; □ SCHEDULEfATTACHED Jc,·• - . , . ·• . . • , I ;. >' .. , , : • • , , f + -• ; • • i-f WARNING: FAILURE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA WITHOUT BEING EXCUSED IS' A CONTEMPT OF_ COURT. - ~ •, ----- , Administratoi;_of the above named Court, --•J ;200~Ba:::,~---- ClYIL Court Use Only RETURNED AND FILED __________________ 20 __ -, By _______________ _ Court Administrator/Deputy WITNESS COPY MILLER STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATTACHED CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBED BELOW. IF NOT CORRECT PLEASE NOTIFY US PROMPTLY. NO RECEIPT DESIRED. DELUXE -FORM DVC-3 V-5 DISTRIBUTIONS DATE DESCRIPTION 7/15/03 Witness Fees and Mileage Dunn/VanEeckhout matter EMPLOYEE __________________ _ PERIOD TOTAL ENDING EARNINGS F.I.C.A. WITHHOLDING STATE INC. TAX U.S. INC. TAX V-5 DEDUCTIONS AMOUNT ACCT.NO. $31.20 STEINER TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CA,-\-\v\ctYD ltjet\ G&\ OunUJ) Vanceclcu.t SLL\DfOe fr&-Jb Cf\) rnl\l-e 6a__*rOY'\ AMOUNT NET PAY JUL-15-2003 12:22 .lERRB A. MILLER JEREMY S. STl3lNER 111 WYNN CURTISS KIRSTEN A. HOLSETH MILLER STEINER & CURTIS MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH HOPKINS, MN 55343 •Ro1d J>,operty Law Specialist, Cllrtiflod by the Minnesota Sta!G Bar AssociFllion DATE: TO: COMPANY: FAXNUMBER: FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM July 15, 2003 Mike Gaffron City of Orono 9S2-249-4616 PHONE NUMBER; 952-249-4600 RE: FROM: Van Eeckhout Proceeding Subsequent Kirsten A. Hoiseth NUMBER OF PAGES (Including this transmittal fonn): 4 COMMENTS: 9529387670 P.01 (952) 938-7635 FAX (952) 938-7670 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE; The document(s) accompanying this facsimile contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The infonnation is intended only for the use of the intel'\ded recipient named above. lfyou are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this tclccopicd infonnation except its direct delivery to the intended recipient named above is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange fo.-return of the original documents to us. JUL-15-2003 12:22 MILLER STEINER & CURTIS MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. JERRE A. MILLER JEREMY S. STEINER* WYNN CURTISS KIRSTEN A. HOLSEIB •Real Propeny Law Speoialisl, O()rtiticd by the Minncsots State Bar Association Mr, Mike Gaffron Orono City Hall 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH HOPKINS, MN S5343 Writer's Direct Dial No. 952-938-6219 July 16, 2003 Re: Van Eeckhout Proceeding Subsequent District Court File No. A-31531 Dear Mr. Gaffron: 9529387670 P.02 (952) 938-7635 FAX (952) 938-7670 Enclosed with this letter is a Notice of Duces Tecum requesting that you bring with you to trial certain documents. We will need to get clean copies of those same documents from you prior to trial so we can include those documents in our trial exhibit book, My associate Kirsten Hoiseth, will call you to make arrangements for a messenger to pick up the documents once you have a chance to gather them. You should receive your subpoena within the next couple of days. Very 1l'llly yours, ~.,9- Jeremy S. Steiner Enc. c:Dunn\gaffi'on.ltr JUL-15-2003 12:22 MILLER STEINER & CURTIS 9529387670 STATE OF rvnNNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN In the Matter of the Petition of: Charles E. Van Eeckhout and Sue L. Van Eeckhout, Petitioners, For an Order Construing an Easement DISTRICT COURT FOURTH mDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Other Civil Court File No.: A-31531 NOTICE OF DUCES TECUM TO: Mike Gaffron, Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Miimesota 55356. You are hereby notified to bring the following documents with you to trial on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 9:00 a,m, at the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487, Courtroom A· 702: /. Copy of Chapter 6 of the Orono Code, ~ Copy of Chapter 10 of the Orono Code. ✓ Copy of Chaptet 11 of the Orono Code including as amended by Ordianance No. 122. / Copy of Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan pages 4A-26 and 4A•27, Dated: JulylS, 2003 o:Dunn\NoticeDuoesTeoum MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A. eremy S, Stei r, #12235X Attorney for Plaintiff 400 Wells Fargo Bank Building 1011 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 938-7635/Fax: (952) 938-7670 P.03 JUL-15-2003 12:22 MILLER STEINER & CURTIS 9529387670 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL Debra R.. Skatter of the City of Bloomington, County ofHennepin, in the State of Minnesota, being duly sworn, says that on the 15th day of July, 2003, she served the annexed Notice ofDuces Tecum on Mike Gaffron, the witness for Mary DUilll, Respondent in this action, by mailing to him a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing same in the post office at Hopkins, Minnesota, directed to said party at Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356, the last known address of said party. P.04 /[)Q ffia ~i Jl?aiit:tL Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of July, 2003. NoaryPublic, Hennepin County, Minnesota. c;Ounn\Noticc:Duccs'l\-:cum Debra R. Skatter Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: 7-/ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 . FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET YOU SHOULD RECEIVE s-PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600. ( CHAPTER 6 Section 6.01 6. 0 2 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17-6.29 6.30 6.31-6.39 6.40 6.41-6.44 6.45 6.46-6.98 6.99 ORONO CC Title STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS (THIS CHAPTER CONTAINS PROVISIONS AS TO DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION AND SCOPE RELATING TO CHAPTERS 7 AND 8 AS WELL AS THIS CHAPTER) Definitions ............•.. Application ......... . Scope and Orders of Officers •••.••. Traffic and Parking Control ..... Construction and Reconstruction of Public Roadway Surfacing, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, Driveway Aprons or Curb Cuts •.. Construction and Reconstruction of Private Roadway Surfacing, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, Driveway Aprons or Curb Cuts •.. Obstructions in Streets and Private Roads ..... Parades . . . . . . . . • . . . . Regulation of Grass, Weeds and Trees in Streets. . . . . • • . . . . • . . Limiting Time of Railway-Street Crossing Obstruction. . . . • . . • • . . .. Load Limits . . . . . . • .• Curb and Gutter, Street and Sidewalk Painting or Coloring .•.•.• Private Use of Public Streets and Parking Lots .....•.....• Motorized Vehicles Prohibited on Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . • . ... Street Openings or Excavations •.••.. Public Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair •. Reserved Bicycle Regulation. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . Numbering of Houses and Buildings .• Reserved Dedicated Easements to Public Streets .• Reserved Violation a Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor .....•••••• Page 140 140 140-1 140-1 140-2 140-2 142 144 145 146 147 147 147 148 149 149 150 152 153 153-1 154 (4-1-84) CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS (THIS CHAPTER CONTAINS PROVISIONS AS TO DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION AND SCOPE RELATING TO CHAPTERS 7 AND 8 AS WELL AS THIS CHAPTER) SECTION 6.01. DEFINITIONS. Subd. 1. Except as otherwise defined in the City Code, or where the context clearly indictes a contrary intent, the words and terms defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169, shall be applicable to the City Code, Chapters 6, 7 and 8. The following words and terms, when used in this Ordinance, shall have the following meanings, unless the context indicates otherwise: A. "Corner" means the point of intersection of the extension of lines of two public or private curb faces. B. "Curb Cut" means the opening along a street curb line or pavement edge for the purpose of motor vehicle ingress and egress from a roadway. Curb cut width shal 1 include the width of the driveway approach and of the curb returns, if any. C. "Curb Return" means that portion of a curb next to a driveway approach which includes the radius or curvature or the ramp-type lug on commercial or industrial type pavements and which connects the driveway approach to the public or private road curb. D. "Driveway" means a paved or otherwise delineated area on private property for the operation of automobiles and other vehicles. E. "Driveway Approach" means a paved or otherwise delineated area, on the right-of-way between the roadway of a public or private road and private property, intended to provide ingress and egress for vehicles from a private or public road to private property. A driveway approach must provide access to a parking area, a driveway, a door intended and used for the entrance of vehicles, or other similar structure or facility. Driveway approaches shall be of two classes: a) resident driveway approaches; and b) business driveway approaches. F. "Business Driveway Approach" means a driveway approach from any public right-of-way providing motor vehicles with ingress and egress from the public or private road to any property other than a single family dwelling. G. "Resident Driveway Approach" means a driveway approach from any public or private right-of-way providing ingress and egress for motor vehicles from the public or private road to a single family residential dwelling. ORONO CC 140 (7-25-88) § 6.01 H. "Driveway Turnaround" means a paved or otherwise clearly delineated area which is part of or connected to a driveway or driveway approach, on private property, sufficient in size for an automobile or other vehicle to turn 180 degrees without leaving the paved or delineated area. I. "Frontage" means the lot line abutting a public or private street. J. "Parcel of Land" means a lot or contiguous lots or a tract officially registered under one ownership. K. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use, or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between a person or persons and the City. L. "Public Road" means the entire area dedicated to public use, or contained in a plat, an easement or other conveyance, grant or by adverse possession, to the City or other governmental body, and shall include, but not be limited to, roadways, boulevards, sidewalks, alleys, and other public property between lateral property lines in which a roadway lies. Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 SEC. 6. 0 2. APPLICATION. The prov is ions of City Code, Chapters 6, 7 and 8, are applicable to the drivers of all vehicles and animals upon streets and private roads, including, but not limited to, those owned or operated by the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any county, town, city, district, or other political subdivision. SEC. 6.03. SCOPE AND ORDERS OF OFFICERS. Subd. 1. Scope. The provisions of Chapters 6, 7 and 8 relate exclusively to the streets, alleys and private roads in the City, and the operation and parking of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation and parking of vehicles upon such streets, alleys and private roads. Subd. 2. Orders of an Officer. It is a misdemeanor for any person to willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police or peace officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic. ORONO CC 140-1 (4-1-84) (7-25-88) § 6.04 SEC. 6.04. TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL. Subd. 1. Traffic and Parking Signs and Signals. No device, sign or signal shall be erected or maintained for traffic or parking control unless it is authorized by the City. The Public Works Department and the Chief of Police are hereby authorized to erect such traffic or parking control devices as may be necessary or desirable: provided, that when traffic and parking control is marked or sign-posted, such marking or sign-posting shall attest to authorization. The City may require the erection or removal of signs on private roads at the expense of the private road owner. Provided, that except as otherwise required by the City, private road owners may erect, regulate and privately enforce other traffic and parking restrictions within the private road right-of-way. Subd. 2. Traffic Restrictions and Prohibitions. It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive a vehicle contrary to lane restrictions or prohibitions painted on any street, or contrary to sign-posted, fenced, or barricaded restrictions or prohibitions. Subd. 3. Parking Restrictions and Prohibitions. It is unlawful for any person to park a vehicle, except an emergency vehicle, contrary to lane restrictions or prohibitions painted on any curb, or contrary to sign-posted, fenced, or barricaded restrictions or prohibitions. Subd. 4. Damaging or Moving Markings. Except as otherwise provided, it is a misdemeanor for any per son to def ace, mar, damage, obscure, move, remove, or in any way tamper with any structure, work, material, equipment, tools, sign, signal, barricade, fence, painting or appurtenance in any street unless such person has written permission from the City or is an agent, employee or contractor for the City, or other authority having jurisdiction over a particular street, and acting within the authority or scope of a contract with the City or such other authority. SEC. 6.05. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ROADWAY SURFACING, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUT'l'ER, DRIVEWAY APRONS OR CURB CUTS. Subd. 1. Methods of Procedure. Abutting or affected property owners wishing to contract for, construct or reconstruct public roadway surfacing, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approaches, driveway turnarounds, or curb cuts must first obtain a permit from the City in accordance with this Section. Also, with or without petition by the methods set forth in the Local Improvement Code of Minnesota Statutes, presently beginning with Section 429.011, as the same may from time to time be amended. ORONO CC 140-2 (4-1-84) (7-25-88) § 6.05 Subd. 2. Requirement and Application for Permit. It is a misdemeanor to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or any other private improvement in any public road or other pub 1 ic property in the City without a permit in writing from the City. Application for such permit shall be made on forms approved and provided by the City and shall sufficiently describe the contemplated improvements, the contemplated date of beginning of work, and the length of time required to complete the same, provided that no permit shall be required for any such improvement ordered installed by the Council. Such application shall also contain information showing the type of construction, the width and the location of an improvement on the parcel of land and the lot and block number or the parcel number and the street and house number and a profile of the proposed improvement, if necessary, and other such information as may be required by the Public works Director. The application shal 1 be filed by the property owners desiring to construct such a driveway approach, driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvements in any public road or any property in the City, or by his or her duly authorized agent. All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant to be bound by this Chapter. A permit from the City shall not relieve the holder from damages to the person or property of another caused by such work. These regulations shall apply to all City, State and County Roads. Subd. 3. Issuance of Permit. Such permit shall be issued by the Public Works Director, if he or she has determined that the applicant has complied with the terms of this ordinance, the permit fee hereinafter specified has been paid and the Public Works Director has approved the driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City as requested or with stipulated changes. The Public Works Director shall have the authority to refuse to issue a permit when, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, the requested construction would impose an unreasonable hazard to the public. Such decision may be appealed in writing by the applicant to the City Council. The City Council shall have the power to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Public Works Director. Subd. 4. Permit Fees. The fees for permits for the construction of improvements as outlined above, shall be as set forth in the City's Fee Schedule which may be amended from time to time. ORONO CC 140-3 (7-25-88) § 6.05 Subd. 5. Revocation of Pennit. A. All permits granted for the use of public property under the terms of this Ordinance shal 1 be revocable by the Public Works Director pursuant to the procedure set out below in Section 6.05, Subd. 6, "Authority of Public Works Director." B. In addition to the provisions of Section 6.05, Subd. 6, a permit may be revoked by the City Counci 1 and City sha 11 have the right to revise, relocate or close any sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City as the result of the reconstruction of any road, a change in land use, or a major change in the traffic pattern of an existing land use. Subd. 6. Authority of Public Works Director. A. Al 1 work done under a permit issued in compliance with this Ordinance shall be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director, who is hereby authorized to make the necessary rules, regulations and specifications with respect to materials for and method of construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City. A·copy of such rules and regulations shall be kept on file with the City Clerk. A pennit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance may be revoked by the Public Works Director when he or she determines that the construction or activity authorized by the permit is not being perfonned according to the tenns of the pennit of this Ordinance. B. Notice of such revocation, with a description of the facts supporting such revocation, shall be mailed or delivered to the person named in the permit at the address listed in the pennit. C. All work shall cease upon receipt of the Notice of Revocation. D. Any person whose permit is revoked as set forth herein may appeal that revocation to the City Council by filing notice of such appea 1 with the City C 1 erk within ten ( 10) days of the date that the revocation was mailed or delivered. E. The appeal of such revocation shall be conducted according to the procedure set forth in Section 6.05, Subd. 3, "Issuance of Penni t" herein. ORONO CC 141 (7-25-88) § 6.05 Subd. 7. Submission of Plans to Public Works Director. All plans submitted to the Building Inspector for his or her approval, which include or involve a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, driveway approach, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City, shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Public Works Director for his or her approval before a building permit shall be issued. Subd. 8. Construction Requirements Generally. In addition to the rules, regulations and specifications as outlined by the Public Works Director with respect to the improvements listed above, the following requirements shall be complied with when work is done under the provisions of this Ordinance. A. All driveway approaches shall intersect the public road pavement at an angle to be approved by the Public Works Director based upon the physical characteristics of the public road, driveway approach and the parcel of land being accessed. Such angle shall be as close as is reasonably practical, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, to a right angle to the pavement of the public road. B. No curb cuts shall be made in such a way that the curb return extends beyond any property line as projected, except when consented to, in writing, by the adjoining property owner involved. Said consent, if necessary, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a permit. c. The top of the paving of the driveway approach slab at the curb line shall be 1 5/8 inches above the flowline of the gutter, and shal 1 not extend into the gutter beyond the face of the curb or beyond the gutter 1 ine, and sha 11 not be constructed in a manner that will in any way interfere with the use of the road for the purpose of travel or maintenance. The constructed public road shall not be excavated in the process of constructing the driveway unless previous approval, in writing, has been granted by the Public Works Director. D. Driveway culverts shall be provided and installed by the owner as required by the Public Works Director. E. Driveways shall not be constructed over curb stops, catch basins or other structures, if at all possible. If there is no other feasible location for the driveway, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to set the curb stop, catch basin cover, or any other structures flush with the final driveway surface. ORONO CC 141-1 (7-25-88) § 6.05 F. The owner arid contractor shall protect the public from injury or damage during the construction of the sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any ~ublic street or other public property in the City and any perm1 t issued pursuant to this Ordinance shal 1 contain the agreement of the applicant that the City shall not be liable for damage which may arise from the result of work, and that the applicant will hold the City harmless for any liability incurred by the City as a result of such activity. G. Trees or shrubs shall not be placed adjacent to a driveway so as to constitute a site distance problem. H. If a parcel of land has frontage on both a cul- de-sac portion and a "lead-in" portion of the public road, .the driveway shall be constructed off the "lead-in" portion of the public road and not the cul-de-sac. Subd. 9. Resident Driveways, Approaches and Turnaround. A. One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the same public road provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one public road shall be allowed a driveway approach to one public road. B. Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line. C. The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single public road shall not exceed 20 feet. D. A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet. E. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner. ORONO CC 141-2 (7-25-88) § 6.05 F. For residerices hereafter constructed, the driveway approach and that part of the driveway and turnarounds which drain to the public road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the City's Public Works Director that an existing driveway and/or driveway approach is causing a maintenance problem on the public road, including, but not limited to, the washing of dirt and gravel into the public road, the Public Works Director shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed from the driveway up to the public right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to reduce paving otherwise required by performance standards in the Zoning Code or required as a condition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved site plan. G. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or collector roadway as determined in the Comprehensive Plan, and on all entrances to public roads within the City where deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a driveway turnaround is required by the Public Works Director, such requirement shall be stated on any permit issued by him or her pursuant to this ordinance. · Subd. 10. Business Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. Only one business driveway shall be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City, or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32 feet at the property line, whichever is less in a business or industrial district. The curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 20 feet unless approved as part of a site plan. In a residential district, the curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet unless approved as part of the site plan. B. All business driveways and driveway approaches shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or equivalent material. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed outside of the public road right-of-way. C. Loading docks, ramps and vehicular entrances shall be located in such a manner that backing onto and maneuvering within the public road right-of-way is eliminated and in such a manner that driveways greater in width than that specified by this chapter shall not be required. ORONO CC 141-3 (7-25-88) § 6.05 D. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return sha 11 be constructed within 10 0 feet of a corner in a business, commercial or industrial area, or within 100 feet of a corner in a residential district. E. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or a collector roadway and on all entrances to public roads within the City were deemed necessary by the Public Works Director based upon traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. Such requirements shall be stated on any permit issued by the Public Works Director pursuant to this ordinance. F. Driveways must be 10 feet from the side property line of a parcel of land except if driveway is shared by two parcels of land. Subd. 11. Maintenance and Removal. Every driveway approach or entrance to abutting property shall be maintained and kept in a safe condition by the owner of the abutting property or by the Homeowners' Association, and any such driveway approach which shall not be so maintained and kept in a safe condition or which shall interfere with or obstruct the drainage carried by the adjoining public road or interfere with or obstruct the use of the adjoining public road for purposes of travel shall be repaired to conform with the specifications of this ordinance and the City's requirements or it shall be removed by the owner of the abutting property or the Homeowners' Assocation. Upon removal of such driveway approach, that portion of the street or right-of-way occupied by the owner or Homeowners' Association shall be restored to its former condition and all curbing shall be replaced to its former condition by the owner or Homeowners 8 Association of the abutting property at their expense. If such removal and restoration is not accomplished within ten (10) days of the receipt by the abutting property owner of written notice of the City to remove the driveway approach and restore the public roadv curbing and right-of-way to its former condition, the City shal 1 remove the driveway approach and restore the public road, curbing and right-of-way and assess the cost of such removal and restoration against the abutting property. The property owner may appea 1 the order to remove and restore in the manner set forth in Section 6.05, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. Further time for removal and restoration may be authorized in writing by the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 141-4 (7-25-88) § 6.05 Subd. 12. Regulatory Signs. The City shall require the erection of regulatory signs adjacent to a driveway serving two or more parcels of land, at its intersection with a public road. The sign shall be purchased, erected and maintained by the property owner. If the property owner does not have the sign erected within a reasonable length of time, the City shall erect the sign and bill the property owner for all costs. Subd. 13. Specifications and Standards. All construction and reconstruction of roadway surfacing, sidewalk, driveway, driveway turnaround, curb and gutter improvements, including curb cuts and driveway approaches, shall be strictly in accordance with specifications and standards on file in the office of the City, and open to inspection and copying there. Such specifications and standards may be amended from time to time by the City, but shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 14. Inspection. The City shall inspect such improvements as deemed necessary or advisable. Any work not done according to the applicable specifications and standards shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work done hereunder may be stopped by the City if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the specifications and standards, but this sha 11 not place a continuing burden upon the City to inspect or supervise such work. ORONO CC 141-5 Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 § 6.06 SEC. 6.06. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE ROADWAY SURFACING, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GU~~'ER, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES OR CURB CUTS. Subd. 1. Methods of Procedure. Abutting or affected property owners may contract for, construct or reconstruct private roadway surfacing, sidewalk or curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, driveway approaches or curb cuts in accordance with this Section. Subd. 2. Requirement and Application for Permit. It is a misdemeanor to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway~ driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or any other private improvement in any private road or private property in the City without a permit in writing from the City. Application for such permit shall be made on forms approved and provided by the City and shall sufficiently describe the contemplated improvements, the contemplated date of beginning of work, and the length of time required to complete the same, provided that no permit shall be required for any such improvement ordered installed by the Council. Such application shal 1 also contain information showing the type of construction, the width and the location of an improvement on the parcel of land and the lot and block number or the parcel number and the street and house number and a profile of the proposed improvement, if necessary, and other such information as may.be required by the Public Works Director. The application shall be filed by the property owners desiring to construct such a driveway approach, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvements in any private road or any property in the City, or by his or her duly authorized agent. All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant by this Chapter. A permit from the City shall not relieve the holder from damages to the person or property of another caused by such work. These regulations shall apply to all City, State, County and private roads. Subd. 3. Issuance of Permit. Such permit shall be issued by the Public Works Director, if he or she has determined that the applicant has complied with the terms of this ordinance, the permit fee hereinafter specified has been paid and the Public Works Director has approved the driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City as requested or with stipulated changes. The Public Works Director shall have the authority to refuse to issue a permit when, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, the requested construction would impose an unreasonable hazard to the public. Such decision may be appealed in writing by the applicant to the City Council. The City Council shall have the power to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 142 (7-25-88) § 6.06 Subd. 4. Permit Fees. The fees for permits for the construction of improvements as outlined above, shall be as set forth in the City's Fee·schedule which may be amended from time to time. Subd. 5. Revocation of Permit. A. Al 1 permits granted for the use of private property under the terms of this Ordinance shal 1 be revocable by the Public Works Director pursuant to the procedure set out below in Section 6.06, Subd. 6, "Authority of Public Works Director." B. In addition to the provisions of Section 6.06, Subd. 6, a permit may be revoked by the City Counci 1 and City sha 11 have the right to revise, relocate or close any sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City as the result of the reconstruction of any road, a change in land use, or a major change in the traffic pattern of an existing land use. Subd. 6. Authority of Public Works Director. A. Al 1 work done under a permit issued in compliance with this Ordinance shall be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director, who is hereby authorized to make the necessary rules, regulations and specifications with respect to materials for and method of construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach~ driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be kept on file with the City Clerk. A permit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance may be revoked by the Public Works Director when he or she determines that the construction or activity authorized by the permit is not being performed according to the terms of the permit or this Ordinance. B. Notice of such revocation, with a description of the facts supporting such revocation, shall be mailed or delivered to the person named in the permit at the address listed in the permit. C. All work shall cease upon receipt of the Notice of Revocation. D. Any person whose permit is revoked as set forth herein may appeal that revocation to the City Council by filing notice of such appeal with the City Clerk within ten ( 10) days of the date that the revocation was mailed or delivered. E. The appeal of such revocation shall be conducted according to the procedure set forth in Section 6.06, Subd. 3, "Issuance of Permit" herein. ORONO CC 143 (7-25-88) § 6.06 Subd. 7. Submission of Plans to Public Works Director. Any plans submitted to the Building Inspector for his or her approval, which include or involve a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, road- way surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City, shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Public Works Director for his or her approval before a building permit shall be issued. Subd. 8. Construction Requirements Generally. In addition to the rules, regulations and specifications as outlined by the Publc Works Director with respect to the improvements listed above, the following requirements shall be complied with when work is done under the provisions of this Ordinance. A. All driveway approaches shall intersect the private road pavement at an angle to be approved by the Public Works Director based upon the physical characteristics of the private road, driveway approach and the parcel of land being accessed. Such angle shall be as close as is reasonably practical, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, to a right angle to the pavement of the private road. B. No curb cuts shall be made in such a way that the curb return extends beyond any property line as projected, except when consented to, in writing, by the-adjoining property owner involved. Said consent, if necessary, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a permit. c. The top of the paving of the driveway approach slab at the curb line shall be 1 5/8 inches above the flowline of the gutter, and shall not extend into the gutter beyond the face of the curb or beyond the gutter line, and shal 1 not be constructed in a manner that will in any way interfere with the use of the road for the purpose of travel or maintenance. The constructed private road shall not be excavated in the process of constructing the driveway unless previous approval, in writing, has been granted by the Public Works Director. D. Driveway culverts shall be provided and installed by the owner as required by the Public Works Director. E. Driveways shall not be constructed over curb stops, catch basins or other structures, if at all possible. If there is no other feasible location for the driveway, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to set the curb stop, catch basin cover, or any other structures flush with the final driveway surface. ORONO CC 143-1 (7-25-88) § 6.06 F. The owner arid contractor shall protect the public from injury or damage during the construction of the side- walk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turn- around, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City and any permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall contain the agreement of the applicant that the City shall not be liable for damage which may arise from the result of work, and that the applicant will hold the City harmless for any liability incurred by the City as a result of such activity. G. Trees or shrubs shall not be placed adjacent to a driveway so as to constitute a site distance problem. H. If a parcel of land has frontage on both a cul- de-sac portion and a "lead-in" portion of the private road, the driveway shall be constructed off the "lead-in" portion of the private road and not the cul-de-sac. Subd. 9. Resident Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the same private road provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one private road shall be allowed a driveway approach to one private road. B. Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line. C. The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single private road shall not exceed 20 feet. D. A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet. E. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner. ORONO CC 143-2 (7-25-88) § 6.06 F. For residences hereafter constructed, the driveway approach and that part of the driveway and turnarounds which drain to the private road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the City's Public Works Director that an existing driveway and/or driveway approach is causing a maintenance problem on the private road, including, but not limited to, the washing of dirt and gravel into the private road, the Public Works Director shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed from the driveway up to the private right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to reduce paving otherwise required by performance standards in the Zoning Code or required as a condition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved site plan. G. Driveway turnarounds shal 1 be required on al 1 driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or collector roadway as determined in the Comprehensive Plan, and on all entrances to private roads within the City where deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a tunaround is required by the Public Works Director, such requirement shall be stated on any permit issued by him or her pursuant to this ordinance. Subd. 10. Business Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. Only one business driveway shall be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City, or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32 feet at the property line, whichever is less in a business or industrial district. The curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 2 0 feet unless approved as part of a site plan. In a residential district, the curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet unless approved as part of the site plan. B. All business driveways and driveway approaches shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or equivalent material. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed outside of the private road right-of-way. C. Loading docks, ramps and vehicular entrances shall be located in such a manner that backing onto and maneuvering within the private road right-of-way is eliminated and in such a manner that driveways greater in width than that specified by this chapter shall not be required. ORONO CC 143-3 (7-25-88) § 6.06 D. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return sha 11 be constructed within 10 0 feet of a corner in a business, commercial or industrial area, or within 100 feet of a corner in a residential district. E. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or a collector roadway and on all entrances to private roads within the City were deemed necessary by the Public Works Director based upon traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. Such requirements shall be stated on any permit issued by the Public Works Director pursuant to ths ordinance. F. Driveways must be 10 feet from the side property line of a parcel of land except if driveway is shared by two parcels of land. Subd. 11. Maintenance and Removal. Every driveway approach or entrance to abutting property shall be maintained and kept in a safe condition by the owner of the abutting property or by the Homeowners' Association, and any such driveway approach which shall not be so maintained and kept in a safe condition or which shall interfere with or obstruct the drainage carried by the adjoining private road or interfere with or obstruct the use of the adjoining private road for purposes of travel shall be repaired to conform with the specifications of this ordinance and the City's requirements, or it sha 11 be removed by the owner of the abutting property or the Homeowners' Association. Upon removal of such driveway approach, that portion of the private road or right-of-way occupied by the owner or Homeowners' Assocation shall be restored to its former condition and all curbing shall be replaced to its former condition by the owner or Homeowners' Association of the abutting property, at their expense. If such removal and restoration is not accomplished within ten (10) days of the receipt by the abutting property owner of written notice of the City to remove the driveway approach and restore the street, curbing and right-of-way to its former condition, the City sha 11 remove the driveway approach and restore the private road, curbing and right-of-way and assess the cost of such removal and restoration against the abutting property. The property owner may appeal the order to remove and restore in the manner set forth in Section 6.06, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. Further time for removal and restoration may be authorized in writing by the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 143-4 (7-25-88) § 6.06 Subd. 12. Regulatory Signs. City shall require the erection of regulatory signs adjacent to the driveway serving two or more parcels of land, at its intersection with a private road. The sign shall be purchased, erected and maintained by the property owner. If the property owner does not have the sign erected within a reasonable length of time, the City shall erect the sign and bill the property owner for all costs. Subd. 13. Specifications and Standards. All construction and reconstruction of roadway surfacing, sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter improvements, including curb cuts and driveway approaches, and driveway turnarounds, shall be strictly in accordance with specifications and standards on file in the office of the City, and open to inspection and copying there. Such specifications and standards may be amended from time to time by the City, but shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 14. Inspection. The City shall inspect such improvements as deemed necessary or advisable. Any work not done according to the applicable specifications and standards shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work done hereunder may be stopped by the City if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the specifications and standards, but this shall not place a continuing burden upon the City to inspect or supervise such work. ORONO CC 143-5 Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 (7-25-88) § 6.07 SEC. 6.07. OBSTRUCTIONS IN STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS. Subd. 1. Obstructions. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place, deposit, display or offer for sale, any fence, goods or other obstructions upon, over, across or under any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit from the City, and then only in compliance in all respects with the terms and conditions of such permit, and taking precautionary measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or device of any kind is hereby included, but not by way of limitation, within the definition of an obstruction. Subd. 2. Fires. It is a misdemeanor for any person to build or maintain a fire upon a street or private road. Subd. 3. Dumping in Streets or Private Roads. It is a misdemeanor for any person to throw or deposit in any street or private road any nails, dirt, glass or glassware, cans, discarded cloth or clothing, metal scraps, garbage, leaves, grass or tree .-.:..imbs, paper or paper products, shreds or rubbish, oil, grease or other petroleum products, or to empty any water containing salt or other injurious chemical thereon. It is a violation of this Section to haul any such material, inadequately enclosed or covered, thereby permitting the same to fa 11 upon str.eets or private road. It is also a violation of this Section to place or store any building materials or waste resulting from building construction or demolition on any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit from the City. The building permittee shall remove all construction or demolition waste, or soil washed or tracked into any street. Subd. 4. Signs and Other Structures. It is a misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain a sign, advertisement, or other structure in any street or the right-of-way of any private road. Subd. 5. Placing Snow or Ice in a Roadway. It is a misdemeanor for any person, not acting under a specific contract with the City or without special permission from the City, to remove snow or ice from private property and place the same in the roadway of any street or private road. ORONO CC 144 (4-1-84) § 6.08 SEC. 6.08. PARADES AND SPECIAL EVENTS. Subd. 1. Definition. For the purpose of this Section, certain terms shall have the following meanings: A. "Parade" means any movement of vehicles, persons or animals, or any combination thereof, which either moves together and as a body so as to impede or affect the free and unobstructed flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or which moves so that some part thereof is in violation of one or more traffic laws or regulations. B. "Special event" means any marathon run, block party, fishing contest, parachute jump, hot-air balloon event, carnival, or any other activity or event which in some way impedes or affects the free and unobstructed flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, generates parking needs for more than 20 vehicles off site at any one time on residential streets, not including a public access to Lake Minnetonka, or requires the posting of "No Parking" signs to maintain compliance with traffic laws and regulations. Subd. 2. Permit Required. A permit shall be obtained from the City by any person, corporation, or other entity who will be holding or sponsoring a parade or special event. Application for such permit shall be made to the City at least sixty (60) days in advance of the date on which the parade or ~pecial event is to occur unless waived by the Council. The applicant shall fill out a form provided by the City, stating the sponsoring organization or individual, the route or location, the time of commencement, termination and the general composition. The application shall be executed by the individual applying therefor or the duly authorized agent or representative of the sponsoring organization. The permit requirements set forth in this section apply in addition to any licensing requirements set forth in Section 5.25 of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Investigation. The City shall forthwith refer all applications for parades and special events to the Police Chief for the Chief's consideration. The Police Chief shall review each application within ten (10) days. If an application involves State trunk highways, the Police Chief shall make necessary arrangements with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for alternate routes or whatever may be necessary. If the Police Chief finds that such a parade or event wi 11 not cause a hazard to persons or property, and will cause no great inconvenience to the public, and if the Chief is able to make arrangements for necessary direction and control of traffic, the Chief shall sign the application and return the application to the City Clerk. If the Police Chief finds the parade or special event described in the application to be a hazard, a substantial inconvenience, or if the Chief is unable to make adequate arrangements for direction or control of traffic, the Chief shall return the same to the City Clerk with appropriate findings set forth in writing. ORONO CC 145 (3-10-86) § 6.08 Subd. 4. Council Action. The City Clerk shall refer the application and results of investigation to the Council at its next regu 1 ar meeting. The Counci 1 may either ( 1) deny the permit, ( 2) grant the permit, or (3) grant the permit on condition that an alternate date, time or route are acceptable to applicant. Applicant shall have three (3) days within which to communicate his acceptance to the City Clerk. Subd. 5. Unlawful Acts. A. It is unlawful for any person to hamper, obstruct, or impede or interfere with any parade, parade assembly, special event or any person, animal or vehicle participating in the parade or special event. B. It is unlawful for any person to drive a vehicle between the vehicles or persons comprising a parade or special event when such parade or special event is in motion, except by direction of police officers directing traffic. C. It is unlawful for any person to enter into a parade or special event without prior authorization from the person in charge of the event. Subd. 6. Removal of Obstructions of Traffic. In any case where vehicles or parking by an activity obstructs traffic, regardless of whether or not the activity required a permit, a Police Officer shall warn the property owner and/or the person in charge of the event, that the cars must be moved by a certain time. If the vehicles are not moved in accordance with the Officer's request, the Officer may ticket that person and al 1 the cars that constitute the traffic hazard. Vehicles that constitute a hazard may be towed at the owner's expense if so ordered by the Police Officer. Subd. 7. Exceptions. The following are not required to apply for permits: (1) funeral processions; (2) a governmental agency acting within the scope of its functions; (3) an occasional private party that is held on private residential lots. Subd. 8. Payment of Expenses. The app 1 icant sha 11 pay all extraordinary expense incurred by the City for police and enforcement of this Section and the City may, as a condition of al?proval of the permit, require that the applicant deposit money with the City in a sum equal to the estimated expenses to be incurred by the City. Subd. 9. Permit Fees. All permits provided for in this Section shall be issued only upon payment in full of permit fees and other costs fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. ORONO CC 145-1 Ordinance 22, 2nd Series Adopted: 3-10-86 § 6.09 SEC. 6.09. REGULATION OF GRASSr WEEDS AND TREES IN STREETS. Subd. 1. City to Control Tree Planting (Standards). The City shall have control and supervision of planting shrubs and trees upon, or overhanging, all streets or other public property. The City may establish and enforce uniform standards relating to the species and types of trees to be planted, placement and the maintenance and removal thereof. Such standards shall be kept on file in the office of the City Administrator and may be revised from time to time by action of the Council upon the recommendation of the Public Works Coordinator. Subd. 2. Permit to Plant or Remove Trees. It is a misdemeanor for any person to plant or remove any tree upon or overhanging streets, without first procuring from the City a permit in writing to do so. Subd. 3. Duty of Property Owners to Cut Grass and Weeds and Maintain Trees and Shrubs. Every owner of property abutting on any street shall cause the grass and weeds to be cut from the line of such property nearest to such street to the center of such street. If the grass or weeds in such a place attain a height in excess of six (6) inches it shall be prima facie evidence of a failure to comply with this Subdivision. Every owner of property abutting on any street shall, subject to the provision herein requiring a permit therefor, trim, cut, remqve, and otherwise maintain all trees and shrubs in unhazardous and healthy conditionu from the line of such property nearest to such street to the center thereof. Subd. 4. City May Order Work Done. The City may in cases of failure to comply with this Section, perform such work, keeping an accurate account of the cost thereof for each lot, piece or parcel of land abutting upon such street. Subd. 5. Assessment. If maintenance work described in the foregoing Subdivision is performed by the City, the City Clerk shall forthwith upon completion thereof ascertain the cost attri- butable to each lot, piece or parcel of abutting land. The City Clerk shall send a statement to the abutting property owner and if the amount thereof remains unpaid for fifteen (15) days, present a certificate thereof to the Council and obtain its approval thereof. When such certificate has been approved it shall be extended as to the cost therein stated as a special assessment against such abutt- ing land and such special assessment shall, at the time of certi- fying taxes to the County Auditor, be certified for collection as other special assessments are certified and collected. ORONO CC 146 (4-1-84) § 6.10 SEC. 6.10. LIMITING TIME OF RAILWAY-STREET CROSSING OBSTRUCTION. It is a misdemeanor for any person operating or in charge of a railroad train, car, engine, locomotive, or other railroad equipment, or combination thereof, to so operate, park or leave the same standing upon the railroad at its intersection with a street, s6 as to prevent unobstructed vehicular traffic on such street for a period longer than five (5) minutes, without prior approval of the City. SEC. 6.11. LOAD LIMITS. The Council may from time to time impose upon vehicular traffic on any part or all of the streets such load limits as may be necessary or desirable. Such limits, and the specific extent or weight to which loads are limited, shall be clearly and legibly sign-posted thereon. It is a misdemeanor for any person to operate a vehicle on any street in violation of the limitation so posted. SEC. 6.12. CURB AND GUTTER, STREET AND SIDEWALK PAINTING OR COLORING. It is unlawful for any person to paint, letter or color any street, sidewalk or curb and gutter for advertising purposes, or to paint or color any street, sidewalk or curb and gutter for any purpose, except as the same may be done by City employees acting within the course or scope of their employment. Provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to uniformly coloring concrete or other surfacing, or uniformly painted house numbers, as such coloring may be approved by the City. ORONO CC 147 (4-1-84) § 6.10 SEC. 6.13. PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS AND PARKING LOTS. Subd. 1. It is a misdemeanor for any person other than the City to in any way attempt to regulate public parking on public streets. Subd. 2. Authority, Permission and Procedure. Upon an application duly made to the City, the Council may in its discretion, grant special permission whereby on-street parking or the use of City-owned parking lots or ramps or public sidewalks may be temporarily or permanently prohibited or restricted for private reasons and purposes (including, but not limited to, establishment of private or "leased" parking, "loading zones", or benches) at such places, on such terms and for such consideration as the Council may deem just and equitable. In establishing the amount of such consideration to be paid to the City, the Council shall consider the amount of space, location thereof, if any, public inconvenience, and hazards to persons or property. Upon complaint of any aggrieved person at any time and by reason of any specific special permission so granted, the Council shall at its next regular meeting after receipt of such complaint, call a hearing thereon to be held after ten days' notice in writing to applicant and complainant and published notice at ~east ten days prior to such hearing. After such hearing the Council shall by resolution decide whether to terminate, continue or redefine the terms of such permission and such decision shall be final and binding on all persons directly or indirectly interested therein, except that the Council may, on its own motion, reconsider the same. Subd. 3. Forbidden Practices. It is unlawful for any person to park or otherwise infringe upon a grant of right under this Section, when clearly and distinctly marked or sign-posted. It is unlawful for any person not granted such right to assert the same, or for any grantee of such right to exceed the same under claim thereto. Subd. 4. Condition. Before granting any permit under any of the provisions of this Section, the Council may impose such insurance or bonding conditions thereon as it, considering the projected danger to public or private property or to persons, deems proper for safeguarding such persons and property. Such insurance or bond sha11· also protect the City from any suit, action or cause of action arising by reason thereof. ORONO CC 148 (4-1-84) § 6.14 SEC. 6.14. MOTORIZED VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a motorized vehicle on any public sidewalk or public property desig- nated for use as a pedestrian walkway or bicycle trail, except when crossing the same for ingress and egress to private property lying on the other side thereof, and for the purpose of snow removal. SEC. 6.15. STREET OPENINGS OR EXCAVATIONS. It is a misdemeanor for any person, except a City employee acting within the course and scope of his employment or a contractor acting within the course and scope of a contract with the City, to make any excavation, opening or tunnel in, over, across or upon a public street or other public property without first having obtained a written permit from the City as herein provided. Subd. 1. Application. Application for a permit to make a street excavation shall describe with reasonable particularity the name and address of the applicant, the place, purpose and size of the excavation, and such other information as may be necessary or desirable to facilitate the investigation hereinafter provided for, and shall be filed with the City. Subd. 2. Investigation and Payment of Estimated Costs. Upon receipt of such application, the City shall cause such inves- tigation to be made as he may deem necessary to determine estimated cost of repair, such as back-filling, compacting, resurfacing and replacement, and the conditions as to the time of commencement of work, manner of procedure and time limitation upon such excavation. The foregoing estimated costs shall include permanent and temporary repairs due to weather or other conditions, and the cost of such investigation shall be included in such estimate. Subd. 3. Protection of the City and the Public. A. Barricades, Warning Signs and Lights. Barricades, warning signs and warning lights on al 1 street excavations shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Traffic Control Service Manual. B. Non-Completion or Abandonment. Work shall progress expeditiously to completion in accordance with any time limitation placed thereon so as to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the public. In the event that work is not performed in accor- dance therewith, or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause, the City may, after six hours notice in writing to the holder of the permit of its intention to do so, correct the work, fill the excavation and repair the public property, and the cost thereof shal 1 be paid by the person holding the permit. C. Insurance. Prior to commencement of the work described in the application, the applicant shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence in writing that the applicant will keep in effect public liability insurance of not less than $100,000.00 for ORONO CC 149 (4-1-84) § 6.15 any person, $300,000.00 for any occurrence and property damage insurance of not less than $25,000.00, issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota on wh.ich the City is named as a co-insured. D. Indemnification. Before issuance of a permit, the applicant shall, in writing, agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability for injury or damage arising out of the action of the applicant in performance of the work, or any expense whatsoever incurred by the City incident to a claim or action brought or commenced by any person arising therefrom. Subd. 4. Issuance of Permit. The City shall issue such permit after (1) completion of such investigation, (2) payment by the applicant in advance of all estimated costs as aforesaid; (3) agreement by the applicant to the conditions of time and manner as aforesaid; (4) agreement in writing by the applicant to pay all actual cost of repairs over and above such estimate, including cost of such investigation, and, (5) agreement in writing by the applicant to be bound by all of the provisions of this Section. Subd. 5. Repairs. All temporary and p·ermanent repairs, including back-f i 11 ing, compacting and resurfacing shall be made, or contracted for, by the City in a manner prescribed by the City and an accurate account of costs thereof shall be kept. Subd. 6. Cost Adjustment. Within sixty days following completion of such permanent repairs the City shall determine actual costs of repairs, including cost of investigation, and prepare and furnish to such permit holder an i tern i zed s ta ternent thereof and claim additional payment from, or make refund (without interest) to, the permit holder, as the case may be. Subd. 7. Alternate Method of Charging. In lieu of the above provisions relating to cost and cost adjustment for street openings, the City may charge on the basis of surface square feet removed, excavated cubic feet, or a combination of surface square feet and excavated cubic feet, on an established unit price uniformly charged, and adopted pursuant to City Code Section 1.05. SEC. 6.16. PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. Subd. 1. Primary Responsibility. It is the primary responsibility of the owner of property upon which there is abutting any public sidewalk to keep and maintain such sidewalk in safe and serviceable condition. Subd. 2. Construction, Reconstruction and Repair Specifications. All construction, reconstruction or repair of public sidewalks shall be done in strict accordance with specifications on file in the City offices. ORONO CC 150 (4-1-84) § 6.16 Subd. 3. Notice -No Emergency. Where, in the opinion of the City Administrator, no emergency exists, notice of the required repair or reconstruction shall be given to the owner of the abutting property. Such notice shall require completion of the work within ninety (90) days, and shall be mailed to the owner or owners shown to be such on the records of the County Officer who mails tax statements. Subd. 4. Notice -Emergency. Where, in the opinion of the City Administrator, an emergency exists, notice of the required repair or reconstruction shall be given to the owner of the abutting property. Such notice shall require completion of the work within ten (10) days, and shall be mailed to the owner or owners shown to be such on the records of the County Officer who mails tax statements. Subd. 5. Failure of Owner to Reconstruct or Make Repairs. If the owner of the abutting property fails to make repairs or accomplish reconstruction as herein required, the City Administrator shall report such failure to the_ Council and the Council may order such work to be done under its direction and the cost thereof assessed to the abutting property owner as any other special assessment. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.17 through 6.29, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 151 (4-1-84) § 6.30 SEC. 6.30. BICYCLE REGULATION. Subd. 1. Definition. The term "bicycle", as used in this Section, means every device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is over fourteen (14} inches in diameter, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or rear wheels. Subd. 2. Registration Required. It is unlawful for any person to ride or operate a bicycle not registered with the Minnesota Commission~r of Public Safety upon any street, sidewalk or other public property. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.31 through 6.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 152 (4-1-84} § 6.40 SEC. 6.40. NUMBERING OF HOUSES AND BUILDINGS. Subd. 1. Duty of Owner or Occupant. The owner or occupant of every occupied property and every house or other building shall place on such building the proper street number for such building, either by painting or affixing such number so that the number shall be clearly visible from the sidewalk or street. A. Where the house is not visible from the street or private road, or is located more than 300 feet from such street or road, an additional set of numbers shall be placed on a sign at the driveway apron with numbers visible in both directions of travel on the street. B. Where more than one house is served by the same private driveway or unnamed private road, additional sets of numbers shal 1 be p 1 aced at every fork or other driveway as necessary to direct traffic to every house including the house farthest from the street. C. Numbers placed on mailboxes are insufficient to satisfy the provisions of this Subdivision except when mailbox stands on subject property, not across a public street, and not in a group of mailboxes more than one in number. D. The minimum size for numbers shall be three inches. E. Numbers shall be reflective or of color contrasting with background. Subd. 2. Assignment of Numbers. The City shall assign numbers in accordance with the standard plan adopted by the City and shall approve and assign all street names by action of the Council. Subd. 3. Unlawful Act. It is a misdemeanor for any person to fail to comply with the provisions of Subdivision 1, or to post numbers other than the correct City-assigned numbers. If the property owner fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, the City may erect a sign adjacent to the street on which the number is stated or affixed, and upon completion thereof, ascertain the. cost and certify the same to the County Auditor to be collected as any other special assessment. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.41 through 6.44, inclusive, reserved for future expansion. ) ORONO CC 153 (4-1-84) § 6.45 SEC. 6.45. The Council hereby exercises its dedicated easement and declares the following described easements as public streets: Subd. 1. Wear Circle. Outlet A, Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition. Subd. 2. Wear Lane North. Meadows 2nd Addition. Outlets A and B, Rolling Ordinance 92, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-91 (Sections 6.46 through 6.98, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 153-1 (1-28-91) § 6.99 SEC. 6.99. VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR OR PETTY MISDEMEANOR. Every person violates a section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this Chapter when he performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as follows: Subd. 1. Where the specific section, subdivision, paragraph or provision specifically makes violation a misdemeanor, he shall be punished as for a misdemeanor; where a violation is committed in a manner or under circumstances so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, he shall be punished as for a misdemeanor; where he stands convicted of violation of any provision of this Chapter, exclusive of violations relating to the standing or parking of an unattended vehicle, within the immediate preceding 12-month period for the third or subsequent time, he shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. As to any violation not constituting a misdemeanor under the provisions of Subdivision 1 hereof, he shall be punished as for a petty misdemeanor. ORONO CC Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 154 (4-1-84) (Pages 155 through 164 reserved) ORONO CC (4-1-84) CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan ORONO'S ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM A commonly accepted way to describe and analyze a transportation system is through a classification system which indicates different levels of services and different levels of construction standards. This Plan generally follows the classification system outlined in the Metropolitan Council's 1996 Transportation Policy Plan. Map 4A-4 indicates the classification plan for streets and roads in Orono. This plan is consistent with the regional transportation plans and facilities of the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. This plan is consistent with the roadway systems of adjoining municipalities and with Orono's urban and rural land use plans. The following descriptions provide detailed explanations of each of Orono's roadway classifications: PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Principal arterials are the high-capacity highways that make up the metropolitan highway system. They are intended to be controlled access roadways that move traffic between cities, or in Orono's situation, between the free-standing growth centers and out-state cities west of Orono into the metropolitan area. They are intended to provide for high mobility (movement of high volumes of traffic at sustained speeds) with minimal or no direct access to abutting properties. Principal arterials that are not freeways will incorporate high- capacity controlled at-grade intersections where grade separation is not feasible. State Highway 12 is Orono's only Principal Arterial roadway, although in its current configuration, many access and intersection characteristics are typical of a minor arterial or collector. The proposed re-routed Highway 12 from Wayzata Boulevard to County Road 6 will function more effectively as a principal arterial. At the time the re-route is completed, Old Highway 12 will take on the characteristics of a Reliever. JURISDICTION: Minnesota Department of Transportation VEHICLES CARRIED: 15,000-plus RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: Freeway: 300 Feet Non-Freeway: I 00-300 Feet ROADS CLASSIFIED AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS (3.9 Miles): Highway 12 (3.9 mi) City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-23 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan MINOR ARTERIAL Minor arterials provide supplementary connections between metro centers and regional business concentrations, and more typically in Orono's situation, provide alternative commuter routes to growth centers located west of Orono. Minor arterials are also intended to provide mobility rather than land access, although many of Orono's high-volume minor arterials developed in a manner more typical of collector roads. Minor arterials are divided into two administrative categories. "A" Minor Arterials have a regional significance and are eligible to compete for federal funding, whereas "B" Minor Arterials serve a more local function for shorter trips and are nearly identical in function to Collectors. "A" Minor Arterials are further classified into the following groups: Relievers -Minor arterials that provide direct relief for traffic on major metropolitan highways. These roads typically include the closest parallel routes to the principal arterials. Expanders -Routes which provide a way to make connections between developing areas outside the Interstate (I-494/1-694) ring. County Road 15 is classified as an Expander. Connectors -Roads that would provide good, safe connections among town centers in the urban reserve, urban staging and rural areas. Augmenters -Roads that augment principal arterials within the Interstate (1-494/1694) Ring. County Road 6 east of Highway 12 currently functions as a Reliever for Highway 12, although it would otherwise be characterized as an Expander and a Connector. The Lake Minnetonka Ring Route consisting of segments of both County and City roads would be considered as an expander or connector road functioning to move, principally commuters and some truck traffic, from the western Lake Minnetonka communities into the urbanized areas of the Twin Cities. The Ring Route channels traffic away from Lake Minnetonka to State Highways 12 as well as to County Road 6 which has a direct intersection with Interstate 494 in Plymouth and connections northward to Highway 55. Land use access is intended to be limited to major traffic generators and local street intersections without direct access to individual residences. JURISDICTION: Hennepin County Dept. Of Transportation VEHICLES CARRIED: 1,000-30,000 RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 60-150 Feet; Min. 80 Feet for Two Lane Highway ROADS CLASSIFIED AS 'A' MINOR ARTERIALS (9.6 Miles): CSAH 6 from east City border to Watertown Road (5.9 mi) CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive) (3.7 mi) City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-24 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan ROADS CLASSIFIED AS 'B' MINOR ARTERJALS (22 Miles): CSAH 19 (Shadywood Road & North Shore Drive including McCulley Road Ring Route connection) (5.7 mi) Willow Drive (2.9 mi) CSAH 146 (Brown Road South) (1.9 mi) Old Crystal Bay Road (3.1 mi) Watertown Road (3.6 mi) CSAH 84 (Bayside Road) (2.3 mi) CSAH 51 (North Shore Drive) (2.5 mi) COLLECTOR A Collector street functions to collect traffic from local streets and move it to neighborhood activity centers or to intersections with principal or minor arterials. Local land use access is permitted but is regulated as to location and number with direct access to be avoided whenever alternative local street access is available. Intersections with other collectors are often controlled with signals or with four-way stop signs. Traffic usage is moderate. ruRJSDICTION: VEHICLES CARRJED: RJGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: County or City 1,000 -15,000 60-100 Feet ROADS CLASSIFIED AS COLLECTORS (4.7 Miles): North Ferndale Road (1.1 mi) CSAH 151 (North Arm Drive) (1.7 mi) CSAH 135 (Tonkawa Road) (1.9 mi) SCENIC PARKWAY Scenic Parkway is a designation and classification used by the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul and applied by Orono to those roads which traverse especially scenic and environmentally significant areas of the City. The scenic parkway is typically a narrow, curvy, slow speed road which provides access to recreational areas and special vistas of scenic attractions. High volume through traffic and commercial traffic is not appropriate on scenic parkways because these users do not benefit from the attraction and because the physical nature of the roadway is not conducive to efficient through traffic movement. Orono's Scenic Parkway designation has been applied to certain roadways whose functional classification ranges from minor arterials to collector or local streets Because of environmental sensitivity, certain roads designated as scenic parkways cannot be upgraded to function more efficiently as higher capacity collectors or minor arterials without adversely affecting the natural setting, the scenic quality of the road and/or the property rights of abutting landowners. Because of the natural City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-25 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan topography of the area, scenic parkways also have long provided and will continue to provide the dual traffic and local access functions of both local and collector streets. JURISDICTION: VEHICLES CARRIED: RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: County or City 1,000-20,000 50-66 Feet ROADS CLASSIFIED AS SCENIC PARKWAYS (16.2 miles): (includes some roads classified above) Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) from Shadywood Road (CSAH 19) to east City boundary) (3.0 mi) North Shore Drive (CSAH 51 & Part of CSAH 19) from Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) to west City boundary (3.9 mi) Shadywood Road (CSAH 19 from CSAH 51 to south City boundary) (2.0 mi) Tonkawa Road (CSAH 135) (1.7 mi) Bayside Road (from Tonkawa Rd. to Leaf St.) (1.2 mi) Leaf Street portion of CSAH 84 (0.25 mi) Fox Street portion of CSAH 84 (0.5 mi) Old Crystal Bay Road portion of CSAH 84 (0.9 mi) Fox Street from CSAH 84 to Orono Orchard Road (1.75 mi) Orono Orchard Road (1.0 mi) LOCAL STREET Local streets are public streets that function to provide direct access to abutting properties. Local streets carry traffic within neighborhoods rather than through traffic between neighborhoods. Intersections with collector streets are controlled by stopping the local street traffic. JURISDICTION: City VEHICLES CARRIED: Less than 1,000 RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 50-60 Feet DEAD-END (CUL-DE-SAC): Length will be limited by public safety considerations City of Orono Community Management Plan Page 4A-26 September 2000 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan PRIVATE ROAD A private road is a privately owned and privately maintained road, located in the rural area or within a planned development, that functions as a local access street. The City will require that private roads be constructed and maintained to City standards. The City will acquire an easement for public ingress, egress and access to all properties, but the City will allow the property owners to limit normal use of the road to the benefitting landowners and their invitees. Private roads will be located on platted outlots intended for joint and several ownership by all the benefitted property owners. JURISDICTION: Homeowners Association with underlying easement to City MAXIMUM SERVICE: Approximately IO residential properties RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 30-50 feet depending upon number of users DEAD-END (CUL-DE-SAC): Length will be limited by public safety considerations PRIVATE DRIVEWAY A driveway is a privately owned and privately maintained vehicle path between the street and private property. Private driveways shall be subject to access permits according to the classification of the abutting street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public easement or access right, but do require recorded private easements where driveways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served and the street. JURISDICTION: Property owner MAXIMUM SERVICE: 1 residence typical; Jomt driveways allowed with maximum two residents per driveway in rural areas more users require private road standards DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Will be regulated where more than one user is involved or for public safety purposes where there is excessive length between the residence and the public road Existing roadway maintenance jurisdictions are reasonable as they relate to the classification plan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has appropriate jurisdiction over the only Intermediate Arterial in the City, Highway 12. However, the new Highway 12 freeway segment when completed will be under MnDOT jurisdiction, with an expectation that jurisdiction for existing Highway 12 will be transferred to Hennepin County. The new Highway 12 freeway segment will be designated as either an Intermediate or Major Arterial. City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-27 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan The Hennepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over the only Minor Arterial designated in the Plan, the County Road 6 - McCulley Road -County Road 19 system. It is anticipated that Hennepin County will assume jurisdiction in the future over the City-built Ring Route link (McCulley Road) between County Road 19 and County Road 6. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over most of the designated Scenic Parkways, which is appropriate in that these roads serve as access to Lake Minnetonka and to County maintained landings for many County residents who do not reside in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over those Scenic Parkways that are away from the immediate lakeshore, including the access road to the Orono Golf Course The City has appropriate jurisdiction of most of the Collector and all of the local streets which serve all Orono residents. Certain key street segments have been designated for Municipal State Aid construction assistance, as shown in Table 4A-3 and Map 4A-3. Finally, individual property owners have appropriate private jurisdiction over those Private Roads serving only their individual properties The Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan identifies a number of possible future changes to roadway jurisdiction. The potential changes affecting Orono include: -Conversion of the following City roads to County jurisdiction: Townline Road; McCulley Old Crystal Bay Road from Fox Street to County Road 6 -Conversion of the following County roads to City jurisdiction: Brown Road (CR 146) from U.S. 12 to CR 51 Tonkawa Road (CR 135) North Arm Drive/West Branch Rd (CR 151) Bayside Road/Leaf Street/Fox Street (CR 84) from Old Crystal Bay Road to CR 19. -Conversion of existing U.S. 12 from Mn/DOT to County jurisdiction The City of Orono has currently taken no official position regarding the majority of these potential future changes. City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-28 CHAPTER 6 Section 6. 01 6 .o 2 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17-6.29 6.30 6.31-6.39 6.40 6.41-6.44 6.45 6.46-6.98 6.99 ORONO CC Title STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS (THIS CHAPTER CONTAINS PROVISIONS AS TO DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION AND SCOPE RELATING TO CHAPTERS 7 AND 8 AS WELL AS THIS CHAPTER) Definitions ..•••••.••. Application •.....•.. Scope and Orders of Officers. Traffic and Parking Control .. . . . . Construction and Reconstruction of Public Roadway Surfacing, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, Driveway Aprons or Curb Cuts ••• Construction and Reconstruction of Private Roadway Surfacing, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, Driveway Aprons or Curb Cuts •.. Obstructions in Streets and Private Roads ..... Parades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulation of Grass, Weeds and Trees in Streets •...•••••..•.. Limiting Time of Railway-Street Crossing Obstruction. . . • • • •••.•.. Load Limits. • . • • • . •. Curb and Gutter, Street and Sidewalk Painting or Coloring •...•••• Private Use of Public Streets and Parking Lots •..•.••.• Motorized Vehicles Prohibited on Sidewalks ........•.•••.•. Street Openings or Excavations •.••.. Public Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair •. Reserved Bicycle Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . Reserved Numbering of Houses and Buildings •. Reserved Dedicated Easements to Public Streets Reserved Violation a Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor .•.•••.••.• . . . . Page 140 140 140-1 140-1 140-2 140-2 142 144 145 146 147 147 147 148 149 149 150 152 153 153-1 154 \, ( 4-1-84) CHAPTER 6 STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS (THIS CHAPTER CONTAINS PROVISIONS AS TO DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION AND SCOPE RELATING TO CHAPTERS 7 AND 8 AS WELL AS THIS CHAPTER) SECTION 6.01. DEFINITIONS. Subd. 1. Except as otherwise defined in the City Code, or where the context clearly indictes a contrary intent, the words and terms defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169, shall be app 1 i cab 1 e to the City Code, Chapters 6, 7 and 8. The f o 11 owing words and terms, when used in this Ordinance, shall have the following meanings, unless the context indicates otherwise: A. "Corner" means the point of intersection of the extension of lines of two public or private curb faces. B. "Curb Cut" means the opening along a street curb line or pavement edge for the purpose of motor vehicle ingress and egress from a roadway. Curb cut width shal 1 include the width of the driveway approach and of the curb returns, if any. C. "Curb Return" means that portion of a curb next to a driveway approach which includes the radius or curvature or the ramp-type lug on commercial or industrial type pavements and which connects the driveway approach to the public or private road curb. D. "Driveway" means a paved or otherwise delineated area on private property for the operation of automobiles and other vehicles. E. "Driveway Approach" means a paved or otherwise delineated area, on the right-of-way between the roadway of a public or private road and private property, intended to provide ingress and egress for vehicles from a private or public road to private property. A driveway approach must provide access to a parking area, a driveway, a door intended and used for the entrance of vehicles, or other similar structure or facility. Driveway approaches shall be of two classes: a) resident driveway approaches; and b) business driveway approaches. F. "Business Driveway Approach" means a driveway approach from any public right-of-way providing motor vehicles with ingress and egress from the public or private road to any property other than a single family dwelling. G. "Resident Driveway Approach" means a driveway approach from any public or private right-of-way providing ingress and egress for motor vehicles from the public or private road to a single family residential dwelling. ORONO CC 140 (7-25-88) \, "\ ., ,,,\ [\ ~ ~ \ j '·. \ I I l § 6.01 H. "Driveway Turnaround" means a paved or otherwise clearly delineated area which is part of or connected to a driveway or driveway approach, on private property, sufficient in size for an automobile or other vehicle to turn 180 degrees without leaving the paved or delineated area. I. "Frontage" means the lot line abutting a public or private street. J. "Parcel of Land" means a lot or contiguous lots or a tract officially registered under one ownership. K. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use, or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between a person or persons and the City. L. "Public Road" means the entire area dedicated to public use, or contained in a plat, an easement or other conveyance, grant or by adverse possession, to the City or other governmental body, and shall include, but not be limited to, roadways, boulevards, sidewalks, alleys, and other public property between lateral property lines in which a roadway lies. Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 SEC. 6.02. APPLICATION. The provisions of City Code, Chapters 6, 7 and 8, are applicable to the drivers of all vehicles and animals upon streets and private roads, including, but not limited to, those owned or operated by the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any county, town, city, district, or other political subdivision. SEC. 6.03. SCOPE AND ORDERS OF OFFICERS. Subd. 1. Scope. The provisions of Chapters 6, 7 and 8 relate exclusively to the streets, alleys and private roads in the City, and the operation and parking of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation and parking of vehicles upon such streets, alleys and private roads. Subd. 2. Orders of an Officer. It is a misdemeanor for any person to willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police or peace officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic. ORONO CC 140-1 \, (4-1-84) (7-25-88) § 6.04 SEC. 6.04. TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL. Subd. 1. Traffic and Parking Signs and Signals. No device, sign or signal shall be erected or maintained for traffic or parking control unless it is authorized by the City. The Public Works Department and the Chief of Police are hereby authorized to erect such traffic or parking control devices as may be necessary or desirable: provided, that when traffic and parking control is marked or sign-posted, such marking or sign-posting shall attest to authorization. The City may require the erection or removal of signs on private roads at the expense of the private road owner. Provided, that except as otherwise required by the City, private road owners may erect, regulate and privately enforce other traffic and parking restrictions within the private road right-of-way. Subd. 2. Traffic Restrictions and Prohibitions. It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive a vehicle contrary to lane restrictions or prohibitions painted on any street, or contrary to sign-posted, fenced, or barricaded restrictions or prohibitions. Subd. 3. Parking Restrictions and Prohibitions. It is unlawful for any person to park a vehicle, except an emergency vehicle, contrary to lane restrictions or prohibitions painted on any curb, or contrary to sign-posted, fenced, or barricaded restrictions or prohibitions. Subd. 4. Damaging or Moving Markings. Except as otherwise provided, it is a misdemeanor for any person to deface, mar, damage, obscure, move, remove, or in any way tamper with any structure, work, mate~ial, equipment, tools, sign, signal, barricade, fence, painting or appurtenance in any street unless such person has written permission from the City or is an agent, employee or contractor for the City, or other authority having jurisdiction over a particular street, and acting within the authority or scope of a contract with the City or such other authority. SEC. 6.05. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ROADWAY SURFACING, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GOT.l'ER, DRIVEWAY APRONS OR CURB CUTS. Subd. 1. Methods of Procedure. Abutting or affected property owners wishing to contract for, construct or reconstruct public roadway surfacing, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approaches, driveway turnarounds, or curb cuts must first obtain a permit from the City in accordance with this Section. Also, with or without petition by the methods set forth in the Local Improvement Code of Minnesota Statutes, presently beginning with Section 429.011, as the same may from time to time be amended. ORONO CC 140-2 \, (4-1-84) (7-25-88) § 6.05 Subd. 2. Requirement and Application for Permit. It is a misdemeanor to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or any other private improvement in any public road or other pub 1 ic property in the City without a permit in writing from the City. Application for such permit shall be made on forms approved and provided by the City and shall sufficiently describe the contemplated improvements, the contemplated date of beginning of work, and the length of time required to complete the same, provided that no permit shall be required for any such improvement ordered installed by the Council. Such application shall also contain information showing the type of construction, the width and the location of an improvement on the. parcel of land and the lot and block number or the parcel number and the street and house number and a profile of the proposed improvement, if necessary, and other such information as may be required by the Public Works Director. The application shal 1 be filed by the property owners desiring to construct such a driveway approach, driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvements in any public road or any property in the City, or by his or her duly authorized agent. All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant to be bound by this Chapter. A permit from the City shall not relieve the holder from damages to the person or property of another caused by such work. These regulations shall apply to all City, State and County Roads. Subd. 3. Issuance of Permit. Such permit shall be issued by the Public Works Director, if he or she has determined that the applicant has complied with the terms of this ordinance, the permit fee hereinafter specified has been paid and the Public Works Director has approved the driveway, driveway approachv driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City as requested or with stipulated changes. The Public Works Director shall have the authority to refuse to issue a permit when, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, the requested construction would impose an unreasonable hazard to the public. Such decision may be appealed in writing by the applicant to the City Council. The City Council shall have the power to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Public Works Director. Subd. 4. Permit Fees. The fees for permits for the construction of improvements as outlined above, shall be as set forth in the City's Fee Schedule which may be amended from time to time. ORONO CC 140-3 (7-25-88) \. § 6.05 Subd. 5. Revocation of Permit. A. All permits granted for the use of public property under the terms of this Ordinance shal 1 be revocable by the Public Works Director pursuant to the procedure set out below in Section 6.05, Subd. 6, "Authority of Public Works Director." B. In addition to the provisions of Section 6.05, Subd. 6, a permit may be revoked by the City Counci 1 and City shal 1 have the right to revise, relocate or close any sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City as the result of the reconstruction of any road, a change in land use, or a major change in the traffic pattern of an existing land use. Subd. 6. Authority of Public Works Director. A. All work done under a permit issued in compliance with this Ordinance shall be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director, who is hereby authorized to make the necessary rules, regulations and specifications with respect to materials for and method of construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be kept on file with the City Clerk. A permit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance may be revoked by the Public Works Director when he or she determines that the construction or activity authorized by the permit is not being performed according to the terms of the permit of this Ordinance. B. Notice of such revocation, with a description of the facts supporting such revocation, shall be mailed or delivered to the person named in the permit at the address listed in the permit. C. All work shall cease upon receipt of the Notice of Revocation. D. Any person whose permit is revoked as set forth herein may appeal that revocation to the City Council by filing notice of such appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date that the revocation was mailed or delivered. E. The appeal of such revocation shall be conducted according to the procedure set forth in Section 6.05, Subd. 3, "Issuance of Fermi t" herein. ORONO CC 141 (7-25-88) \, § 6.05 Subd. 7. Submission of Plans to Public Works Director. All plans submitted to the Building Inspector for his or her approval, which include or involve a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, driveway approach, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any public road or other public property in the City, shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Public Works Director for his or her approval before a building permit shall be issued. Subd. 8. Construction Requirements Generally. In addition to the rules, regulations and specifications as outlined by the Public Works Director with respect to the improvements .listed above, the following requirements shall be complied with when work is done under the provisions of this Ordinance. A. All driveway approaches shall intersect the public road pavement at an angle to be approved by the Public Works Director based upon the physical characteristics of the public road, driveway approach and the parcel of land being accessed. Such angle shall be as close as is reasonably practical, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, to a right angle to the pavement of the public road. B. No curb cuts shall be made in such a way that the curb return extends beyond any property line as projected, except when consented to, in writing, by the adjoining property owner involved. Said consent, if necessary, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a permit. C. The top of the paving of the driveway approach slab at the curb line shall be 1 5/8 inches above the flowline of the gutter, and shall not extend into the gutter beyond the face of the curb or beyond the gutter line, and shal 1 not be constructed in a manner that will in any way interfere with the use of the road for the purpose of travel or maintenance. The constructed public road shall not be excavated in the process of constructing the driveway unless previous approval, in writing, has been granted by the Public Works Director. D. Driveway culverts shall be provided and installed by the owner as required by the Public Works Director. E. Driveways shall not be constructed over curb stops, catch basins or other structures, if at all possible. If there is no other feasible location for the driveway, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to set the curb stop, catch basin cover, or any other structures flush with the final driveway surface. ORONO CC 141-1 (7-25-88) \. § 6.05 F. The owner and contractor shal 1 protect the public from injury or damage during the construction of the sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any ~ublic street or other public property in the City and any permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall contain the agreement of the applicant that the City shall not be liable for damage which may arise from the result of work, and that the applicant will hold the City harmless for any liability incurred by the City as a result of such activity. G. Trees or shrubs shall not be placed adjacent to a driveway so as to constitute a site distance problem. H. If a parce 1 of land has f ronta·ge on both a cu 1- de-sac portion and a "lead-in" portion of the public road, the driveway shall be constructed off the "lead-in" portion of the public road and not the cul-de-sac. Subd. 9. Resident Driveways, Approaches and Turnaround. A. One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the same public road provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one public road shall be allowed a driveway approach to one public road. B. Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line. C. The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single public road shall not exceed 20 feet. D. A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet. E. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner. ORONO CC 141-2 (7-25-88) \, § 6.05 F. For residences hereafter constructed, the driveway approach and that part of the driveway and turnarounds which drain to the public road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the City's Public Works Director that an existing driveway and/or driveway approach is causing a maintenance problem on the pub 1 ic road, inc 1 uding, but not limited to, the washing of dirt and gravel into the public road, the Public Works Director shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed from the driveway up to the public right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to reduce paving otherwise required by performance standards in the Zoning Code or required as a condition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved site plan. G. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or collector roadway as determined in the Comprehensive Plan, and on all entrances to public roads within the City where deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a driveway turnaround is required by the Public Works Director, such requirement shal 1 be stated on any permit issued by him or her pursuant to this ordinance. Subd. 10. Business Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. Only one business driveway shall be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City, or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32 feet at the property line, whichever is less in a business or industrial district. The curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 20 feet unless approved as part of a site plan. In a residential district, the curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet unless approved as part of the site plan. B. All business driveways and driveway approaches shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or equivalent material. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed outside of the public road right-of-way. c. Loading docks, ramps and vehicular entrances shall be located in such a manner that backing onto and maneuvering within the public road right-of-way is eliminated and in such a manner that driveways greater in width than that specified by this chapter shall not be required. ORONO CC 141-3 (7-25-88) \, § 6.05 D. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner in a business, commercial or industrial area, or within 100 feet of a corner in a residential district. E. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or a collector roadway and on all entrances to public roads within the City were deemed necessary by the Public Works Director based upon traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. Such requirements shall be stated on any permit issued by the Public Works Director pursuant to this ordinance. F. Driveways must be 10 feet from the side property line of a parcel of land except if driveway is shared by two parcels of land. Subd. 11. Maintenance and Removal. Every driveway approach or entrance to abutting property shall be maintained and kept in a safe condition by the owner of the abutting property or by the Homeowners' Association, and any such driveway approach which shall not be so maintained and kept in a safe condition or which shall interfere with or obstruct the drainage carried by the adjoining public road or interfere with or obstruct the use of the adjoining public road for purposes of travel shall be repaired to conform with the specifications of this ordinance and the City's requirements or it shall be removed by the owner of the abutting property or the Homeowners' Assocation. Upon removal of such driveway approach, that portion of the street or right-of-way occupied by the owner or Homeowners' Association shall be restored to its former condition and all curbing shall be replaced to its former condition by the owner or Homeowners 0 Association of the abutting property at their expense. If such removal and restoration is not accomplished within ten (10) days of the receipt by the abutting property owner of written notice of the City to remove the driveway approach and restore the public road, curbing and right-of-way to its former condition, the City shall remove the driveway approach and restore the public road, curbing and right-of-way and assess the cost of such removal and restoration against the abutting property. The property owner may appea 1 the order to remove and restore in the manner set forth in Section 6.05, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. Further time for removal and restoration may be authorized in writing by the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 141-4 (7-25-88) \, § 6.05 Subd. 12. Regulatory Signs. The City shall require the erection of regulatory signs adjacent to a driveway serving two or more parcels of land, at its intersection with a public road. The sign shall be purchased, erected and maintained by the property owner. If the property owner does not have the sign erected within a reasonable length of time, the City shall erect the sign and bill the property owner for all costs. Subd. 13. Specifications and Standards. All construction and reconstruction of roadway surfacing, sidewalk, driveway, driveway turnaround, curb and gutter improvements, including curb cuts and driveway approaches, shall be strictly in accordance with specifications and standards on file in the office of the City, and open to inspection and copying there. Such specifications and standards may be amended from time to time by the City, but shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 14. Inspection. The City shall inspect such improvements as deemed necessary or advisable. Any work not done according to the applicable specifications and standards shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work done hereunder may be stopped by the City if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the specifications and standards, but this shall not place a continuing burden upon the City to inspect or supervise such work. ORONO CC 141-5 Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 \. § 6.06 SEC. 6.06. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE ROADWAY SURFACING, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES OR CURB CUTS. Subd. 1. Methods of Procedure. Abutting or affected property owners may contract for, construct or reconstruct private roadway surfacing, sidewalk or curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, driveway approaches or curb cuts in accordance with this Section. Subd. 2. Requirement and Application for Permit. It is a misdemeanor to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway~ driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or any other private improvement in any private road or private property in the City without a permit in writing from the City. Application for such permit shall be made on forms approved and provided by the City and shall sufficiently describe the contemplated improvements, the contemplated date of beginning of work, and the length of time required to complete the same, provided that no permit shall be required for any such improvement ordered installed by the Counci 1. Such app 1 ica tion shall also contain information showing the type of constructionu the width and the location of an improvement on the parcel of land and the lot and block number or the parcel number and the street and house number and a profile of the proposed improvement, if necessary, and other such information as may be required by the Public Works Director. The application shall be filed by the property owners desiring to construct such a driveway approach, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvements in any private road or any property in the City, or by his or her duly authorized agent. All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant by this Chapter. A permit from the City shall not relieve the holder from damages to the person or property of another caused by such work. These regulations shall apply to all City, State, County and private roads. Subd. 3. Issuance of Permit. Such permit shall be issued by the Public Works Director, if he or she has determined that the applicant has complied with the terms of this ordinance, the permit fee hereinafter specified has been paid and the Public Works Director has approved the driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City as requested or with stipulated changes. The Public Works Director shall have the authority to refuse to issue a permit when, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, the requested construction would impose an unreasonable hazard to the public. Such decision may be appealed in writing by the applicant to the City Council. The City Council shall have the power to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 142 (7-25-88) \, § 6.06 Subd. 4. Permit Fees. The fees for permits for the construction of improvements as outlined above, shall be as set forth in the City's Fee Schedule which may be amended from time to time. Subd. 5. Revocation of Permit. A. Al 1 permits granted for the use of private property under the terms of this Ordinance shal 1 be revocable by the Public Works Director pursuant to the procedure set out below in Section 6.06, Subd. 6, "Authority of Public Works Director." B. In addition to the provisions of Section 6.06, Subd. 6, a permit may be revoked by the City Council and City shall have the right to revise, relocate or close any sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City as the result of the reconstruction of any road, a change in land use, or a major change in the traffic pattern of an existing land use. Subd. 6. Authority of Public Works Director. A. Al 1 work done under a permit issued in compliance with this Ordinance shall be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director, who is hereby authorized to make the necessary rules, regulations and specifications with respect to materials for and method of construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be kept on file with the City Clerk. A permit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance may be revoked by the Public Works Director when he or she determines that the construction or activity authorized by the permit is not being performed according to the terms of the permit or this Ordinance. B. Notice of such revocation, with a description of the facts supporting such revocation, shall be mailed or delivered to the person named in the permit at the address listed in the permit. C. All work shall cease upon receipt of the Notice of Revocation. D. Any person whose permit is revoked as set forth herein may appeal that revocation to the City Council by filing notice of such appea 1 with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date that the revocation was mailed or delivered. E. The appeal of such revocation shall be conducted according to the procedure set forth in Section 6. 0 6, Subd. 3 u "Issuance of Permit" herein. ORONO CC 143 (7-25-88) \, § 6.06 Subd. 7. Submission of Plans to Public Works Director. Any plans submitted to the Building Inspector for his or her approval, which include or involve a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, road- way surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City, shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Public Works Director for his or her approval before a building permit shall be issued. Subd. 8. Construction Requirements Generally. In addition to the rules, regulations and specifications as outlined by the Publc Works Director with respect to the improvements listed above, the following requirements shall be complied with when work is done under the provisions of this Ordinance. A. All driveway approaches shall intersect the private road pavement at an angle to be approved by the Public Works Director based upon the physical characteristics of the private road, driveway approach and the parcel of land being accessed. Such angle shall be as close as is reasonably practicalu in the judgement of the Public Worki Director, to a right angle to the pavement of the private road. B. No curb cuts shall be made in such a way that the curb return extends beyond any property line as projected, except when consented to, in writing, by the adjoining property owner involved. Said consent, if necessary, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a permit. C. The top of the paving of the driveway approach slab at the curb line shall be 1 5/8 inches above the flowline of the gutter, and shall not extend into the gutter beyond the face of the curb or beyond the gutter line, and shal 1 not be constructed in a manner that will in any way interfere with the use of the road for the purpose of travel or maintenance. The constructed private road shall not be excavated in the process of constructing the driveway unless previous approval, in writing, has been granted by the Public Works Director. D. Driveway culverts shall be provided and installed by the owner as required by the Public Works Director. E. Driveways shall not be constructed over curb stops, catch basins or other structures, if at all possible. If there is no other feasible location for the driveway, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to set the curb stop, catch basin cover, or any other structures flush with the final driveway surface. ORONO CC 143-1 (7-25-88) \. § 6.06 F. The owner and contractor sha 11 protect the public from injury or damage during the construction of the side- walk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turn- around, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City and any permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance sha 11 contain the agreement of the applicant that the City shall not be liable for damage which may arise from the result of work, and that the applicant will hold the City harmless for any liability incurred by the City as a result of such activity. G. Trees or shrubs shall not be placed adjacent to a driveway so as to constitute a~ distance problem • .s. 'o,Jtd- H. If a parcel of \'and has frontage on both a cul- de-sac portion and a "lead-in" portion of the private road, the driveway shall be constructed off the "lead-in" portion of the private road and not the cul-de-sac. Subd. 9. Resident Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the same private road provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one private road shall be allowed a driveway approach to one private road. B. Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line. C. The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single private road shall not exceed 20 feet. D. A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet. E. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner. ORONO CC 143-2 (7-25-88) \, § 6.06 F. For residences hereafter constructed, the driveway approach and that part of the driveway and turnarounds which drain to the private road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the City's Public Works Director that an existing driveway and/or driveway approach is causing a maintenance problem on the private road, including, but not limited to, the washing of dirt and gravel into the private road, the Public Works Director shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed from the driveway up to the private right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to reduce paving otherwise required by performance standards in the Zoning Code or required as a condition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved site plan. G. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or collector roadway as determined in the Comprehensive Plan, and on all entrances to private roads within the City where deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a tunaround is required by the Public Works Director, such requirement shall be stated on any permit issued by him or her pursuant to this ordinance. Subd. 10. Business Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. Only one business driveway shall be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City, or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32 feet at the property line, whichever is less in a business or industrial district. The curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 20 feet unless approved as part of a site plan. In a residential district, the curb cut shal 1 not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet unless approved as part of the site plan. B. All business driveways and driveway approaches shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or equivalent material. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed outside of the private road right-of-way. C. Loading docks, ramps and vehicular entrances shall be located in such a manner that backing onto and maneuvering within the private road right-of-way is eliminated and in such a manner that driveways greater in width than that specified by this chapter shall not be required. ORONO CC 143-3 (7-25-88) § 6.06 D. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return sha 11 be constructed within 1 O O feet of a corner in a business, commercial or industrial area, or within 100 feet of a corner in a residential district. E. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or a collector roadway and on all entrances to private roads within the City were deemed necessary by the Public Works Director based upon traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. Such requirements shall be stated on any permit issued by the Public Works Director pursuant to ths ordinance. F. Driveways must be 10 feet from the side property line of a parcel of land except if driveway is shared by two parcels of land. Subd. 11. Maintenance and Removal. Every driveway approach or entrance to abutting property shall be maintained and kept in a safe condition by the owner of the abutting property or by the Homeowners' Association, and any such driveway approach which shall not be so maintained and kept in a safe condition or which shall interfere with or obstruct the drainage carried by the adjoining private road or interfere with or obstruct the use of the adjoining private road for purposes of travel shall be repaired to conform with the specifications of this ordinance and the City's requirements, or it shall be removed by the owner of the abutting property or the Homeowners' Association. Upon removal of such driveway approach, that portion of the private road or right-of-way occupied by the owner or Homeowners 1 Assocation shall be restored to its former condition and all curbing shall be replaced to its former condition by the owner or Homeowners' Association of the abutting property, at their expense 0 If such removal and restoration is not accomplished within ten (10) days of the receipt by the abutting property owner of written notice of the City to remove the driveway approach and restore the street, curbing and right-of-way to its former condition, the City sha 11 remove. the driveway approach and restore the private road, curbing and right-of-way and assess the cost of such removal and restoration against the abutting property. The property owner may appeal the order to remove and restore in the manner set forth in Section 6.06, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. Further time for removal and restoration may be authorized in writing by the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 143-4 (7-25-88) \. § 6.06 Subd. 12. Regulatory Signs. City shall require the erection of regulatory signs adjacent to the driveway serving two or more parcels of land, at its intersection with a private road. The sign shall be purchased, erected and maintained by the property owner. If the property owner does not have the sign erected within a reasonable length of time, the City shall erect the sign and bill the property owner for all costs. Subd. 13. Specifications and Standards. All construction and reconstruction of roadway surfacing, sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter improvements, including curb cuts and driveway approaches, and driveway turnarounds, shall be strictly in accordance with specifications and standards on file in the office of the City, and open to inspection and copying there. Such specifications and standards may be amended from time to time by the City, but shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 14. Inspection. The City shall inspect such improvements as deemed necessary or advisable. Any work not done according to the applicable specifications and standards shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work done hereunder may be stopped by the City if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the specifications and standards, but this shal 1 not place a continuing burden upon the City to inspect or supervise such work. ORONO CC 143-5 Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 (7-25-88) \, § 6.07 SEC. 6.07. OBSTRUCTIONS IN STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS. Subd. 1. Obstructions. It is a misdemeanor for any Tl person to place, deposit, display or offer for sale, any fence, goods or other obstructions upon, over, across or under any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit from {)! the City, and then only in compliance in all respects with the ~\ f/ terms and conditions of such permit, and taking precautionary/\. measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or - device of any kind is hereby included, but not by way of J' limitation, within the definition of an obstruction. --l,._ I Subd. 2. Fires. It is a misdemeanor for any person to 7~;~ build or maintain a fire upon a street or private road. __!--- Subd. 3. Dumping in Streets or Private Roads. It is a misdemeanor for any person to throw or deposit in any street or private road any nails, dirt, glass or glassware, cans, discarded cloth or clothing, metal scraps, garbage, leaves, grass or tree limbs, paper or paper products, shreds or rubbish, oil, grease or other petroleum products, or to empty any water containing salt or other injurious chemical thereon. It is a violation of this Section to haul any such material, inadequately enclosed or covered, thereby permitting the same to fall upon streets or private road. It is also a violation of this Section to place or store any building materials or waste resulting from building construction or demolition on any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit from the City. The building permi ttee sha 11 remove a 11 construction or demolition waste, or soil washed or tracked into any street. ------, Subd. 4. Signs and Other Structures. It is a · \ mis demeanor for any person to p 1 ace or maintain a sign , ,"\'} , \; advertisement, or other structure in any street or the right-of-way \i\ of any private road. c·~ .~ Subd. 5. Placing Snow or Ice in a Roadway. It is a 1 { misdemeanor for any person, not acting under a specific contract .\·•i) \1, with the City or without special permission from the City, to/\1 remove snow or ice from private property and place the same in the 1 roadway of any street or private road. --1-- ORONO CC 144 (4-1-84) \, § 6.08 SEC. 6.08. PARADES AND SPECIAL EVENTS. Subd. 1. Definition. For the purpose of this Section, certain terms shall have the following meanings: A. "Parade" means any movement of vehicles, persons or animals, or any combination thereof, which either moves together and as a body so as to impede or affect the free and unobstructed flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or which moves so that some part thereof is in violation of one or more traffic laws or regulations. B. "Special event" means any marathon run, block party, fishing contest, parachute jump, hot-air balloon event, carnival, or any other activity or event which in some way impedes or affects the free and unobstructed flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, generates parking needs for more than 20 vehicles off site at any one time on residential streets, not including a public access to Lake Minnetonka, or requires the posting of "No Parking" signs to maintain compliance with traffic laws and regulations. Subd. 2. Permit Required. A permit shall be obtained from the City by any person, corporation, or other entity who will be holding or sponsoring a parade or special event. Application for such permit shall be made to the City at least sixty (60) days in advance of the date on which the parade or specia 1 event is to occur unless waived by the Council. The applicant shall fill out a form provided by the City, stating the sponsoring organization or individual, the route or location, the time of commencement, termination and the general composition. The application shall be executed by the individual applying therefor or the duly authorized agent or representative of the sponsoring organization. The permit requirements set forth in this section apply in addition to any licensing requirements set forth in Section 5.25 of this ordinanceo Subd. 3. Investigation. The City shall forthwith refer all applications for parades and special events to the Police Chief for the Chief's consideration. The Police Chief shall review each application within ten (10) days. If an application involves State trunk highways, the Police Chief shall make necessary arrangements with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for alternate routes or whatever may be necessary. If the Police Chief finds that such a parade or event will not cause a hazard to persons or propertyu and will cause no great inconvenience to the public, and if the Chief is able to make arrangements for necessary direction and control of traffic, the Chief shall sign the application and return the application to the City Clerk. If the Police Chief finds the parade or special event described in the application to be a hazard, a substantial inconvenience, or if the Chief is unable to make adequate arrangements for direction or control of traffic, the Chief shall return the same to the City Clerk with appropriate findings set forth in writing. ORONO CC 145 (3-10-86) \, § 6.08 Subd. 4. Council Action. The City Clerk shall refer the application and results of investigation to the Council at its next regu 1 ar meeting. The Counci 1 may either ( 1) deny the permit, ( 2) grant the permit, or (3) grant the permit on condition that an alternate date, time or route are acceptable to applicant. Applicant shall have three (3) days within which to communicate his acceptance to the City Clerk. Subd. 5. Unlawful Acts. A. It is unlawful for any person to hamper, obstruct, or impede or interfere with any parade, parade assembly, special event or any person, animal or vehicle participating in the parade or special event. B. It is unlawful for any person to drive a vehicle between the vehicles or persons comprising a parade or special event when such parade or special event is in motion, except by direction of police officers directing traffic. C. It is unlawful for any person to enter into a parade or special event without prior authorization from the person in charge of the event. Subd. 6. Removal of Obstructions of Traffic. In any case where vehicles or parking by an activity ·obstructs traffic, regardless of whether or not the activity required a permit, a Police Officer shall warn the property owner and/or the person in charge of the event, that the cars must be moved by a certain time. If the vehicles are not moved in accordance with the Officer's request, the Officer may ticket that person and all the cars that constitute the traffic hazard. Vehicles that constitute a hazard may be towed at the owner's expense if so ordered by the Police Officer. Subd. 7. Exceptions. The following are not required to apply for permits: (1) funeral processions: (2) a governmental agency acting within the scope of its functions: (3) an occasional private party that is held on private residential lots. Subq.. 8. Payment of Expenses. The applicant shal 1 pay all extraordinary expense incurred by the City for police and enforcement of this Section and the City may, as a condition of a!;lproval of the permit, require that the applicant deposit money with the City in a sum equal to the estimated expenses to be incurred by the City. Subd. 9. Permit Fees. All permits provided for in this Section shal 1 be issued only upon payment in ful 1 of permit fees and other costs fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. ORONO CC 145-1 Ordinance 22, 2nd Series Adopted: 3-10-86 \, § 6.09 SEC. 6.09. REGULATION OF GRASSr WEEDS AND TREES IN STREETS. Subd. 1. City to Control Tree Planting (Standards). The City shall have control and supervision of planting shrubs and trees upon, or overhanging, all streets or other public property. The City may establish and enforce uniform standards relating to the species and types of trees to be planted, placement and the maintenance and removal thereof. Such standards shall be kept on file in the office of the City Administrator and may be revised from time to time by action of the Council upon the recommendation of the Public Works Coordinator. Subd. 2. Permit to Plant or Remove Trees. It is a misdemeanor for any person to plant or remove any tree upon or overhanging streets, without first procuring from the City a permit in writing to do so. Subd. 3. Duty of Property Owners to Cut Grass and Weeds and Maintain Trees and Shrubs. Every owner of property abutting on any street shall cause the grass and weeds to be cut from the line of such property nearest to such street to the center of such street. If the grass or weeds in such a place attain a height in excess of six (6) inches it shall be prima facie evidence of a failure to comply with this Subdivision. Every owner of property abutting on any street shall, subject to the provision herein requiring a permit therefor, trim, cut, remove, and otherwise maintain all trees and shrubs in unhazardous and healthy condition, from the line of such property nearest to such street to the center thereof. Subd. 4. City May Order Work Done. The City may in cases of failure to comply with this Section, perform such workv keeping an accurate account of the cost thereof for each lot, piece or parcel of land abutting upon such street. Subd. 5. Assessment. If maintenance work described in the foregoing Subdivision is performed by the City, the City Clerk shall forthwith upon completion thereof ascertain the cost attri- butable to each lot, piece or parcel of abutting land. The City Clerk shall send a statement to the abutting property owner and if the amount thereof remains unpaid for fifteen (15) days, present a certificate thereof to the Council and obtain its approval thereof. When such certificate has been approved it shall be extended as to the cost therein stated as a special assessment against such abutt- ing land and such special assessment shall, at the time of certi- fying taxes to the County Auditor, be certified for collection as other special assessments are certified and collected. ORONO CC 146 (4-1-84) \. § 6.10 SEC. 6.10. LIMITING TIME OF RAILWAY-STREET CROSSING OBSTRUCTION. It is a misdemeanor for any person operating or in charge of a railroad train, car, engine, locomotive, or other railroad equipment, or combination thereof, to so operate, park or leave the same standing upon the railroad at its intersection with a street, so as to prevent unobstructed vehicular traffic on such street for a period longer than five (5) minutes, without prior approval of the City. SEC. 6.11. LOAD LIMITS. The Council may from time to time impose upon vehicular traffic on any part or all of the streets such load limits as may be necessary or desirable. Such limits, and the specific extent or weight to which loads are limited, shall be clearly and legibly sign-posted thereon. It is a misdemeanor for any person to operate a vehicle on any street in violation of the limitation so posted. SEC. 6.12. CURB AND GUTTER, STREET AND SIDEWALK PAINTING OR7,, COLORING. It is unlawful for any person to paint, letter or color . any street, sidewalk or curb and gutter for advertising purposes, ; or to paint or color any street, sidewalk or curb and gutter for \ii\ any purpose, except as the same may be done by City employees ,\'JI acting within the course or scope of their employment. Provided, ~{ however, that this provision shall not apply to uniformly coloring'\, concrete or other surfacing, or uniformly painted house numbers, as J such coloring may be approved by the City. --1---:, ORONO CC 147 (4-1-84) \. § 6.10 SEC. 6.13. PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS AND PARKING LOTS. Subd. 1. It is a misdemeanor for any person other than the City to in any way attempt to regulate public parking on public streets. Subd. 2. Authority, Permission and Procedure. Upon an application duly made to the City, the Council may in its discretion, grant special permission whereby on-street parking or the use of City-owned parking lots or ramps or public sidewalks may be temporarily or permanently prohibited or restricted for private reasons and purposes (including, but not limited to, establishment of private or "leased" parking, "loading zones", or benches) at such places, on such terms and for such consideration as the Council may deem just and equitable. In establishing the amount of such consideration to be paid to the City, the Counci 1 sha 11 consider the amount of space, location thereof, if any, public inconvenience, and hazards to persons or property. Upon complaint of any aggrieved person at any time and by reason of any specific special permission so granted, the Council shall at its next regular meeting after receipt of such complaint, call a hearing thereon to be held after ten days' notice in writing to applicant and complainant and published notice at ~east ten days prior to such hearing. After such hearing the Council shall by resolution decide whether to terminate, continue or redefine the terms bf such permission and such decision shall be final and binding on all persons directly or indirectly interested therein, except that the Council may, on its own motion, reconsider the same. Subd. 3. Forbidden Practices. It is unlawful for any person to park or otherwise infringe upon a grant of right under this Section, when c 1 ear 1 y and distinct 1 y marked or sign-posted. It is unlawful for any person not granted such right to assert the same, or for any grantee of such right to exceed the same under claim thereto. Subd. 4. Condition. Before granting any permit under any of the provisions of this Section, the Council may impose such insurance or bonding conditions thereon as it, considering the projected danger to public or private property or to persons, deems proper for safeguarding such persons and property. Such insurance or bond shall also protect the City from any suit, action or cause of action arising by reason thereof. ORONO CC 148 (4-1-84) \, § 6.14 SEC. 6.14. MOTORIZED VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a motorized vehicle on any public sidewalk or public property desig- nated for use as a pedestrian walkway or bicycle trail, except when crossing the same for ingress and egress to private property lying on the other side thereof, and for the purpose of snow removal. SEC. 6.15. STREET OPENINGS OR EXCAVATIONS. It is a misdemeanor for any person, except a City employee acting within the course and scope of his employment or a contractor acting within the course and scope of a contract with the City, to make any excavation, opening or tunnel in, over, across or upon a public street or other public property without first having obtained a written permit from the City as herein provided. Subd. 1. Application. Application for a permit to make a street excavation shall describe with reasonable particularity the name and address of the applicant, the place, purpose and size of the excavation, and such other information as may be necessary or desirable to facilitate the investigation hereinafter provided for, and shall be filed with the City. Subd. 2. Investigation and Payment of Estimated Costs~ Upon receipt of such application, the City shall cause such inves- tigation to be made as he may deem necessary to determine estimated cost of repair, such as back-filling, compacting, resurfacing and replacement, and the conditions as to the time of commencement of work, manner of procedure and time limitation upon such excavation. The foregoing estimated costs shall include permanent and temporary repairs due to weather or other conditions, and the cost of such investigation shall be included in such estimate. Subd. 3. Protection of the City and the Public. A. Barricades, Warning Signs and Lights. Barricades, warning signs and warning lights on al 1 street excavations shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Traffic Control Service Manual. B. Non-Completion or Abandonment. Work shall progress expeditious 1 y to completion in accordance with any time limitation placed thereon so as to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the public. In the event that work is not performed in accor- dance therewith, or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause, the City may, after six hours notice in writing to the holder of the permit of its intention to do so, correct the work, fill the excavation and repair the public property, and the cost thereof shal 1 be paid by the person holding the permit. C. Insurance. Prior to commencement of the work described in the application, the applicant shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence in writing that the applicant will keep in effect public liability insurance of not less than $100,000.00 for ORONO CC 149 \, (4-1-84) § 6.15 any person, $300,000.00 for any occurrence and property damage insurance of not less than $25,000.00, issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota on which the City is named as a co-insured. D. Indemnification. Before issuance of a permit, the applicant shall, in writing, agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability for injury or damage arising out of the action of the applicant in performance of the work, or any expense whatsoever incurred by the City incident to a claim or action brought or commenced by any person arising therefrom. Subd. 4. Issuance of Permit. The City shall issue such permit after (1) completion of such investigation, (2) payment by the applicant in advance of all estimated costs as aforesaid; (3) agreement by the applicant to the conditions of time and manner as aforesaid; (4) agreement in writing by the applicant to pay all actual cost of repairs over and above such estimate, including cost of such investigation, and, (5) agreement in writing . by the applicant to be bound by all of the provisions of this Section. Subd. 5. Repairs. All temporary and permanent repairsu including back-filling, compacting and resurfacing shall be madeu or contracted for, by the City in a manner prescribed by the City and an accurate account of costs thereof shall be kept. Subd. 6. Cost Adjustment. Within sixty days following completion of such permanent repairs the City shall determine actual costs of repairs, including cost of investigation, and prepare and furnish to such permit holder an itemized statement thereof and claim additional payment from, or make refund (without interest) to, the permit holder, as the case may be. Subd. 7. Alternate Method of Charging. In lieu of the above provisions relating to cost and cost adjustment for street openings, the City may charge on the basis of surf ace square feet removed, excavated cubic feet, or a combination of surface square feet and excavated cubic feet, on an established unit price uniformly charged, and adopted pursuant to City Code Section 1.05. SEC. 6.16. PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. ~ Subd. 1. Primary Responsibility. It is the primar~ 1 responsibility of the owner of property upon which there is abutting any public sidewalk to keep and maintain such sidewalk in safe and serviceable condition. Subd. 2. Construction, Reconstruction and Repair Specifications. All construction, reconstruction or repair of public sidewalks shall be done in strict accordance with specifications on file in the City offices. \, ORONO CC 150 (4-1-84) J § 6.16 Subd. 3. Notice -No Emergency. Where, in the opinion of the City Administrator, no emergency exists, notice of the required repair or reconstruction shall be given to the owner of the abutting property. Such notice shall require completion of the work within ninety (90) days, and shall be mailed to the owner or owners shown to be such on the records of the County Officer who mails tax statements. Subd. 4. Not ice -Emergency. Where, in the opinion of the City Administrator, an emergency exists, notice of the required repair or reconstruction shall be given to the owner of the abutting property. Such notice shall require completion of the work within ten (10) days, and shall be mailed to the owner or owners shown to be such on the records of the County Officer who mails tax statements. Subd. 5. Failure of Owner to Reconstruct or Make Repairs. If the owner of the abutting property fails to make repairs or accomplish reconstruction as herein required, the City Administrator shall report such failure to th~ Council and the Council may order such work to be done under its direction and the cost thereof assessed to the abutting property owner as any other special assessment. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.17 through 6.29, inclusive, reserved for future exp ans ion.) \, ORONO CC 151 ( ~-1-84) § 6.30 SEC. 6.30. BICYCLE REGULATION. Subd. 1. Definition. The term "bicycle", as used in this Section, means every device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is over fourteen (14} inches in diameter, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or rear wheels. Subd. 2. Registration Required. It is unlawful for any person to ride or operate a bicycle not registered with the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety upon any street, sidewalk or other public property. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.31 through 6.39, inclusive, reserved for future exp ans ion.) \, ORONO CC 152 (4-1-84} § 6.40 SEC. 6.40. NUMBERING OF HOUSES AND BUILDINGS. Subd. 1. Duty of Owner or Occupant. The owner or occupant of every occupied property and every house or other building shall place on such building the proper street number for such building, either by painting or affixing such number so that the number shall be clearly visible from the sidewalk or street. A. Where the house is not visible from the street or private road, or is located more than 300 feet from such street or road, an additional set of numbers shall be placed on a sign at the driveway apron with numbers visible in both directions of travel on the street. B. Where more than one house is served by the same private driveway or unnamed private road, additional sets of numbers shall be placed at every fork or other driveway as necessary to direct traffic to every house including the house farthest from the street. c. Numbers placed on mailboxes are insufficient to satisfy the provisions of this Subdivision except when mailbox stands on subject property, not across a public street, and not in a group of mailboxes more than one in number. D. The minimum si~e for numbers shall be three inches. E. Numbers shall be reflective or of color contrasting with background. Subd. 2. Assignment of Numbers. The City shall assign numbers in accordance with the standard plan adopted by the City and shall approve and assign all street names by action of the Council. Subd. 3. Unlawful Act. It is a misdemeanor for any person to fail to comply with the provisions of Subdivision 1, or to post numbers other than the correct City-assigned numbers. If the property owner fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, the City may erect a sign adjacent to the street on which the number is stated or affixed, and upon completion thereof, ascertain the cost and certify the same to the County Auditor to be collected as any other special assessment. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 6.41 through 6.44, inclusive, reserved for future expansion. ) ORONO CC 153 (4-1-84) \. ..., ··1 f j t 1 i t \ t~ \ l ,, f l ' t l I /, l f § 6.45 SEC. 6.45. The Council hereby exercises its dedicated easement and declares the following described easements as public streets: Subd. 1. Wear Circle. Outlet A, Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition. Subd. 2. Wear Lane North. Meadows 2nd Addition~ Outlets A and B, Rolling Ordinance 92, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-91 (Sections 6.46 through 6.98, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 153-1 (1-28-91) \. § 6.99 SEC. 6.99. VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR OR PETTY MISDEMEANOR. Every person violates a section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this Chapter when he performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as follows: Subd. 1. Where the specific section, subdivision, paragraph or provision specifically makes violation a misdemeanor, he shall be punished as for a misdemeanor; where a violation is committed in a manner or under circumstances so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, he shall be punished as for a misdemeanor; where he stands convicted of violation of any provision of this Chapter, exclusive of violations relating to the standing or parking of an unattended vehicle, within the immediate preceding 12-month period for the third or subsequent time, he shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. As to any violation not constituting a misdemeanor under the provisions of Subdivision 1 hereof, he shall be punished as for a petty misdemeanor. ORONO CC Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 154 \, (4-1-84) (Pages 155 through 164 reserved) \, ORONO CC ( 4-1-84) JUL 21 2003 4:11 PM FR HINSHAW & CULBERTSON334 8888 TO 4707"754868"9522 P.02 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON D5LUWILLE. ILLINOIS CHAMPA.ION, ILUNOIS CtllCAGO, ILLl?'IOIS CP.YS'l'AL Lt\Kll. lLLINOIS JOtlliT, ILLTNOIS LISLE. ILLIJIIOIS PEOR.IA.11..LINOIS ROCKFORD, ILI.TNOIS SPRJNOl'IELD, ILl.11'1O15 W/1.IJKEOAl'l. ILLIJIIOIS PH0£NllC. ARIZONA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 South Nintl1 Street Suite: 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota S5402 612-333-3434 Facsimile 612-334-8888 www.hinshawculbertson.com T8arrett@hinshawlaw.com July 21, 2003 Via Facsimile (952-545-1793) and U.S. Mail Richard J. Schieffer 5881 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Re: Charles E. Van Eeckhout, et al. v. Mary Ann Dunn, et alia, Fourth Judicial District Case Number TQ31531 Dear Mr. Schieffer: I.OS ANOELB5, CALll'ORNIA S/1.N FRANCISCO, CALlFOltNIA FT. LAUDl!llDAl.!. FLONl:IA IACKSONVtLLE, 'Ft.OIUDA MIAMI, fLOlUDA TAMPA, fLOR!DA SCHER!IWJLLS, INDIANA MINN!ZAPOLIS, MINNtiSOIA NEW VORK, NBW YOR!C ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI APl't.iTON, WISCONSIN l\lllLWA\TKEB, WISCONS!N This letter will serve, as we agreed, as a motion to quash the subpoena which was served on Michael Gaffron, Director of Planning for the City of Orono. The motion is made pursuant to Rule 45.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. It will be presented to the Special Master who presides at this hearing on the morning of the hearing. The subpoena duces tecum, attached to this letter motion, requires Mr. Gaffron to attend a hearing on July 23, 2003 and commands him to produce the following items, records or documents: Records or files containing examples of private driveways serving three or more building sites or dwelling units in which the City of Orono did not obtain an easement for road purposes. No more than 10 examples need be provided. As we discussed, the City will move to quash this subpoena at the hearing on this matter set at 9:00 a.m. in Room A-702 of the Hennepin County Government Center. The bases upon which this subpoena should be quashed are the following: 1. The subpoena is untimely. Mr. Gaffron is now in the middle of the City's summer construction process 1 his office is short two planners, and he is effectively doing the work of three people. The subpoena duces te~um was served in the morning of July 21, 2003, 12 I071G68v\ 0J6 JUL 21 ~003 4:11 PM FR HINSHAW & CULBERTSON334 8888 TO 4707~754868~9522 P.03 Richard J. Schieffer Page2 July 21, 2003 less than forty-eight hours before the demanded appearance of the witness and the documents. Mr. Gaffron cannot complete the task your subpoena demands within the time limits set forth. 2. Mr. Gaffron has no special or privileged access to the research which your subpoena has demanded. As we discussed. the files and records of the City of Orono are public documents, and you yourself are free to come to the City and to research the documents in order to discover the "examples" which your subpoena seeks. 3. Mr. Gaffron and his employer, the City of Orono, are not parties to the above named litigation, and as such have no duty under any applicable Civil Rules to provide discovery documents to you or your client. If Mr. Gaffron is required to do the research commanded by the subpoena) and to testify about it, either he or his employer, the City of Orono, is entitled to reasonable compensation for the time spent by Mr. Gaffron in compiling the requested data. See-Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure, 45.06. Moreover, the decision whether the City of Orono or Mr. Gaffron is entitled to an award of expenses is not discretionary. Reasonable expenses must be paid as a matter of law. Bowman v. Bowman, 493 N.W. 2d 141 (Ct. of Appeals: 1992). Accordingly, Mr. Gaffron will not complete the work or document identification and selection commanded by your subpoena, and will seek from the Special Master an award of reasonable compensation, if the Special Master requires hini to further respond to the subpoena. Attachment l210776G~vl 026 JUL 21 2003 4:11 PM FR HINSHAW~ CULBERTSON334 8888 TO 4707tt754868tt9522 P.04 ·ju-i-21-2003 ·10:25am From-t:IIY Ur UKUNU ........ M••· · ,._, '-' ..,_ ..... ,. '-.L;■ I J. .. ,J.. .I. ~~; Sllbp,;,,n:i. (Cril'l\lfl:l~,.c:M!,.0epg;l~ion, p11ceS:l!~.11~. ··~ ·.~:: . --"" ·coRDEil, TO AP:PEAB) . ,_ .......... , .•.. -, .... ·-::1:· :--·-:-.-:·-... -•. ••M,S.Si>7,22 & ,21 ... • ' -........... -·· . '•. , ..... , .. . .... ,........ : . ,.. • • '"J••~ . ""· .... ' • Sta··~-t--e··o:r Minnes··-01a· ·-··-· .. ·:.·~ :~· .... ·.:·. ~ .. r·' 'Distrlcf 'Court'.'.:·----~· .. -. ::-·~.::~:~~ ···:···--··;-·· .. ;;;-· .,,,, 11,1 11 '''-' , .. \,,. ,, • ,, ,,,.::::1 •. '"I,'••.(,,'\ ,-,f,•., ,,,,~,J•, , , 111 \ '"• 1./; ,• ••• • '1 I•!., I\ l~!C:11111111.'•:.;. t, ..•. .!l· .. .:i· ... ~.-•• :; •• \'!: .• ·. :.··.,:;· ·1-' ., .. 'i":I l:,J11dlt:J.o.lD141d~I ?t::!·,',;•· ·,••,:•' .. :·-~m·c, .-1G}.·1CncNo .. =-==1 . ·H . ... ··.,.county . · ,,., ... : .. , · .. · ,I •• • •• • • • ' ..:... .... '., ·Fo'urth n1·s-h-ict .•. ~-....... , · ~ r:.~, r:::-2 , ~ ·, ennepm J .r,1-1-• .. ,,,., ... • · ... ~,;•,· ... , .. i:,, .... u. ...,., ••.~··' i: ..... , ·Q -::::J~-:) ·; -PUl?iTIFF---·. -, .. ,., ----···--·----· ••.. ~~':-•-•m• ........ ··-· . .., : • ", 'c, ::'f ,;t,1 f-• 1,,t~'h,.i , ,, •.• .,. :• .... ,i.,•·-· ': .... •,\•·•· .. Charles ·E~·. Van·rEe'c;kho"u.tr·et: ·a.1;>:-.;.;. . ' .. V•• . . . ...... ) :. ~' "II '!' ... ,~ .-.,,,,,.. ... ' WITNESS.,. ,., ., :~.: •' c.: .... ,, , ......... ,; ., : :-:.·· ., ..-• •• .,:" •J~ .._. : ' 1 .,~ ,.l\,,, .... : □ ... ;. ' .. ,. -·~. )(' .. ··:::~·.· :•• -.. ~.--..... . DEPOSITION "· · .... , !.;:•: .. • -: , .. · . \ .. , .. ,.".!, ,·. ,, • ·•.t. · · . . ., ,. Michael Gaff rori · · ••·• · ··• .. · IP ,_.,,.,_ -• ••-♦1,a,.., .. , ........ 1,,_..,,..,,_,,,. •••• ... ••'i•~ ,-•••-I ... .,. •• ' ••• -... ,., •• I •1 1~•·· • • • • ~•: , • NOTE: Rule -iS,04 of Rules ot CMl Procedure req\l~ proof o! S4!rvice or notice to tak'e e:aeposition prior to issuing a. $1.lbpoens for a deposition. ,. NA.'1~ ··2750 Kelley Ps:d:sm.~i-·._.•_·_....,.._~__,..,,_ __ i' ~ .-.DJl1''£S, , "' , ' , .:· t {: •·, ,, ~ . ' ,f • ••""•' ~ 'f c, , , ; f !It I ' 1------_,.;, ____________ ":'.'~--:,-.-----1 Orono :~ I. i \ ,' •• MN r::7 .. ~· ... : \ .. ' • '~.i oucEs Ti6ut .c .... ·:. \'ou ate hereby comma.ttclQQ to' app.e;tt· as a witne~s to givo· ~eatirnoey ~XI You are commanded to produee thefoll~~g item;, recor~ or d~cumentS: the d.a.te, time and place indicated below, ll.nd from time to time th&resfter n d . ~~co_r.s or f_iles_contain.in,g.exa.~_ples. of as m:iY be required, ·· ·• 1 ..._ ___ :....._.-_......;·~•·..;.·.:...· ____ ..;.... _______ ~ pr vate driveways· serving threa or more ... DAte July 23. 2003 Building sites or, dwelling unitji'in ~hichl. 1-----. -1-------------------1 the City of Orono· did not:·· obtain· an· ·e.a.sement: .,._,,~,...,~:-~&...,_'.,,.._ '"'!',.~.~ ••• ...,.:.:....·~.~::~.~~=-,-~~-~-._a-,-~-~~-•-----:-.. :-:-.,,,:':" .... -. -:-:-:-.. -:-,-.-::,_::-: .. ~-'.'-:-.·-1 fOrdrbo.'7~ ~urpods.es •.. ~~ Mor~ .t.?a!:~ 10_ :~xsmpl~s AI>DREss .. · nee e provi ed. . .• · Roo'm •A..;702 . :· ' · ·. .. ·•:·~ .. / ·t .:,·::· ·., . r •· · ~: · . ·. ·, · , . , · :: : 1 •! ·• • · ··'; ... _. • .... ' •. f . ·, .Hennep;n :County. Gov'eptunen.t ·-cent:e I:' · ·. i .-· · ◄ ' • · .• : : • .• , -~, .,, •· 300 south Si.:.c1:h Street: • •· ·• · Minneapolis, MN 55487 .. . ... ··:. :,:·,~ .. ,, .· .. /' ,. . . . , • 1, -~ 't'YPE: Ot CASE Person requemni: ~ubpoen11 . • !111 PL\ll'ITIF,:0. □ ~EE'!NDA~T .. ~ CIVIL O C~~l!Nt.L NA.\fE • Richard JJ 6e}ieffe~ UPON RECJ21PT OP 'l'HlS SUB}'OtNA. PLEA.St! CALL: ·. .-c,si~ ·5'f<&'.~9ew .,-. .. ,, ,• ,~ ... .,. ··'. ' , . .. I: 1 0 scru:.ot..11.r.).11~HBD. ····-.. ' -...::....::. .• ' · ·:~1~!1 ,-·," ...... ··I"''\ • ·,' · · CIVIL Cou ... ~•se p .. i •• •••••-••••...,,., • ., • • •vL".f •r.irot.)"'~"' • ••' • •• ••• ' •••••• "•••••••• • ' "" .. v; • ni,,Y_, <'• ~••"• • •• ·' ·· .. ,, •••• J •• . ... •.. ... .• . ... -~:: ~ .. ::~ ;,.~,.:->~··:~'; ! • , • .__ ' f I• I I' , •••• • I,' " Court Aclminl£uator ·· Depucy '., .,,, .. , .. ,, .. /' , ... ,, ...... . RETU~NEO'~D'FILED _ .. _·_·~--~-------------20 __:;By...,..-·· ____ ,_.-----------·_ .. _ .. WITNESS COPY JUL 21 4003 4:12 PM FR HINSHAW & CULBERTSON334 8888 TO 4707"754868"9522 P.05 Richard J. Schieffer Page3 July 21, 2003 bee: Michael Gaffron -City of Orono 12107766M 026 JUL 21 2003 4:11 PM FR HINSHAW & CULBERTSON334 8888 TO 4707ij754868ij9522 P.01 BEI,U\VII.LI!, ll.LlNOJS CHAMPAIGJll, ILLlNOIS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS CRYSTAL LAKE. ILLINOlS 10l.t£T, lLLINOlS LISUi. lLl,fNQlS PEORIA, ILLINOIS ROCKFOI\D, ILLINOlS SPlt.lNOPll1.LD, ILLINO)S WAUKEGAN, ltLINOIS PHOENIX, A'R.120\IIA 'J'O: Michael Gaffron HINSHAW & CULBERTSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW Campbell Mithun Tower 222 South Ninth Street Suite 3100 Minneapolist MN 55402 612-333-3434 Facsimile 612-334-8888 www.hinshawculbertson.com TBarrett@hinshawlaw.com FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY COMPANY: City of Orono FAXNO.: 952-249-4616 LOS ANGIi.LBS, CALlFO!tNIA SAN fMNCJSCO, CALIFORNIA FT. LAUDEROALE. l'LORlDA IACKSONVILLS. PLORIDA MIAMI, FLOJUJ)A TAMPA, FLOlUDA SCHERERYILU!, INDIANA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA ST. LOUIS, MISSOl!Rl NEW YORK, NEW YORK Al'PLtl'ON, WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN l>HONENO.: :OATE: July 21, 2003 FROM: Thomas J. Barrett MATTER NAME: Charles E. Van Eeckhout USERID 1293 MATTER NO.: 754868 NO, OF PAGES (including this Cover): ~ ( SENDING OPERATOR: RETURN TO: (other than above) K. Milne --------------------------181 Sent by Office Services: 612-334-2721 D Sent by COMMENTS, IF ANY: HARD COPY: D Will follow by mail D Will follow by overnight mail ~ Will not follow If you do not receive the number of pages listed above, please call the number indicated above. The documents that accompany this facsimile contain confidential 11nd privilei:ed Information and are intended solely for the use or t11e Individual or en1i1y to whom this transmission is directed. Any djsclosure or the inCorm11tion hereh1 is unniul1orlzed and strictly prohibik:d. If you nre not Ille Intended recipient or this facsimile, please respond by facsimile to the number above or call the sending operator at our expense hnmedlately so that we may arrange for the return ofthis document to us at no cost to you. Thank you, Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 . FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 7-ZZ-03 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE _---==.-___ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. .. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600 . ROAD AND UTILITIES EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this __ day of ________ , 20 __ , by and between --------------------------------- hereinafter referred to as "Grantor(s)", and the City of Orono, a municipal corporation, under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee". WITNESSETH, that Grantor(s), in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and for other good and valuable consideration given by Grantee, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Gran tor( s ), do( es) hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for public ingress, egress, access, road and utilities purposes and uses, on, across and under the land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, as follows: including, but not by way of limitation, a full and free right and authority to enter upon said land to construct, install, maintain, operate and repair a sanitary sewer interceptor, lift station, main or line, a water main or line, gravel or paved road and any and all appurtenances, including drainage control structures, incidental and related thereto, (such are hereafter collectively referred to as the Improvement), and the Grantee shall have the right to make such use of said land as is reasonably necessary and advisable to the construction installation, maintenance, operation and repair of the Improvement. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. TO HA VE AND TO HOLD said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, permanently. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the lands herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: Page 1 of2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor(s) have set their hand(s) on the day and year first above written. GRANTORS STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ _ day of ___________ , 20 __ , by _______________ _ State Deed Tax Due Hereon: This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 NOTARY PUBLIC Page 2 of2 ROAD, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND TRAIL EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this __ day of _____ _ 20_, by and between --------------------------------- hereinafter referred to as "Grantor(s)", and the City of Orono, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee". WITNESS, that Grantor(s), in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration given by Grantee, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantor(s), do(es) hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for public ingress, egress, and access, for road, drainage, utilities and trail purposes and uses, including the right to construct and maintain the same, together with the right of the public for access over, above, under and across the land located in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, legally described as follows: See attached Exhibit A which is made part of this document. including, but not by way of limitation, a full and free right and authority to enter upon said land to construct, install, maintain, operate and repair a sanitary sewer interceptor, lift station, main or line, a water main or line, gravel or paved road, gravel or paved trail and any and all appurtenances, including drainage control structures, incidental and related thereto, ( all of which are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Improvements). The Grantee shall have the right to make use of said land as is reasonably necessary and advisable to the construction, installation, maintenance, operation and repair of the Improvements. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) covenant that they are in fee title to the above property, have a lawful right and authority to convey and grant this easement, and that the land is free from all encumbrances except: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor(s) have executed this document on the day and year set forth above. GRANTOR(S) Page 1 of2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of __________ , 20_, by _____________ _ State Deed Tax Due Hereon: This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 NOTARY PUBLIC Page2 of2 Cont rmation Report-Memory Send Time Tel Ii ne Name Nov-20-2002 11 :47am +9522494616 CITY OF ORONO Job number 238 Date Nov-20 11 :45am To 9387670 Document pages 009 Start time End time Pages sent Status Job number 238 Nov-20 11 :45am Nov-20 11 :47am 009 OK *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *** CITY'°' OR.ONO 1'4un.ici pal omces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Pa,kway Malllna Address, P .O . Bo>< 66 _ .. 0,ono. MN 55356 TELECC>PX COVER, LETTER, Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Please deliver the following page(s) "to: KIRSTEN ~C>LSETH Fax = 952-938-7670 Froz:o.: lY.fike Gaffron Total nun>ber o-C pages including this cover letter: 9 D:a:t:c: 11-20-02 IF you no NOT R.'EC EIV E ALL THE PAGF-S, PX.E ASF. CAL Y ... US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, Phone: (952) 249-4600 and ask for lvl:ike Our fax number is: (952) 249-4616 Additional ~essnge: .Attached is Ordi=ance #122, Second Series adopted 12/13/93 vvhich regulate s "'back lots'' and access 1:0 -.:hem. This i=cluded revisions t:o Chapt:ers l O and l 1 . This is the only portion of the zoning code to my knovvledge 1:ha1: specifically prohibits more than nvo residences from b e ing served by a privat:e driveway. It: may be applicable to your client's siruation. Hovvever, The subdivision. code sTandards for roadway design. clearly establish thay; a prival'.e road serving 3-6 l.1nit:s xnusT have a 50' corridor and 24' paved width (I 1.33 Subd. 4), so any subdivision that: duesn "t: meet 'this st:andard vvould need a variance_ The wording and layout of l 1 .33 Subd-4 implies that There is no s1:andard applicable t:o roads or driveways that serve simply one or -cwo residences, an.d that is hovv the City has consistently applied the ordinances _ S e ction 10.03 Subd. 8 s l'.ates th.at .. each lot: must face on a public s-.:.reet or appropriat:e private ea.semenT ... The C !it:y deems an appropria Te private easement to generally mean one that meets the private road standards established in 11.33 Subd. 4 . I am also enclosing an excerpt from t:he Orono 2000-2020 Communit:y lY.fanagemenl'. Plan (the City• s mandated Comprehensive Plan) which defines the levels of use of various roadway types (Pages 4.A- 26 an.d 4A-27). I-.: s pecifically indicates 'Chat: driveways serving more than 2 residences vvill have 1:0 meei: privat:e road st:an.dards . .As you kn.ow, the provisions ofthe Comprehensive Plan. ult:imat:ely1:alce prece dence over the zoning code per SS 473 .865 . We believe t:hat: t:he current zoning code language regardi=g private ,coad.s and drivevvays i s consis-.:eni: wit:h the Comprehensive_ Plan_ Please contaci: me at 952-249-4600 if you have furthe r questions~ 'Ielephone (9S2) 249-4600 • Fax (9S2) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following page(s) to: KIRSTEN ROLSETH From: Mike Gaffron Total number of pages including this cover letter: 9 Date: 11 -20-02 Mailing Address: P.O . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Fax= 952-938-7670 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (952) 249-4600 and ask for Mike Additional Message: Our fa x number is: (952) 249-4616 Attached is Ordinance# 122 , Second Series adopted 12/13/93 which regulates "back lots" and access to them . This included revisions to Chapters 10 and 11. This is the only portion of the zoning code to my knowledge that specifically prohibits more than two residences from being served by a private driveway. It may be applicable to your client's situation. However, the subdivision code standards for roadway design clearly establish that a private road serving 3-6 units must have a 50' corridor and 24' paved width (11.33 Subd. 4), so any subdivision that doesn't meet this standard would need a variance. The wording and layout of 11 .33 Subd. 4 implies that there is no standard applicable to roads or driveways that serve simply one or two residences, and that is how the City has consistently applied the ordinances . S ection 10.03 Subd. 8 states that "each lot must face on a public street or appropriate private easement". The City deems an appropriate private easement to generally mean one that meets the private road standards established in 11.33 Subd. 4. I am also enclosing an excerpt from the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan (the City's mandated Comprehensive Plan) which defines the levels of use of various roadway types (Pages 4A- 26 and 4A-27). It specifically indicates that driveways serving more than 2 residences will have to meet priv ate road standards . As you know, the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan ultimately take precedence over the zoning code per SS 473.865. We believe that the current zoning code language regarding private roads and driveways is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have further questions~ Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fa x (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us ORDINANCE NO. 12 2 , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO Al\1END THE MUNICIPAL ZONING _t CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE BY DEFINlNG STANDARDS FOR THE CREATION AND USE OF LOTS WHICH DO NOT ABUf A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02 and Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11. 03, Subdivision 2 are each hereby amended by adding the following definitions: "Lot-Back" -A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "back lot" when the corridor is platted as an outlet. A separated lot is considered to be a "flag lot" when the corridor is platted as part of the lot. When the corridor is merely an easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". "Lot-Front" -A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlet has been platted for access to a back lot. SECTION 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 is amended by adding Subdivision 27 which shall read as follows: Subd. 27. Special Standards for Back Lots Created After January 1, 1994. Back lots as defined in this section which were created as part of a subdivision that received preliminary subdivision approval after January 1, 1994 are _subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1. Lot area shall be 150 % of the zoning district requirement. 2. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlet corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line. 1 3. 4. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of th~ zoning district front yard requirement. l; The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. B. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created ·as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. C. Access requirements. 1. Access outlets shall be 30' minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. 2. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlet if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. 3. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10' from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. 4. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlet. 5. No access outlet may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlet except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. D. Screening requirements. 1. Driveways constructed in access outlets shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City; at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. 2 2. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, sci as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. E. Standards for accessory structures. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following additional requirements: 1. Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10' to a neighboring property's side or rear yard. 2. · Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. 3. No accessory structure shall be allowed within an access outlot. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back Im divisions. A. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separation of residential development from traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B. Access from any arterial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access exclusively from an arterial roadway. Where driveway access from any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and "easement back lots" as defined in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back") shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: 3 . . .. 1. Applicability. a. Front/back lot divisions may be used when existina e, b. C. 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 outlet access corridor is excluded. 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. A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlet is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent · to the zoning district required front yard depth. 2. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: a. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning distric~ requirement. b. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlet corridor ends and the lot begins. Lak:eshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. c. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. d. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. 4 3. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district?'area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. 4. Access requirements: a. Access outlets shall be 30' minimum· width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. b. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlet if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10' from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. e. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. 5. Screening requirements and accessory structure standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory structure standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. 6. The requirements and standards of this section shall apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. SECTION 4. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be published in the Pioneer and the Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. 5 Adopted by· the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this Dece_mber , 1993, by a vote of _11_ ayes and _o_ nays.· . 13 day of t Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of 12/27/93. 6 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan topography of the area, scenic parkways also have long provided and will continue to provide the dual traffic and local access functions of both local and collector streets. JURISDICTION: VEHICLES CARRIED: RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: County or City 1,000-20,000 50-66 Feet ROADS CLASSIFIED AS SCENIC PARKWAYS (16.2 miles): (includes some roads classified above) Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) from Shadywood Road (CSAH 19) to east City boundary) (3.0 mi) North Shore Drive (CSAH 51 & Part of CSAH 19) from Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) to west City boundary (3.9 mi) Shadywood Road (CSAH 19 from CSAH 51 to south City boundary) (2.0 mi) Tonkawa Road (CSAH 135) (1. 7 mi) Bayside Road (from Tonkawa Rd. to Leaf St.) (1.2 mi) Leaf Street portion of CSAH 84 (0.25 mi) Fox Street portion of CSAH 84 (0.5 mi) Old Crystal Bay Road portion of CSAH 84 (0.9 mi) Fox Street from CSAH 84 to Orono Orchard Road (1.75 mi) Orono Orchard Road (1.0 mi) LOCAL STREET Local streets are public streets that function to . provide direct access to abutting properties. Local streets carry traffic within neighborhoods rather than through traffic between neighborhoods. Intersections with collector streets are controlled by stopping the local street traffic. JURISDICTION: VEHICLES CARRIED: RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: City Less than 1,000 50-60 Feet DEAD-END (CUL-DE-SAC): Length will be limited by public safety considerations City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-26 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan PRIVATE ROAD A private road is a privately owned and privately maintained road, located in the rural area or within a planned development, that functions as a local access street. The City will require that private roads be constructed and maintained to City standards. The City will acquire an easement for public ingress, egress and access to all properties, but the City will allow the property owners to limit normal use of the road to the benefitting landowners and their invitees. Private roads will be located on platted outlots intended forjoint and several ownership by all the benefitted property owners. JURISDICTION: Homeowners Association with underlying easement to City MAXIMUM SER VICE: Approximately IO residential properties RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 30-50 feet depending upon number ofusers DEAD-END (CUL-DE-SAC): Length will be limited by public safety considerations PRIVATE DRIVEWAY A driveway is a privately owned and privately maintained vehicle path between the street and private property. Private driveways shall be subject to access permits according to the classification of the abutting street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public easement or access right, but do require recorded private easements where driveways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served and the street. JURISDICTION: Property owner MAXIMUM SERVICE: 1 residence typical; joint driveways allowed with maximum two residents per driveway in rural areas more users require private road standards DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Will be regulated where more than one user is involved or for public safety purposes where there is excessive length between the residence and the public road Existing roadway maintenance jurisdictions are reasonable as they relate to the classification plan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has appropriate jurisdiction over the oniy Intermediate Arterial in the City, Highway 12. However, the new Highway 12 freeway segment when completed will be under MnDOT jurisdiction, with an expectation that jurisdiction for existing Highway 12 will be transferred to Hennepin County. The new Highway 12 freeway segment will be designated as either an Intermediate or Major Arterial. City of Orono Community Management Plan September 2000 Page 4A-27 Cont rmation Report-Memory Send Job number Date To Document pages Start time End time Pages sent Status Job number 199 199 Nov-18 03:43pm 9387670 018 Nov-18 03:43pm Nov-18 03:51pm 018 OK Time Tel I ine Name Nov-18-2002 03:51pm +9522494616 CITY OF ORONO *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *** CITY..rOR.ONO ~uniclpal Offices Stnoet Addn,ss, 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 TRLRCOPY. COVER LETTER, Ple .. se deliver the £ollo...ving page(s) to: Name; From: KTl~STEN H:OLSETH 1'-1::ike Gaffron Fax= 9S2-938-7670 Tot:o.1 nu.mber of" pages including 1'.his cover let"ter:: / a-ff. Date: l.1-LS-02 Maillng Address, P.O. Bo>< 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 IF xo:u DO NOT ro;cEJ:V.E ALL TH:E PA.GES, PLEASE CAT.L us A.S SOON AS POSSTBL]l:. Phone: (9S2) 249-4600 and ask for :r-1:ike Addi1:ional ~essage: Our fax number is: (952) 249-4616 Att:ached a:r-e t:l1e following Orono code sections regarding private xoa.ds,,, per your request: Chapter 6: St-ree1:s and Private Roads -Excerpt.s 6-01 -Defin.it:ions of "'Privat:e Road,. and 'Public R..oadli' 6.06 -ConHtruction and Reconstruction of Private Roadway Surfacing, Sidewa]k Curb & G-utcer, Driveay Aprons or Curb Cut:s 6.07 -Obstnt.ctio:ns in S1:reets and Priva1:e Roads Chap,:er 10: Zoning Code -Excerpt:s 1.0.02 -Definitions of 'Street> and •street: or Road -Private• 10.03 -Subd. 8 -Lots to Face Stree,:s. Chapter 11: S1.t.bdivision Code -Excerpt:s 11.03 -various defin.it:ion.s l 1.3 l -Lo,: Irnprovemenl:s 11.32 -Roads 11 .33 -Design S1:andards 11.40 -Road Dedication and Reservations Please cont:ac,: me a.,: 9S2-249-4600 i:f you have further questions. ~--. Telephone (95:2) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www-ci-orono.mn.us CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following page(s) to: Name: KIRSTEN HOLSETH Fax= 952-938 -7670 From: Mike Gaffron Total number of pages including this cover letter: J?f I e Date: 11-18-02 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (952) 249-4600 and ask for Mike Additional Message: Our fax number is : (952) 249-4616 Attached are the following Orono code sections regarding private roads, per your request: Chapter 6: Streets and Private Roads -Excerpts 6 .01 -Definitions of 'Private Road' and 'Public Road' 6.06 -Construction and Reconstruction of Private Roadway Surfacing, Sidewalk Curb & Gutter, Driveay Aprons or Curb Cuts 6 .07 -Obstructions in Streets and Private Roads Chapter 10: Zoning Code -Excerpts 10.02 -Definitions of 'Street' and 'Street or Road -Private' 10 .03 -Subd. 8 -Lots to Face Streets. Chapter 11: Subdivision Code -Excerpts 11.03 -various definitions 11.31 -Lot Improvements 11 .32 -Roads 11.33 -Design Standards 11 .40 -Road Dedication and Reservations Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have further questions.~- Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us § 6.01 H. "Driveway Turnaround" means a paved or otherwise clearly delineated area which is part of or connected to a driveway or driveway approach, on private property, sufficient in size for an automobile or other vehicle to turn 180 degrees without leaving the paved or delineated area. I. "Frontage" means the lot line abutting a public or·priva~e street. J. "Parcel of Land" means a lot or contiguous lots or a tract officially registered under one ownership. K. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use, or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between a person or persons and the City. L. "Public Road" means the entire area dedicated to public use, or contained in a plat, an easement or other conveyance, grant or by adverse possession, to the City or other governmental body, and shall include, but not be limited to, road_ways, boulevards, sidewalks, alleys, and other public property between lateral property lines in which a roadway lies. Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 SEC. 6.02. APPLICATION. The provisions of City Code, Chapters 6, 7 and 8, are applicable to the drivers of all vehicles and animals upon stre~ts and private roads, including, but not limited to, those owned or operated by the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any county, town, city, district, or other political subdivision. SEC. 6.03. SCOPE AND ORDERS OF OFFICERS. Subd. 1. Scope. The provisions of Chapters 6, 7 and 8 relate exclusively to the streets, alleys and private roads in the City, and the operation and parking of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation and parking of vehicles upon such streets, alleys and private roads. Subd. 2. Orders of an Officer. It is a misdemeanor for any person to willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police or peace officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic. ORONO CC 140-1 (4-1-84) (7-25-88) _ __,__..;, § 6.06 SEC. 6.06. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE ROADWAY SURFACING, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES OR CURB CUTS. Subd. 1. Methods of Procedure. Abutting or aff~cted property owners may contract for, construct or reconstruct private roadway surfacing, sidewalk or curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, driveway approaches or curb cuts in accordance with this Section. Subd. 2. Requirement and Application for Permit. It is a misdemeanor to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway~ driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or any other private improvement in any private road or private property in the City without a permit in writing from the City. Application for such permit shall be made on forms approved and provided by the City and shall sufficiently describe the contemplated improvements, the contemplated date of beginning of work, and the length of time required to complete the same, provided that no permit shall be required for any such improvement ordered installed by the Council. Such application shall also contain information showing the type of construction, the width and the location of an improvement on the parcel of land and the lot and block number or the parcel number and the street and house number and a profile of the proposed improvement, if necessary, and other such information as may be required by the Public Works Director. The application shall be filed by the property owners desiring to construct such a driveway approach, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvements in any private road or any property in the City, or by his or her duly authorized agent. All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant by this Chapter. A permit from the City shall not relieve the holder from damages to the person or property of another caused by such work. These regulations shall apply to all City, State, County and private roads. Subd. 3. Issuance of Permit. Such permit shall be issued by the Public Works Director, if he or she has determined that the applicant has complied with the terms of this ordinance, the permit fee hereinafter specified has been paid and the Public Works Director has approved the driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City as requested or with stipulated changes. The Public Works Director shall have the authority to refuse to issue a permit when, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, the requested construction would impose an unreasonable hazard to the public. Such decision may be appealed in writing by the applicant to the City Council. The City Council shall have the power to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 142 (7-25-88) § 6.06 Subd. 4. Permit Fees. The fees for permits for the construction of improvements as outlined above, shall be as set forth in the City's Fee Schedule which may be amended from time to time. Subd. 5. Revocation of Permit. A. All permits granted for the use of private property under the terms of this Ordinance shall be revocable by the Public Works Director pursuant to the procedure set out below in Section 6.06, Subd. 6, "Authority of Public Works Director." B. In addition to the provisions of Section 6.06, Subd. 6, a permit may be revoked by the City Council and City sha 11 have the right to revise, relocate or close any sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb ~ut or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City as the result of the reconstruction of any road, a change in land use, or a major change in the traffic pattern of an existing land use. Subd. 6. Authority of Public Works Director. A. All work done under a permit issued in compliance with this Ordinance shall be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director, who is hereby authorized to make the necessary rules, regulations and specifications with respect to materials for and method of construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be kept on file with the City Clerk. A permit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance may be revoked by the Public Works Director when he or she determines that the construction or activity authorized by the permit is not being performed according to the terms of the permit or this Ordinance. B. Notice of such revocation, with a description of the facts supporting such revocation, shall be mailed or delivered to the person named in the permit at the address listed in the permit. C. All work shall cease upon receipt of the Notice of Revocation. D. Any person whose permit is revoked. as set forth herein may appeal that revocation to the City Council by filing notice of such appea 1 with the City Clerk within ten ( 10) days of the date that the revocation was mailed or delivered. E. The appeal of such revocation shall be conducted according to the procedure set forth in Section 6.06, Subd. 3, "Issuance of Permit" herein. ORONO CC 143 (7-25-88) § 6.06 Subd. 7. Submission of Plans to Public Works Director. Any plans submitted to the Building Inspector for his or her approval, which include or involve a sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turnaround, curb cuts, road- way surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City, shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Public Works Director for his or her approval before a building permit shall be issued. Subd. 8. Construction Requirements Generally. In addition to the rules, regulations and specifications as outlined by the Publc Works Director with respect to the improvements listed above, the following requirements shall be complied with when work is done under the provisions of this Ordinance. A. All driveway approaches shall intersect the private road pavement at an angle to be approved by the Public Works Director based upon the physical characteristics of the private road, driveway approach and the parcel of land being accessed. Such angle shall be as close as is reasonably practical, in the judgement of the Public Works Director, to a right angle to the pavement of the private road. B. No curb cuts shall be made in such a way that the curb return extends beyond any property line as projected, except when consented to, in writing, by the adjoining property owner involved. Said consent, if necessary, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a permit. C. The top of the paving of the driveway approach slab at the curb line shall be 1 5/8 inches above the flowline of the gutter, and shall not extend into the gutter beyond the face of the curb or beyond the glitter line, and shal 1 not be constructed in a manner that will in any way interfere with the use of the road for the purpose of travel or maintenance. The constructed private road shall not be excavated in the process of constructing the driveway unless previous approval, in writing, has been granted by the Public Works Director. D. Driveway culverts shall be provided and installed by the owner as required by the Public Works Director. E. Driveways shall not be constructed over curb stops, catch basins or other structures, if at all possible. If there is no other feasible location for the driveway, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to set the curb stop, catch basin cover, or any other structures flush with the final driveway surface. ORONO CC 143-1 (7-25-88) § 6.06 F. The owner and contractor shal 1 protect the public from injury or damage during the construction of the side- walk, curb and gutter, driveway, driveway approach, driveway turn- around, curb cuts, roadway surfacing or private improvement in any private road or other private property in the City and any Rermi t issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall contain the agreement of the applicant that the City shall not be liable for damage which mii arise from the result of work, and that the applicant will hold the City harmless for any liability incurred by the City as a result of such activity. G. Trees or shrubs shall not be placed adjacent to a driveway so as to constitute a a-ee distance problem • .S.'c./Jd" H. If a parcel of \I'and has frontage on both a cul- de-sac portion and a "lead-in" portion of the private road, the driveway shall be constructed off the "lead-in" portion of the private road and not the cul-de-sac. Subd. 9. Resident Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the same private road provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one private road shall be allowed a driveway approach to one private road. B. Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line. c. The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single private road shall not exceed 20 feet. D. A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet. E. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner. ORONO CC 143-2 (7-25-88) § 6.06 F. For residences hereafter constructed, the driveway approach and that part of the driveway and turnarounds which drain to the private road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the City's Public Works Director that an exi~ting driveway and/or driveway approach is causing a maintenance problem on the private road, including, but not limited to, the washing of dirt and-gravel into the private road, the Public Works Director shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed from the driveway up to the private right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to reduce paving otherwise required by performance standards in the Zoning Code or required as a condition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved site plan. G. Driveway turnarounds sha 11 be required on a 11 driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or collector roadway as determined in the Comprehensive Plan, and on all entrances to private roads within the City where deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a tunaround is required by the Public Works Director, such requirement shall be stated on any permit issued by him or her pursuant to this ordinance. Subd. 10. Business Driveways, Approaches and Turnarounds. A. Only one business driveway shall be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City, or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32 feet at the property line, whichever is less in a business or industrial district. The curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 20 feet unless approved as part of a site plan. In a residential district, the curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than 10 feet unless approved as part of the site plan. B. All business driveways and driveway approaches shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or equivalent material. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed outside of the private road right-of-way. C. Loading docks, ramps and vehicular entrances shall be located in such a manner that backing onto and maneuvering within the private road right-of-way is eliminated and in such a manner that driveways greater in width than that specified by this chapter shall not be required. ORONO CC 143-3 (7-25-88) § 6.06 D. No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return shall be constructed within 100 feet of a corner in a business, commercial or industrial area, or within 100 feet of a corner in a residential district. ~ _ E. Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a State highway, County road or a collector roadway and on all entrances to private roads within the City were deemed necessary by the Public Works Director based upon traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. such requirements shall be stated on any permit issued by the Public Works Director pursuant to ths ordinance. F. Driveways must be 10 feet from the side property line of a parcel of land except if driveway is shared by two parcels of land. Subd. 11. Maintenance and Removal. Every driveway approach or entrance to abutting property shall be maintained and kept in a safe condition by the owner of the abutting property or by the Homeowners' Association, and any such driveway approach which shall not be so maintained and kept in a safe condition or which shall interfere with or obstruct the drainage carried by the adjoining private road or interfere with or obstruct the use of the adjoining private road for purposes of travel shall be repaired to conform with the specifications of this ordinance and the City's requirements, or it shall be removed by the owner of the abutting property or the Homeowners' Association. Upon removal of such driveway approach, that portion of the private road or right-of-way occupied by the owner or Homeowners' Assocation shall be restored to its former condition and all curbing shall be replaced to its former condition by the owner or Homeowners' Association of the abutting property, at their expense. If such removal and restoration is not accomplished within ten (10) days of the receipt by the abutting property owner of written notice of the City to remove the driveway approach and restore the street, curbing and right-of-way to its former condition, the City shall remove the driveway approach and restore the private road, curbing and right-of-way and assess the cost of such removal and restoration against the abutting property. The property owner may appeal the order to remove and restore in the manner set forth in Section 6.06, Subd. 3 of this ordinance. Further time for removal and restoration may be authorized in writing by the Public Works Director. ORONO CC 143-4 (7-25-88) § 6.06 Subd. 12. Regulatory Signs. City shall require the erection of regulatory signs adjacent to the driveway serving two or more parcels of land, at its intersection with a private road. The sign shall be purchased, erected and maintained by the property owner. If the property owner does not have the sign erected wJthin a reasonable length of time, the City shall erect the sign and'bill the property owner for all costs. Subd. 13. Specifications and Standards. All construction and reconstruction of roadway surfacing, sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter improvements, including curb cuts and driveway approaches, and driveway turnarounds, shall be strictly in accordance with specifications and standards on file in the office of the City, and open to inspection and copying there. Such specifications and standards may be amended from time to time by the City, but shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 14. Inspection. The City shall inspect such improvements as deemed necessary or advisable. Any work not done according to the applicable specifications and standards shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work_ done hereunder may be stopped by the City if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the specifications and standards, but this shal 1 not place a continuing burden upon the City to inspect or supervise such work. ORONO CC 143-5 Ordinance 54, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-25-88 (7-25-88) § 6.07 SEC. 6.07. OBSTRUCTIONS IN STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS. Subd. 1. Obstructions. It is a misdemeanor for any/,1 person to place, deposit, display or offer for sale, any fence, goods or other obstructions upon, over, across or under any street or private road without first having obtained a written permitr from f\J the City, and then only in compliance in all respects with the ~\ 1 terms an.a conditions of such permit, and taking precautionary I\. measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or - device of any kind is hereby included, but not by way of f limitation, within the definition of an obstruction. _-4--,. Subd. 2. Fires. It is a misdemeanor for any person to 7v\"'~ build or maintain a fire upon a street or private road. .._.1---- Subd. 3. Dumping in Streets or Private Roads. It is a misdemeanor for any person to throw or deposit in any street or private road any nails, dirt, glass or glassware, cans, discarded cloth or clothing, metal scraps, garbage, leaves, grass or tree 1 imbs, paper or paper products, shreds or rubbish, oi 1, grease or other petroleum products, or to empty any water containing salt or other injurious chemical thereon. It is a violation of this Section to haul any such material, inadequately enclosed or covered, thereby permitting the same to fa 11 upon streets or private road. It is also a violation of this Section to place or store any building materials or waste resulting from building construction or demolition on any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit from the City. The building permi ttee sha 11 remove a 11 construction or demolition waste, or soil washed or tracked into any street. ----\ Subd. 4. Signs and Other Structures. It is a ' \ misdemeanor for any person to place or maintain a sign,.,,·\\\'\, advertisement, or other structure in any street or the right-of-way \ of any private road. (~ ""' _.,. Subd. 5. Placing Snow or Ice in a Roadway. It is a misdemeanor for any person, not acting under a specific contract t\!t..:; with the City or without special permission from the City, to ✓{' remove snow or ice from private property and place the same in the i roadway of any street or private road. _1--- ORONO CC 144 (4-1-84) § 10.02 60(a). "Sign-Business -Temporary" -A sign permitted for a limited period of time used to advertise or promote the interests of a single or multi-use commercial or industrifl use. .--\. temporary sign may be attached to a principal structure or detached. Such signage shall include mobile/message board signs, banners and balloons that meet all applicable Federal and State standards. Source: Ordinance 97, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-26-91 · 61. "Sign-Flashing" -An illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times in which such sign is in use. 62. "Sign-Nameplate" -A nameplate sign shall mean any sign which states the name or address or both of the business or occupant of the lot where the sign is placed or may be a directory listing the names, addresses and business of occupants. 63. "Sign-Gross Area Of' -The area within the frame shall be used to calculate the square feet except that the width of the frame exceeding twelve inches shall constitute advertising space, or should such letters or graphics be mounted directly on a wall or fascia or in any such way as to be without a frame, the dimensions for calculating the square footage shall be the area extended six inches beyond the periphery formed around such letters or graphics bounded by straight lines connecting the outermost points thereof, and each surface utilized to display a message or to attract attention shall be measured as a separate sign. 64. "Sign-Illuminated" -Any sign which has characters, letters, figures, designs or outline illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes as a part of the sign proper. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 65. "Stables and Barns -Private" -A building or structure used or intended to be used for the keeping of hoofed animals belonging to the occupant of the property, and kept for non-commercial purposes. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 66. "Stable or Barns-Public" -A building or structure used or intended to be used for housing of horses, mules, donkeys or ponies which are o-wned by those other than the occupant of the property, where animals may be rented for a fee for riding purposes or where riding lessons may be provided. 67. "Street" -A dedicated public right-of-way not less than fifty feet in width which affords a primary means of access to abutting property. ORONO CC 250-1 (4-1-8 ➔) § 10.02 68. "Street or Road-Private" -Any private way set aside as a permanent right-of-way for vehicular access fifty feet or more in width. · -69. "Structure" -Anything, or part thereof, which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires a location on, below, or above the ground, land, or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground, land, or water. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd series Adopted: 2-24-92 70. "Study and Research Center" -One or more structures, together with the land used in connection therewith, whether contiguous or standing separately, including any building used as a temporary or permanent residence, or a park, nature or playground area, owned or operated by one or more nonprofit charitable, scientific or educational organizations, and used primarily as a center for study, learning, research or educational oriented conferences. Source: Ordinance No. 127 Effective Date: 1-25-71 71. "Use" -The purpose or activity for which the land or building thereon is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied, utilized or maintained, and shall include the performance of such activity as defined by the performance standards of the Zoning Chapter. 72. "Use-Accessory" -A use subordinate to the principal use on a lot and exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use. 73. "Use-Conditional" -Those occupations, vocations, skills, arts, businesses, professions, or uses specifically designated in each Zoning Use District, \Vhich for their respective conduct, exercise or performance in such designated use districts may require reasonable but special, peculiar, unusual or extraordinary limitations, facilities, regulations in such use district for the promotion or preservation of the general public welfare, health, convenience, or safety therein and in the City and therefore may be permitted in such use district only by a conditional use permit, which is ·designed to meet the problem that arises where certain uses, although generally compatible with the basic use classification of a particular zone, should not be permitted to be located as a matter of right in every area included within the zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or special problems which its proposed location may represent. 74. "Use-Permitted" -A use which may be lawfully established in a particular district or districts, provided it conforms with all requirements, regulations, and performance standards (if any) of such districts. -· · . . ~ ORONO CC 250-2 (4-1-84) §10.03 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage,.open :,pace, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions_ of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings.• A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in heig~t. ORONO CC 254 Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 (4-1-84) § 11.07 C. The word "used" or "occupied" as applied to any land or building shall be construed to include the words "inte11ded", arranged, or designed to be used or occupied". Subd. 2. Definitions. As used in this Chapter: 1. "Alley" -A public or private right-of-way primarily designed to serve as secondary access to the side or rear of those lots whose principal frontage is on some other street. 2. "Applicant" -Any subdivider or his agent. 3. "Block" -A tract of land bounded by streets, or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, rights- of-way, exterior boundaries of the subdivision, shorelines of waterways, outlets or boundary lines of municipalities. 4. "Bond" -Any form of security including, surety bond, warranty bond, penalty bond, collateral, property, or instrument of credit acceptable to the City. 5. "Building" -Any structure or any part thereof built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or movable property of any kind. 6. "Building Site Line" -A line on the prelim- inary plat which delineates the dry buildable land of any lot upon which a structure may be constructed, which land meets all of the setback requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. 7. "City Attorney" designated by the City to furnish administration of this Chapter. -The legal licensed attorney assistance for the 8. "City Engineer" -The licensed engineer designated by .the City to furnish engineering assistance for the administration of this Chapter. 9. "Comprehensive Municipal Plan" -A compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps and recommenda- tions for their execution, prepared and adopted by the City for guiding the physical, social and economic development, both private and public, of the City and its environs and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and may include, but is not limited to, the following: a. Statements of policies, -goals and standards. ~ b. "Land Use Plan" which means a combination of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps and action programs for guiding the future development of private and public property. The term includes a plan designating types of uses for ORONO CC 416 (4-1-84) § 11. 0 39. "Plat" -The map or plan of a subdivision showjng the property boundaries, layout, dimensions and legal descriptions of all lots, blocks, and rights-of-way. 40. "Plat, Final" -The plat of the subdivision which includes all information required by Minnesota Statutes and this Chapter, which plat will be recorded with the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. 41. "Plat, Preliminary" -The proposed plat showing all information required by this Chapter. 42. "Platting Authority" -The Council of the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358. 43. "Property Line" -The boundary lines enclosing a lot, parcel or tract of land. Regardless of the legal description, the property line to be used for purposes of compliance with the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter shall be the ordinary high water mark of any lakeshore, the edge of the right- of-way, the edge of any public or private roadway, or the edge of an adjacent lot or outlot. 44. "Public Hearing" -A hearing to be held by thr · Planning Commission to allow for public review and input relatin~ to the proposed subdivision pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358. 45. "Public Information Hearing" -Discretionary hearing to be held by the Planning Commission or the Council to allow for public review and input relating to the proposed subdivision. 46. "Registered Engineer" -An engineer properly licensed and registered in the State of Minnesota. -47. "Registered Land Surveyor" -A land surveyor properly licensed and registered in the State of Minnesota. 48. "Resubd iv is ion" -A change in a recorded final plat if such change affects any street layout on such plat, or any lot line. 49. "Right-of-Way" -A strip of land occupied or intended to be occupied by an alley, street, crosswalk, railroad, public or private roadway or easement, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water main, sanitary or storm sewer main, or for another special use. 5 O • "Ro ad way" -Any st re e t , h i g h way , road , 1 an e , way, trail, or any other area used for vehicular traffic. 51. "Roadways, Classification" -All roadways shall be classified as one or more of the following: ORONO CC 421 (4-1-84) § 11.03 a. "Principal Arterial" -A roadwaY, intended to connect urban subregions with one another, connect urban and rural service areas with ·metro centers, to connect outstate cities. b. "Intermediate Arterial" -.A roadway intended to connect two or.more subregions; provide sesondary connections outstate; complements principal arterials in high volume ~corridors. c. "Minor Arterial" -A roadway intended to connect adjacent subregions and activity centers within subregions. d. "Collector" -A roadway intended to connect neighborhoods within and between subregions. · e. "Local" -A roadway intended to connect blocks within neighborhoods and specific activities withi~ homogeneous land use areas. f. "Parkway" -A roadway intended to provide low speed and low volume vehicular or bicycle access to or through recreational areas, parks, and lakeshore. g. "Roadway-Deadend" -A roadway with only one (1) vehicular-traffic outlet. h. "Roadway, Private" -A roadway for which the City ·or other political subdivision shall not be responsible for its maintenance and operation. i. "Roadway, Public" -Any roadway for which the City or other political subdivision is or expects to be responsible for its maintenance and operation. 52. "Roadway Right-of-Way Width" -The distance between property lines measured at right angles to the center line of the roadway. 53. "Sale or Lease" -Any immediate or future transfer of ownership, or any possessory interest in land, including contract of sale, lease, device, intestate succession, of an interest in a tract of land or part thereof, whether by metes and bounds, deed, contract, plat, map, judicial decree or other written instrument. Lease of land for agricultural purposes, which land does not include the use of or future construction of a building is excluded. 54. "Single ownership" -Ownership by the same person, corporation, firm, entity, partnership, or unincorporated association; or ownership by different corporations, firms, partnerships, entities or unincorporated associations, in which a stockholder, partner, or associate, or a member of his family owps an interest in each corporation, firm, partnership, entity or unincorporated association. ORONO CC 422 (4-1-84) § 11.30 Subd. 5. Subdivision Name. The proposed na~e of thl subdivision shall not duplicate, or too closely approximate phonetically, the name of any other subdivision in the area covered by e'h is Chapter. The Council shall have final authority to designate the name of the subdivision which shall be determined at Preliminary Subdivision approval. SEC. 11.31. LOT IMPROVEMENTS. Subd. 1. Lot Arrangement. The lot arrangement shall be such that there will be no foreseeable difficulties, for reasons of topography or other conditions, in securing building permits to build on all lots in compliance with the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and in providing driveway access to buildings on such lots from an approved street. Subd. 2. Lot Dimensions. Lot dimensions shall comply -with the minimum standards of the Zoning Chapter of ~he City Code. Where lots are more than double the minimum required area for the zoning district, the City may require that such lots be arranged so as to allow further subdivision and the opening of future streets where they would be necessary to serve such potential lots, all in compliance with the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In general, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines (or radial to curving street lines) unless a variation from this rule will give a better street or lot plan. Dimensions of corner lots shal be large enough to allow for erection of buildings, observing the minimum front yard setback from both st~eets. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for business, commercial, or industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and loading facilities required for the type of use and development contemplated, as established in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Subd. 3. Lot Area, Minimum. The minimum area requirements for each proposed lot as prescribed in the .Zoning Chapter of the City Code. The lot area must also comply with the on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. Public and private rights-of-way, or vehicular or pedestrian easements, or surface areas below the ordinary high-water mark of any surface water or wetlands or flood plain areas may not be used in order to meet any portion of the minimum lot area requirements. Subd. 4. Lakeshore Lots. The granting of easements which purport to grant access to the lake to any person for any uses, including but not limited to docking, mooring, swimming, and launching of boats is prohibited and shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter and subject to all of the penalties and proceedings as set forth herein. ORONO CC Subd. 5. Double Frontage Lots and Access to Lots. ~£~D£D 454 . s Bf.£~ a series) 1 1.o~ ~ secon ·1.S 5£C ~122, rtb oRD• 1..s££ (4-1-84) § 11.31 A. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where nec.essary to provide separation of residential development from traffic · arter-ials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B. Access From Any Arterial Roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access exclusively from an arterial roadway. Where driveway access from any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. Subd. 6. Soil Preservation, Grading and Seeding. A. Soil Preservation and Final Grading. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until final grading has been completed in accordance with the approved final subdivision and the lot precovered with soil with an average depth of at least six (6) inches which shall contain no particles over two (2) inches in diameter over the entire area of the lot, except that portion covered by buildings or included in streets, or where the grade has not been changed or natural vegetation seriously damaged. Topsoil shall not be removed from residential lots oi: used as spoil, but shall be redistributed so as to provide at least three (3) inches of cover on the lots and boulevards. B. Lawn-Grass Seed and Sod. Lawn-grass seed shall be sown at not less than four (4) pounds to each one-thousand (1,000) square feet of land area. The seed shall consist of a maximum of ten percent (10%) rye grass by weight and a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight. All seed shall have been tested for germination within one (1) year of the date of seeding, and the date of testing shall be on the label ~ontaining the seed analysis. All lots shall be seeded from the roadside edge of the unpaved right-of-way back to a distance of twenty-five (25) feet behind the principal residence on the lot. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until respreading of soil and seeding of lawn has been completed~ except that during the period of the year when seed cannot be sown, the property owner and/or developer shall submit an agreement in writing to assure that respreading of soil and seeding of lawn will be done during the immediate following planting season, and shall leave a security in a form acceptable to the City for performance in such an amount as shall be determined by the City. The developer may choose to include final lot grading and required lawn grass seeding improvements in a subdividers agreement and shall leave a security in a form acceptable to the City for performance in such an amount as shall be determined by the City. Sod may be used to comply with any requirements of seeding set Eorth herein. ORONO CC 455 (4-1-84) § 11.31 c. Lot Drainage. Lots shall be graded~so as t0 provide positive drainage away from all buildings and Individual lot drainage shall be coordinated with the general storm drainage pattern for the area. Drainage shall be designed so as to avoid concentration of storm drainage water from each lot to adjacent lots. Subd. 7. Debris and Waste. No cut trees, timber, debris, earth, rocks, stones, soil, junk, rubbish, or other waste materials of any kind shall be buried in any land, or left or deposited on any lot or street at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on a subdivision, nor shall any be left or deposited in any area of the subdivision at the time of expiration of the performance bond or dedication of public improvements, whichever is sooner. Subd. 8. Waterbodies and Watercourses. If a tract being -subdivided contains a body of water, marsh, wetland-s, etc., or a portion thereof, lot lines shall be so drawn as to distribute the entire ownership of those areas among the fee owners of adjacent lots. The Council may approve an alternative plan whereby the ownership of and responsibility for safe maintenance of those areas is so placed that it will not become the City's responsibility. Where a watercourse separates the buildable area of a lot from the street by which it has access, provisions shall be made for installation of a culvert or other structure, of design approved b_ the City. Subd. 9. Performance Bond to Include Lot Improvement. The performance bond shall include an amount to guarantee completion of all requirements contained in this Section including, but not limited to, soil preservation, final grading, lot drainage, lawn-grass seeding, removal of debris and waste, fencing, and all other lot improvements required by the City. SEC. 11.32. ROADS. Subd. 1. Off-Site Premises; Roadways. A. Access to Improved Public or Private Roadways. No subdivision shall be approved unless the area to be subdivided shall have adequate access from an existing publicly dedicated and opened roadway or on a private roadway open to travel or ·vehicular use pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City. Such roadway must be suitably improved as required by the City, the State of Minnesota or Hennepin County. In the event the public roadway including but not limited to existing bridges, drainage structures, lighting, shoulders, base, pavement, alignment or site distance, is not suitable to handle the proposed additional vehicular traffic from the subdivision, the subdivider at his expense will be responsible for first improving the public roadw2 to a standard acceptable to the City, to insure that the health, ORONO CC 456 (4-1-84) § 11. 32 safety and welfare of the citizens presently using the ropdway and in the future will be protected and will not be adversely affected .. by the increased use of the roadway caused by the subdivision. This -improvement shall be accomplished prior to final subdivision approval unless the City agrees and the subdivider provides a suitable performance bond to complete the improvements in the subdivider's agreement. B. Access to Improved Public Roadways Over Existing Private Roadways. Wherever the area to be subdivided is to utilize an existing private roadway in order to gain access to the public roadway, such private roadway shall be suitably improved as provided herein above for public roadways. Subd. 2. On-Site Roadways. A. Grading and Improvement Plan. Roadways shall be graded and improved to conform to the City's construction standards and specifications and shall be approved as to design and specifi- cations by the City Engineer, in accordance with the construction plans required to be submitted prior to final subdivision approval. B. Topography and Arrangement. 1. Roadways shall be related appropriately to the topography. Roadways shall be curved wherever possible to avoid conformity of lot appearance. All roadways shall be arranged so as to obtain as .many as possible of the building sites at, or above, the grades of the street. Grades of streets shall conform as closely as possible to the original topography. A combination of steep grades and curves shall be avoided. Specific standards are contained in the design standards of this Chapter. 2. All streets shall be properly integrated with the existing and proposed system of thoroughfares and dedicated right-of-way as established in the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. 3. All thoroughfares shall be properly related to specific traffic generators such as industries, business districts, schools, churches, and shopping centers; to population densities; and to the pattern of existing and proposed lan9 uses. 4. Roadways shall be laid out to conform as much as possible to the topography, to discourage use by through traffic, to permit efficient drainage and utility systems, and to require the minimum number of roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access to property. 5. The gridiron roadway pattern need not necessarily be adhered to, and the use of curvilinear roadways or u-shaped roadways shall be encouraged where such use will result in a more desirable layout. ORONO CC 457 (4-1-84) § 11.32 6. Cul-de-sacs shall be discouraged; proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdiyided, unless prevented by topography or other physical condi- tions, or unless in the opinion of the City such extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts. 7. In business and industrial developments, the roadways and other accessways shall be planned in connection with the grouping of buildings, location of rail facilities, and the provisions of alleys, truck loading and maneuvering areas, and walks and parking areas so as to minimize conflict of movement between the various types of traffic, including pedestrian. c. Blocks. 1. Blocks shall have sufficient width to provide for two (2) tiers of lots-of ~ppropriate depths. Exceptions to this prescribed block width shall be permitted in blocks adjacent to arterial roadways, railroads, or waterways. 2. The lengths, widths, and shapes of blocks shall be such as are appropriate for the locality and the type of development contemplated, but block lengths in residential areas shall not exceed one thousand five hundred· (1,500) feet or twelvE (12) times the minimum lot width required in the zoning district, nor be less than four hundred (400) feet in length from centerline to centerline of adjacent streets. Wherever practicable, blocks along arterials collector roadways shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) feet in length. . 3. In all blocks the City shall require the reservation of an easement through the block to accommodate utili- ties, drainage facilities, or pedestrian traffic. Pedestrianways or crosswalks, not less than ten (10) feet wide, may be required by the City thro~gh the center of blocks more than eight hundred (800) feet long where deemed essential to provide circulation of access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers, transportation, or other community facilities. Blocks designed for industrial uses shall be of such length and width as may be determined suitable by the City for prospective use. D. Access to Primary Arterials. Where a subdivision borders on or contains an existing or proposed arterial, the City may require that access to such roadways be limited by one of the following means: 1. The subdivision of lots so as to back onto the arterials and front onto a parallel local or collector roadway; no access shall be provided from the arterial, and screening shal, be provided in a strip of land along the rear property line of sucl lots. ORONO CC 458 (4-1-84) § 11.32 2. A series of cul-de-sacs, U-shapeG streets, or short loops entered from and designed generally at right angles to Sh]Ch a parallel street, with the rear lines of their terminal lots-backing onto the arterial. 3. A marginal access or service road separated from the arterial by a planting or grass strip and having access thereto at suitable points. E. Road Names and Street Addresses. The sketch plan as submitted shall not indicate any names upon proposed streets. The City shall name all roads at the time of preliminary subdivision approval and assign street addresses. The local postmaster shall be consulted by the Zoning Administrator. Names shall be sufficiently different in sound and in spelling from other road names in the area so as not to cause confusion. A road which is or is planned as a continuation of an existing road shall bear the same name. F. Road Regulatory Signs. The subdivider shall deposit with the City at the time of final subdivision approval the sum of money as determined by the City for each road sign and the installation cost thereof. The City shall install all road signs before issuance of certificates of occupancy for any residence on the streets approved. The City shall place all signs at developer's expense at all intersections within or abutting the subdivision, the type and location of which to be approved by the City. G. Reserve Strips. The creation of reserve strips shall not be permitted adjacent to a proposed street in such a manner as to deny access from adjacent property to such street. H. Construction of Roads and Dead-End Roads. 1. Construction of Roads. The arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effective fire protection, for efficient provision of utilities, and where such continuation is in accordance with the City Comprehensive Municipal Plan. If the adjacent property is undeveloped and the street must be a. dead-end· street temporarily, the right-of-way shall be extended to the property line. The City may limit the length of temporary dead-end streets in accordance with the design standards of this Chapter. 2. Dead-End Roads (Permanent). Where a road does not extend to the boundary of the subdivision and its continuation is not required by the City for access to adjoining property, its terminus shall normally not be nearer to such boundary than fifty (50) feet. However, the City may require the reservation of an appropriate easement to accommodate drainage ORONO CC 459 (4-1-84) § 11.32 facilities, pedestrian traffic, or utilities. A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the end of a permanent dead-end street in accordance with the City's construction standards and specifications. For greater convenience to traffic and more effective police and fire protection, permanent dead-end streets shall, in general, be discouraged and where allowed be limited in length in accordance with the design standards of this Chapter. SEC. 11.33. DESIGN STANDARDS. Subd. 1. General. In order to provide for roads of suitable location, width, and improvement to accommodate prospective traffic and afford satisfactory access to police, firefighting, snow removal, sanitation, and road maintenance equipment, and to coordinate roads so as to compose a convenient system and avoid undue hardships to adjoining properties, the following design standards for roads are hereby required: A. Road Surfacing and Improvements. After the sewer and water utilities have been installed by the subdivider, the subdivider shall construct all road pavement, shoulders, drainage improvements and structures, curbs, cul-de-sacs, and sidewalks in conformance with all construction standards and specifications adopted by the City and shall be incorporated into the construction plans required to be submitted to the subdivider for final subdivision approval. B. Right-of-Way •. Rights-of-way shall be in accordance with the following performance standard: 1. Minimum Right-of-Way Widths. Principal Arterial Intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Parkway Cul-de-sacs As recommended by the State Department of Transportation 80 feet 70 feet 50 feet 100 feet 50 feet radius 2. Rights-of-way are needed for future roadways in the opinion of the City. 3. Rights-of-way widths or additional widths in existing rights-of-way in excess of the standards designated in this Chapter when, due to topography, additional widtrr is necessary to provide adequate earth slopes. Such slopes shall not be in excess of three to one. ORONO CC 460 (4-1-84) Subd. 2. Railroads and Limited Access Railroad rights-of-way and limited access roadways where as to affect the subdivision of adjoining lands shall be follows: § 11. 33 Roadways. r so located treated as A. In residential districts a buffer strip at least 25 feet in depth in addition to the normal depth of the lot required in the district shall be provided adjacent to the railroad right-of-way or limited access roadway. B. In districts zoned for business, commercial, or industrial uses the nearest street extending parallel or approximately parallel to the railroad shall be at a sufficient distance therefrom to ensure suitable depth for commercial or industrial sites. C. Streets parallel to the railroad when intersecting a street which crosses the railroad at grade shall be -at a distance of at least 150 feet from the railroad right-of-way. Such distance shall be determined with due consideration of the minimum distance required for future separation of grades by means of appropriate approach gradients. D. Streets crossing the railroads shall be avoided. Subd. 3. Intersections. A. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two (2) new streets at an angle or less than seventy-five (75) degrees shall not be acceptable. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should be approximately at right angles for at least one hundred (100) feet therefrom. Not more than two ( 2) streets shall intersect at any one point unless specifically approved by the City. B. Proposed new intersections along one side of an existing stre,et shall coincide with any existing intersections on the opposite side of such street. Intersection jogs with center- line offsets of less than 150 feet shall not be permitted, except where the intersected street has separated dual drives without median breaks at either intersection. Where streets intersect major streets, their alignment shall be continuous. Intersection· of arterial roadways shall be at least eight hundred (800) feet apart. C. Minimum curb radius at the intersection of two (2) local streets shall be at least fifteen (15) feet; and minimum curb radius at an intersection involving a collector street or local streets in a commercial or industrial area shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet. Alley intersections and abrupt changes in alignment within a block shall have the corners cut off in accordance with standard engineering practice to permit safe vehicular movement. ORONO CC 461 (4-1-84) § 11. 33 D. Intersections shall be designed with a flat stopping area of at least thirty (30) feet in a residential area and sixty (60) feet in a commercial or industrial area. The stopping area shall be designed to provide a maximum grade of two (2) percent. E. Where any street intersection will involve earth banks or existing vegetation inside any lot corner that would create a-traffic hazard by limiting visibility, the subdivider shall cut such ground and/or vegetation (including trees) in connection with the grading of the right-of-way to the extent deemed necessary by the City to provide an adequate sight distance. F. The crown of all streets, including intersections, shall be three percent (3%) or less. Subd. 4. Typical Section. herein is as determined for a Clay tion) and may be subject to change. to be determined by the City. Private Street -Residential Units R.O.W.* M.P.W.** 3-6 50' 24' Over 7 50' 28' Public Street -Residential Units R.O.W.* M.P.W.** 3-10 50' 28 1 Over 10 50' 32' Maximum cul-de-sac length -1,000' The typical section indicated Subgrade (A-6 Soil Classifica- Soil borings may be required Section 8 II Class 5 100% crushed 3 II 2341 Bituminous Surfac1 8 II Class -5 100% crushed 3 II 2341 Bituminous Sqrface Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3 II 2341 Bituminous Surface 8 II Class 5 100% crushed 311 2341 Bituminous Surface Maximum number of units on cul-de-sac -10 Public Street -Commercial or Industrial Units l+ R.O.W.* 70' ~*Right-of-Way Width ** Minimum Paved Width ORONO CC M.P.W.** 32' 462 Section 8 11 Class 4 8 11 Class 5 100% crushed 4 11 2341 Bitu~inous -surface (4-1-84) § 11.33 Subd. 5. Horizontal and Vertical Control. Functional Cla"Ss Private Street:... (residential) Public Street- ( residential) Public Street- (com. & ind.) Design Seeed 30 MPH 30 MPH 40 MPH i:-· Vertical Control Horizontal Control Maximum Gradient Minimum Radius 12% 275 I 10% 275' 8% 400' Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 11.34 through 11.39, inclusive, reserved for future exp ans ion. ) ORONO CC 463 (4-1-84) § 11. 4(l SEC. 11.40. ROAD DEDICATION AND RESERVATIONS. Subd. 1. New Perimeter Streets. Street systems in new subdivisions shall be laid out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half-streets. Where an existing half-street is adjacent to a new subdivision, the other half of the street shall be improved and dedicated by the subdivider. The City may authorize a new perimeter street where the subdivider improves and dedicates ·the entire required street right-of-way width within his own subdivision boundaries. Subd. 2. Widening and Realignment of Existing Roads. Where a subdivision borders an existing narrow road or when the Comprehensive Municipal Plan or some other agency indicates plans for realignment or widening a road that would require use of some of the land in the subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to improve and dedicate at his expense such areas for widening or realignment of such roads. Such frontage roads and· streets shall be improved and dedicated by the subdivider at his own expense to the full width as required by this Chapter. Subd. 3. Land reserved for any road purposes may not be counted in satisfying yard or area requirements of the Zoning Chapter whether the land is to be dedicated to the City in fee simple or an easement is granted to the City. SEC. 11.41. DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWERS. Subd. 1. General Requirements. The City shall not approve any subdivision which does not make adequate provision for storm or flood water runoff. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown for each and every lot and block. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any_ sanitary sewer system. Storm sewers, where required, shall be designed by the method as approved by the City, and a copy of design compu ta- t ions shall be submitted along with plans. Inlets shall be provided so that surface water is not carried across or around any intersection, nor for a distance of more than 600 feet in the gutter in urban areas. When calculations indicate that curb capacities are exceeded at a point, no further allowance shall be made for flow beyond that point, and basins shall be used to intercept flow at that point. Subd. 2. Nature of Storm Water Facilities. A. Location. The subdivision shall be required by the City to carry away by pipe or open ditch any spring or surface water that may exist either previously to, or as a -result. of the subdivision. Such drainage facilities shall be located in the road ~ight-of-way where feasible, or in perpetual unobstructed easements of appropriate width, and shall be constructed in accordance wit the City's construction standards and specifications. ORONO CC 464 ( 4-1-84) J A RESOLUTION DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -FILE NO. 2550 WHEREAS, Charles Van Eeckhout (hereinafter the" applicant") filed an application requesting a Class III preliminary subdivision of property legally described as: Tract H, R.L.S. No. 352, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, The applicant has applied to the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") for a subdivision of property including a conditional use permit to permit the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on November 15, 1999, January 19, 2000 and August 21, 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opp01iunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the request on a vote of __ to __ based on the following findings of fact: FINDINGS 1. The City of Orono had identified two primary concerns, determination of the wetland boundary and road access, that would have required resolution prior to preliminary plat approval. 2. On October 16, 2000 a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), with representatives of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), Hennepin Conservation Page 1 of 4 District, and Board of Water and Soil Resources met on the property to review the wetland boundary as delineated by Svobota Ecological Services (SES). 3. The TEP generally agreed to the delineation line as determined by SES. 4. The City of Orono has established an inventory of protected wetlands that are not considered buildable and valuable natural resources. Those areas shown on the 197 4 wetland inventory are not credited towards buildable area for zoning purposes. A total of approximately 14 acres of the 20 ± land area is considered above the wetland boundary, based on the TEPs wetland review. 5. Access to the property has been proposed via a platted corridor through Tract G, R.L.S. No. 352. 6. Since 1954 Tract H has an easement over Tract G for driveway purposes. It is the City of Orono's position the easement is granted for driveway purposes, not roadway purposes. Prior to approving a subdivision, using Tract G for road access, the City must receive sufficient evidence that the owners of Tract G consent to the plat or an easement for road purposes be acquired in favor of Tract H. 7. The applicant has stated he has been unable to successfully negociate an easement for road purposes with the owner of Tract G. 8. A revised site plan was received by the City of Orono in July, 2000 that would require access from Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. The City of Orono has made a request to the City of Long Lake to comment and determine what right of access Long Lake would permit. 9. The applicant has not received approval for access to Apple Glen Road from the City of Long Lake. 10. The Council has determined the preferred option for access is via Tract G. Access through Apple Glen Road would have required the road be extended, additional traffic for additional residences and formal approval from the City of Long Lake had not been granted. Page 2 of 4 11. Tract G would provide an access that would meet the requirements for street width and provide a private road consistent with the City's policy that new developments designated as properties in rural Orono be serviced with private roads. 12. The applicant has not established evidence acceptable to the City Attorney that road access has been secured to all proposed lots. The City of Orono cannot approve the Preliminary Plat without the issue of legal access being resolved. 13. The City of Orono has a requirement all preliminary grading, storm water management and drainage plans are approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval. The City of Orono has not received revised drainage area maps and calculations to determine the storm water management plan is feasible. The only calculations that have been provided were submitted in January, 2000 based on the road construction off Brown Road South, not Apple Glen Road. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of February, 2001, by Barbara A. Peterson & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *(#4) #2450 GLENN AND SANDRA GRONBERG, 325 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH - EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL-RESOLUTION NO. 4610 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4610, a Resolution Granting an Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for a Plat Proposed at 325 Willow Drive North. VOTE: Ayes 5 , Nays 0. (#-s) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH- PRELIMINARY PLAT-DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 4611 Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the primary unresolved issue with this application is access to the property. Weinberger indicated the review period expires at the end of the month and will need to be extended if the Applicant intends to pursue this application. Weinberger stated he has a letter available tonight for the Applicant's signature extending the time period. Weinberger stated a resolution denying preliminary plat is before the City Council tonight. Van Eeckhout stated he has not made any new progress on securing access to this development. The Planning Commission indicated at their last meeting they did not wish to discuss this application any further . Van Eeckhout stated he has spoken with the Long Lake Planning · Commission who indicated in their view there is not a positive response by the residents on that street to have access off of Apple Glen Road due to the added traffic that would result. Van Eeckhout commented Apple Glen is a public road and in his view he has a legal right to have access off of Apple Glen if he so desires sin ce other people in the past have been granted access off of this road. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion a denial resolution is not the best way to handle this matter and other options should be explored. Van Eeckhout stated in his view the time limit is a n9n- issue since there was one occasion in the past where the time limit expired. Van Eeckhout stated the application before the Council tonight proposes to construct seven lots with access off Apple Glen Road. Van Eeckhout stated the only reason for denial contained in the resolution is the lack of access , and in his opinion he is legally erititled to this access jf he · wishes to pursue it. Van Eeckhout stated the City in essence is telling him that he is not entitled to access off Apple Glen , which is inconsistent in his view . Van Eeckhout noted he would prefer access to be off of Brown Road, but was told on December 11 th by the City that they would accept access off of Apple Glen, which was later rescinded at their January meeting . Van Eeckhout stated that decision by the City hurt his negotiations with John Dunn on securing access into this development. Sansevere stated he does not agree with Van Eeckhout's statement. Mayor Peterson indicated she also does not agree with that version . PAGES / J' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Van Eeckhout stated that the Council minutes basically stated that Long Lake should be informed that the City of Orono is in the process of approving this application and would like to obtain the comments of the City of Long Lake regarding access. Moorse indicated it is his understanding that the Council was saying that this proposal may be acceptable if the access issue is resolved. Moorse stated they requested the City of Long Lake review this application to see if access off of Apple Glen would be acceptable. Moorse noted the City Council informed the Applicant that they would not be giving preliminary approval to this application until the access issue was resolved. Van Eeckhout stated it is his understanding that what was said was that the City of Orono would approve this application if the City of Long Lake agreed to the access off of Apple Glen. Sansevere indicated he has stated from the beginning that he would prefer access off of Brown Road and would not support this application until that access is obtained. Mayor Peterson commented she has echoed the same feeling as Sansevere. Van Eeckhout stated he has a right to have his application reviewed and approved if it is consistent with City ordinances. Sansevere indicated the Applicant needs to demonstrate access to all seven lots. Van Eeckhout stated he has full access off of Apple Glen. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn did agree to binding arbitration to determine access. Sansevere noted at one meeting John Dunn's son indicated his father did not agree to arbitration. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn did in fact agree to that, but then later changed his mind when the City flipflopped on this issue. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion the few rights that Dunn has remaining on that strip of land amount to a few hundred dollars, but he is now demanding many thousands of dollars. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion the City should allow him more use of the existing driveway without obtaining any further approval from Dunn. Van Eeckhout stated there are multiple sites throughout the City with three or more houses accessing off of one driveway. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated there is a distinction between what the City allows for access off of a driveway and what the meaning of the private easement is. Barrett stated it is important to understand what the easement is because the City is unable to grant any more authority to the Applicant under that easement than what he already has. Van Eeckhout stated there are many cases in Orono where driveway easements are being used to gain access by multiple lots. Sansevere stated in his opinion what the Applicant is proposing at this time lacks proper access into this development. Sansevere indicated he will continue to oppose this application until PAGE9 / MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) access is resolved. Sansevere suggested the Applicant continue to attempt to resolve this issue with John Dunn. Van Eeckhout stated the resolution before the City Council tonight has nothing to do with access off of Brown Road. Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant has gained access off of Apple Glen Road from Long Lake. Van Eeckhout stated he is legally entitled to access off of Apple Glen without approval from Long Lake. Sansevere stated until Long Lake gives approval to access off of Apple Glen, he will not support this application. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, indicated the subdivision authority of the City is a broad semi-legislative authority, and where a subdivision accesses a public road is within the Council's authority. Barrett stated the Council is entitled to make a decision that access off of Brown Road is better versus Apple Glen. Mayor Peterson stated that was her decision. Sansevere commented that was also his decision. Flint indicated he preferred Apple Glen. Mayor Peterson stated it is her understanding that Apple Glen is no longer an option since Long Lake denied access. Van Eeckhout stated Long Lake has not formally denied access. Van Eeckhout stated he was informed by Long Lake City Staff that the Council would probably not approve this access. Mayor Peterson inquired whether the City has gotten anything in writing from Long Lake officially denying this access. Weinberger stated the City has not received anything in writing from the City of Long Lake denying access off of Apple Glen. Moorse noted the Applicant at one point was talking about having a four lot subdivision with two lots being accessed off of Apple Glen and two lots off of Brown Road, which seemed like a good plan to the Council. Moorse indicated it was his understanding the City would be willing to support the Applicant on the four lot subdivision if he went to Long Lake with that proposal. Moorse stated he is unsure what the status of that proposal is. Van Eeckhout stated Orono's Planning Commission would not discuss it because he did not have access. PAGE 10 / MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Moorse commented it was his understanding the Applicant appeared at that Planning Commission meeting with a new plan. The Planning Commission indicated at that time that they were dealing with the application before them and would not be agreeable to reviewing a new plan being presented that evening. Van Eeckhout stated he requested the Planning Commission to give some input into a plan that involved five lots as well as one that involved four lots, and requested the City grant him access off of Brown Road. Sansevere inquired what stage the arbitration is at with John Dunn. Van Eeckhout stated the offer to go through with arbitration is still a valid one. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn did agre~ to go through arbitration in December after the Council had agreed to preliminarily approve his application. In January, following the Council's decision not to support the application, Dunn changed his mind and refused to discuss arbitration. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn is now demanding a large sum of money for this small strip of land. Sansevere indicated, without access, the Applicant does not have a subdivision. Mayor Peterson commented she is confused about the number of lots in the subdivision that they are discussing. Van Eeckhout stated what is before the Council at this time is a seven lot subdivision. Van Eeckhout stated if the Council will grant access for three lots off of Brown Road, he will bring back a proposal designed that way. Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant can get three lots in there the way it is structured. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated this is clearly not going to be a public road with the easement, which is one of the things that the City has tried to establish for any of these subdivisions. Barrett stated it is going to be defined as a driveway. Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant would like this application extended. Van Eeckhout stated he would like it resolved. Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4611, a Resolution Denying Preliminary Plat for Property Located at 120 Brown Road South. Van Eeckhout requested the Council discuss the grounds for denial. Van Eeckhout stated he does not find any grounds for denial here. Sansevere stated in his view access should be off Brown Road. Mayor Peterson stated in her opinion access should be off of Brown Road also. Van Eeckhout questioned whether that was legal grounds for denial. PAGE 11 / MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Sansevere stated he understood from what the City Attorney has said, it is legal grounds for denial. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated he has reviewed the proposed resolution, and in his judgment the Applicant has not been able to satisfy a reasonable requirement of the City ordinances that he have legal access to his property in order to support the subdivision. Mayor Peterson commented the City can either vote on the denial resolution tonight or Mr. Van Eeckhout can agree to an extension. Sansevere encouraged the Applicant to take the extension. Van Eeckhout questioned whether the extension would be valid anymore. Flint stated the Applicant cannot come to the City Council and present vague ideas regarding a subdivision. Flint stated the Applicant needs to have his proposal laid out so the Council knows exactly what is being proposed. Flint commented he is unable to abstractly discuss this matter. Van Eeckhout indicated he understands that. Mayor Peterson commented the Council would prefer that the Applicant agree to an extension. Van Eeckhout inquired whether the City Attorney feels the extensions granted to date have been valid. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated in his opinion there is a good faith basis to say that they are. Sansevere commented the extension would give the Applicant more time to reopen his negotiations with Dunn, but the choice is up to the Applicant. Van Eeckhout stated he also has asked the City to support a condemnation in order to gain access. Sansevere stated he would not be in support of that proposal. Van Eeckhout commented he would like to get the Council's view on condemnation. Sansevere stated there has not been any formal action by the Council on that matter. Mayor Peterson encouraged the Applicant give some consideration to extending the time limit. Van Eeckhout stated the Orono City Council has the authority to perfect this easement. Van Eeckhout commented in his view an extension will not do much good, and if the denial resolution is approved, he will proceed from there. Flint stated if the Applicant chooses not to go with the extension, the Council has no option but to vote his application down. Flint commented it is his understanding that the City Council is not in support of the application as it is being presented this evening. PAGE 12 / MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout;Continued) Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant prefers the Council vote on the resolution. Van Eeckhout stated in his view the time extension is not the big issue tonight. Van Eeckhout stated until he signed the extension on December 1st, the City did not have extension for a period of time. Flint stated at the time the Applicant signed the last extension he agreed to do so without any prejudice to any rights which have accrued to the Applicant in the past. Mayor Peterson inquired whether the Applicant will agree to an extension. Van Eeckhout stated he is convinced an extension will not do anything for him. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2631 CITY OF ORONO -ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT-ORDINANCE NO. 202, 2ND SERIES Gaffron stated the City Council discussed this matter in a work session last week, with the Council requesting some minor changes to the Ordinance. Gaffron stated the requested modifications have been incorporated into the ordinance and are defined in his February 23, 2001 memorandum. Gaffron recommended the Council adopt the ordinance for creation of a residential planned unit development district. Flint questioned the section regarding clustered use in a rural area and whether that is good policy on the part of the City. Flint inquired if someone had ten acres in a five acre zoning whether they would be permitted to have two units in close proximity to one another. Moorse stated it is his understanding of the ordinance that clustering of single family homes is permitted in the rural areas but clustering in addition to that is only permitted in the urban areas. Gaffron stated if a person has ten acres and wants to construct two dwellings in close proximity, that would be acceptable. Gaffron stated they would be permitted to construct two houses on the ten acres but not three. Gaffron stated it is reasonable to expect that someone might cluster eight homes on two acre sites with 32 acres remaining open in order to make the septic work. Flint stated that cluster is not attached. Gaffron stated with attached dwellings you start to deal with issues relating to sewer and maintaining open space. Flint stated the Council can probably review this issue in the future. Gaffron commented the City has generally thought of rural areas as having single family units and not attached housing units. PAGE 13 / .!' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2631 City of Orono -RPUD Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Tom Barrett, City Attorney, questioned Item 5, Subdivision 5(G) and Subdivision 5(H), height of buildings. Gaffron stated with the elimination of the two and a half story requirement, the City's 30 foot rule will still allow the same measurement methods. Gaffron stated the issue of stories will not be a matter for consideration and the City will simply deal with a height of 30 feet. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, suggested that what the City may have created is a rule which allows greater massing of the building because there is no longer a gable limiting the structure to t\vo and a half stories. Gaffron stated that would be the case, and gave an example where someone could have two stories with each story being 15 feet in height. Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 202, Second Series, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10 of the Orono Municipal Code by Adding Section 10.33, RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2639 CITY OF ORONO -ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -SECTION 10.52, SECTION 10.52: ADD RPUD TO LIST OF ALLOWABLE ZONING DISTRICTS IN HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA -ORDINANCE NO. 203, 2ND SERIES Gaffron stated this matter has been modified slightly to include some additional revisions to Section 10.52 which clarify the ordinance. Gaffron reviewed his February 26, 2001 memorandum regarding the proposed revisions. The following language has been added referencing the RPUD exceptions to the five acre minimum acre for rezoning. Subd. 1. Minimum Area. "To insure consistency with the goals and objectiYes of the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres, except that exceptions to this requirement may be granted for certain properties being rezoned to RPUD per the conditions established in the RPUD District standards. , The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study." In addition, language has been added that specifically requires the granting of rights-of-way for trails as part of the "access and circulation plan" when rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor and the addition of a finding of consistency has been included in the ordinance as it relates to available zoning districts. Gaffron gave a brief Highway 12 Corridor Study area background, noting this area was originally defined in the 1988 Comprehensive Plan but not redefined as part of the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan update. Gaffron indicated the updated Comprehensive Plan does not change the boundaries but merely clarifies and more strictly defines what is planned to happen for certain properties within that corridor. PAGE 14 / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 23, 2001 ITEM NO.: s- Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: List of Exhibits: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-lB One Family Rural Residential A Extension dated 12/18/00 B Denial Resolution C Plat Map D City Attorney Letter Regarding Property Access Issue (January 21, 2000) Background: 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 reauires aoproval 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. - CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 REQUEST TO EXTEND LAND USE APPLICATION #2550 City of Orono P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brown Road. The term of this extension shall be to February 28, 2001. I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. This extended deadline is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to permit additional time for review of the road access issue. Property Owner/ A,pplicant Charles Van Eeckhout -120 South Brov.n Road Long Lake, MN 55356 -i\ 1t_/fl "'J ,0 // __;_,_ ,,. ;_s,· ~~ I :-1/h t_( } 71) f 4-<. ,1 J,-JI i Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fa~(952)249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us A RESOLUTION DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -FILE NO. 2550 WHEREAS, Charles Van Eeckhout (hereinafter the "applicant") filed an application requesting a Class III preliminary subdivision of property legally described as: Tract H, R.L.S. No. 352, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, The applicant has applied to the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") for a subdivision of property including a conditional use permit to permit the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on November 15, 1999, January 19, 2000 and August 21, 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the request on a vote of __ to __ based on the following findings of fact: FINDINGS 1. The City of Orono had identified two primary concerns, determination of the wetland boundary and road access, that would have required resolution prior to preliminary plat approval. '> On October 16, 2000 a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), with representatives of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), Hennepin Conservation Page 1 of 4 District, and Board of Water and Soil Resources met on the property to review the wetland boundary as delineated by Svobota Ecological Services (SES). 3. The TEP generally agreed to the delineation line as determined by SES. 4. The City of Orono has established an inventory of protected wetlands that are not considered buildable and valuable natural resources. Those areas shown on the 1974 wetland inventory are not credited towards buildable area for zoning purposes. A total of approximately 14 acres of the 20 ± land area is considered above the wetland boundary, based on the TEPs wetland review. 5. Access to the property has been proposed via a platted corridor through Tract G, R.L.S. No. 352. 6. Since 1954 Tract H has an easement over Tract G for driveway purposes. It is the City of Orono's position the easement is granted for driveway purposes, not roadway purposes. Prior ~s approving a subdivision, using Tract G for road access, the City must receive sufficient evidence that the owners of Tract G consent to the plat or an easement for road purposes be acquired in favor of Tract H. 7. The applicant has stated he has been unable to successfully negociate an easement for road purposes wit11 u1e owner of Tract G. 8. A revised site plan was received by the City of Orono in July, 2000 that would require access from Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. The City of Orono has made a request to the City of Long Lake to comment and determine what right of access Long Lake would permit. • 9. The applicant has not received approval for access to Apple Glen Road from the City of Long Lake. 10. The Council has determined the preferred option for access is via Tract G. Access through Apple Glen Road would haYe required the road be extended, additional traffic for additional residences and formal approval from the City of Long Lake had not been granted. Page 2 of 4 11. Tract G would provide an access that would meet the requirements for street width and provide a private road consistent with the City's policy that new developments designated as properties in rural Orono be serviced with private roads. 12. The applicant has not established evidence acceptable to the City Attorney that road access has been secured to all proposed lots. The City of Orono cannot approve the Preliminary Plat without the issue of legal access being resolved. 13. · The City of Orono has a requirement all preliminary grading, storm water management and drainage plans are approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval. The City of Orono has not received revised drainage area maps and calcuiations to determine the storm water management plan is feasible. The only calculations that have been provided were submitted in January, 2000 based on the road construction off Brown Road South, not Apple Glen Road. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor The foregoing instrument was ackno\vledged before me on this 26th . day of February, 2001, by Barbara A. Peterson & Linda S. Yee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 !J '" • ("30) z (24) 1 .. J I I I ji (76) (9) 31'3. 5 (7) ,, (;) • ~ ('37) ~ ~"Ji """ ,..,_. ~ 315 s (3o) '1,,a:..,_ µ;o.. -_ -__ -_ -.:,. .:,.,,_,;,.. "'=-"':.:." .. -=t:.._ -_ -_ -'_ ;...-.,_4 -,---f.':~--.,-.-y,-:-, _-:.:?'.. f.-tf l~ll4\i\~;f '.i :::[~~, \ ~· ::~:::;::::-::::::::~:~:::;::/;.'0<·K::':::~~~~:::::::::::::::~::'.:::%~ \j ' (10) ~ Ii ~ ~:~~~,•f-:L ,n .. WT ~ "<s ~ I!:¼ """' ~ ~ ' (II) ,, ';..,-o,'"'' . ,•• . ~ -~ -. -- I Sl •• 1' ... I J. ] b.3-1/1-~3-I.E (2) (1) .· .. -.·.· .. ·.· .. ,. ILU 1::E :..J :~ ._, • ~!JIIB©n'lS ~::l~Yl'.'lSI Mfg $1J~;px ~iEtiUl)1 i) (!) Charles E. Van Eeckhout January 21, 2000 Page 1 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON APPLETON, \l,1SCONS~ BEU..EVIU.E, ILLINOIS BLOO:.m.GTON, ILLINOIS B!lOOKFlEI.D. \VISCONSc-i CHAMPAlGN, lI.LINOIS OUCAGO, ILLINOIS CRYSTAL LAKE, ILLINOIS FT. l.A~/DER.OALE, FLORIDA JACi<SONVlllE, FLO!UDA JOLIET, II.Ll:-/01S LAKE GE:--1:.V A. WlSCO:-ISc,/ LISU. !LLI:-101S Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Orono, :MN 55365 P!:?SlUA."FR..J,.YT0\1/ER S1.iITE 31 CO 2Zl SOUTH ~"IH STREET ?,m,'l,"EAPOUS, ~"ESOTA SS-402 61Ul;.34J-4 rdEFA..X: 612.29S.039S Thomas J. Barrett Direct: 612.334-2676 TBarrett@HinshawLaw.com January 21, 2000 Re: Proposed Plat for 12 South BrO\'\TI Road, Orono City File No. 2550 Our File No. 752031 Dear Mr. Van Eeckhout: MIA.",0. FLORIDA t.m.WAtn:EE, WISCONSIN Ml/NSTER. INO!A.'<A PEO!UA. II.LINOIS PHO!Df!X, AAJZONA 11.0CKFO!\D, ILl.INOIS ST.LOUIS,bOSSO~'Rl SA.'< FRA.'IC!SCO, CA!.IFOR.'<IA SP!U:'IGF!ELD, n.l.INOIS TA.\tl'A, FLORIDA WAt,KEGA.'<, IU.INOIS -;c\s you may be aware, we are the City Attorneys for the City of Orono. Paul \Veinberger has referred your pending subdivision application to us to review the City's concerns relating to access. It is our understanding that your subdivision proposal provides for access to the land from Brown Road over a private easement for driveway purposes. This easement \Vas granted over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 purs11<1nt to a warranty deed executed by Franc P. Daniels and Marion B. Daniels in favor of Olive C. Case dated July 19, 1954, recorded August 24, 1954, as Document No. 432783 in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles ("Easement"). \Ve have reviewed the Easement, your certificate of title and the certificate of title for Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 registered in the name of John F. Dunn and Mary Ann Dunn ( collectively "Dunn"). \Ve question whether or not the proposed means of access meets the subdivision requirements oft;-_: City s:-0:-'.;::'.). The City of Orono ordinances clearly provide that when a private roadway is serving three or more lots, that roadway shall be platted as an Outlet and the City may require an Charles E. Van Eeckhout January 21, 2000 Page 2 easement for road and utility purposes be granted over the Outlet to the public. In the past, the City has always required an easement over Outlets which provide private access to .multiple lots. In this case, there is a private roadway proposed to serve three or more lots and a portion of the private road crosses over land owned by Dunn. It is our · understanding that Dunn is not willing to join in the proposed plat to permit the private roadway to be platted as an Outlot, nor will Dunn join in an easement to the City for underlying roadway and public utility purposes. As a result, the City must consider a variance from its ordinances to permit access to the proposed subdivision over a private easement. The Easement is clearly granted for "driveway" purposes, not "roadway" purposes. We question whether the easement, as granted, is sufficient to support access to six or seven lots. Prior to approving the proposed subdivision, the City must receive sufficient evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Dunn approve of the proposed development and the increased use of the easement area. Such evidence may be in the form of Mr. and Mrs. Dwm's \vritten consent to the final plat or, preferably, an amendment to the current easement agreement that clearly reflects that the access rights benefit and run with all of the new lots and identifies maintenance obligations for the roadway. As you and I discussed, the City will allow you to make a case that the easement for driveway purposes is sufficient to meet to requirements of Orono's subdivision ordinances, but the title commitment to the City of Orono which you provided to staff on Wednesday evening was insufficient to resolve the problem. It merely guaranteed Orono's interest in the easement as stated, but did not assure that either Orono's interest in an underlying public easement, or that the access rights of the six or seven lots which are being platted, can be derived from the easement for driveway purposes. You have suggested that there is case law and other legal authority that either the Title Company or your attorney would be willing to provide, and we stand ready to evaluate that material. But if it should prove insufficient, then certainly some sort of undertaking by Mr.--ounn appears to be in order. If you have any questions regarding the access issues relating to the pending subdivision, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Thomas J. Barrett cc: Paul \Veinberger MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) 25 percent hardcover limit be complied with on new construction . Kluth stated in his opinion he does not see a hardship inherent to the land . · Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2651, Stephen Longman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue, and not grant a hardcover variance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. (#7) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT , 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING, 8:05 p.m. -8:29 p.m. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted . Weinberger stated the Planning Commission has looked at various revisions of this basic concept plan a number oftimes , with the latest revision showing a four lot development. Weinberger stated this area is located ,vithin the two acre zoning district. This is a 20 acre site , with 14 .1 acres being dry buildable. The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review the new four lot concept. This matter was also reviewed by the Long Lake Planning Commission due to some road access issues that need to be resolved . Weinberger stated one of the main issues with this development relate to access to the various lots . North of the site is the City of Long Lake and Apple Glen Road, which is a private road . The Long Lake Planning Commission met on January 9th and tabled this request to consider access due to some issues relating to notification of the neighbors and discussions with Long Lake's City Attorney . The application before the Long Lake Planning Commission depicted seven lots rather than the four lots now before the Planning Comission tonight. Weinberger stated what the Applicant is now proposing is a four lot development with access back to Brown Road, which was originally considered with a cul-de-sac and a five lot plan. The revised concept plan does meet a couple of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission early on by reducing the number of lots to four. The Applicant is now proposing t\VO lots at the north end along with three lots to the south, which would also include the existing house which is owned by the Applicant. Weinberger stated this plan is again at the concept plan stage, with the Applicant looking for some direction and some type of recommendation to move this matter before the City Council for consideration of preliminary plat. Weinberger stated the two main issues that have held this application up were a technical evaluation review of the actual wetland boundaries on the property, PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) which has been resolved this past November, 2000, and access into the property. Weinberger stated the main obstacle to gaining access to this property is the fact that the property in which the proposed road would be located is owned by John Dunn and not the Applicant. The Applicant has had a driveway easement over that area for perhaps the past 40 years, which has provided access to one 20 acre site. The City Attorney has reviewed the easement document, and it is his opinion that a driveway access did not imply that a road could be constrncted in the easement to service additional lots. Currently the driveway services two lots in this area. At the time a third driveway is added to this access, the road would need to be upgraded to City standards. Weinberger stated the Applicant is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on whether they feel this is a good concept plan and should proceed forward with access negotiations with the property owner to the north. Weinberger stated this proposed plan does address many of the concerns the Planning Commission and City Council have had with the other prior proposals. Van Eeckhout indicated this is the plan ofrecord before the City, which was approved by the City Council at its November 11 th meeting, with the message that if Long Lake approves the access, the City of Orono would approve this plan. Van Eeckhout stated at the December ls1h meeting the City Council reversed itself and voted 5 to O to prepare a resolution of denial due to issues relating to access off of Apple Glen Road. Van Eeckhout stated another plan he had proposed calling for seven lots was denied due to the small lot sizes, which has resulted in a number of different revisions in the plan. Van Eeckhout noted the two main issues relating to this development have primarily focused on access and the amount of wetlands on the property. Van Eeckhout stated he does have legal access off of Apple Glen Road according to the Attorney General's Office, but due to the concerns expressed by the citizens of Long Lake, he is attempting to gain access to this development off of Brown Road. Van Eeckhout noted the Long Lake Planning Commission recently tabled his application. Van Eeckhout indicated he would prefer access off of Brown Road rather than have access disputed by the citizens of Long Lake. Van Eeckhout stated in an effort to move forward, he has contacted John Dunn, who indicated he would be agreeable to submit to binding arbitration. Eeckhout indicated he has made three offers to Dunn in the past, who has returned all three offers unsigned. Eeckhout stated he has not received any offer back from Dunn regarding access. Eeckhout stated he would like to pursue binding arbitration on the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he is looking for guidance on whether the layout before the Planning Commission is acceptable. Van Eeckhout stated this plan is predicated on access off of Brown Road. Mabutsh inquired whether this development would be hooked up to City sewer. Van Eeckhout stated it has been recommended that this property be hooked up to City sewer due to the sensitive environment issues that exist, and that there is the capacity to be hooked up to the PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAI\1'\11NG COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) sewer line. Van Eeckhout indicated this area is located in the proposed MUSA area. Bellows asked if her understanding was correct that the Applicant currently has a driveway easement over a piece of property to serve his home located on 20 acres. Van Eeckhout stated he does. Bellows inquired whether that easement would run ,vith his title. Van Eeckhout stated it would. Bellows commented that by definition a driveway in Orono can only service two residences. Gaffron stated once a driveway reaches the level of providing access to tl1ree residences, it must be upgraded to a city road. Bellows inquired how a private property owner can be forced into arbitration in order to gain access over his property. Van Eeckhout stated he is not able to do that unless the property owner agrees to it. Bellows commented she misunderstood the Applicant. Van Eeckhout stated John Dunn did indicate to him that he would be willing to submit to arbitration in a phone call. Mr. Dunn's son was present and indicated his father John is in Florida at the present time, but that it is his understanding that his father has not agreed to submit to arbitration. Bellows indicated the question of access is still unresolved at this time. Van Eeckhout stated approval would have to be subject to access. Kluth commented he is somewhat confused on what plan the Planning Commission is to look at. . . Van Eeckhout stated the proposal before the Planning Commission is the four lot development, and that he is looking for guidance on whether the Planning Commission would be agreeable to this type of development. Kluth indicated the Planning Commission is an advisory body only. Bob Sansevere, City Council Representative, stated he would prefer not to see this application again until the issue of access has been resolved, which has been communicated to the Applicant. Sansevere stated it is his position approval should not be given until access is resolved. Berg indicated she would like to see the access issue resoh-ed as well. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Van Eeckhout stated he would like to get some guidance from the Planning Commission on his plan and that he is simply following the required procedure. Kluth stated the Planning Commission has given the Applicant guidance on having smaller lot sizes and the need to resolve the access issue. Kluth stated until the access issue is resolved, the Planning Commission is really unable to give a recomme11dation one way or another on the proposal. Van Eeckhout stated he does have legal access off of Apple Glen Road but he is attempting to provide access off of Brown Road due to the concerns expressed by the residents of Long Lake. Berg stated once access has been resolved, she would be willing to revievv the plan, but at this point in time, she cannot approve any plan without knowing how the development will be accessed. Bellows commented in her view this cannot be considered a proper public hearing since the Planning Commission was not supplied with the proper documentation on the plan being discussed by the Applicant tonight. Van Eeckhout reiterated he is merely looking for some guidance from the Planning Commission at this point. Bellows stated the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to get the access issue resolved prior to bringing this application before the Planning Commission or City Council. The Planning Commission took no action on this application. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED 8:00 p.m. (#8) #2640/2641 ORONO AMBER, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, P.U.D./ SUBDIVISION/REZONING/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, 8:30 p.m. -9:17 p.m. Frank Dunbar, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting general concept approval for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre property under the PUD ordinance. The Applicant is proposing a rezoning of the two properties from B-1, Retail Sales Business District, to B-6/PUD and RPUD/PUD for multi-family residential use of the proposed east parcel. The intended use of the properties are a three-story 62 unit senior housing project and a 23',000 square foot office building. Weinberger stated the proposed residential use of the property would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as the property is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan PAGE 16 To: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date: January 8, 2001 Re: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District: Site Area: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum 20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable) 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 Eeckhout -120 South Brown Road) C City Council Minutes D Plat¥ap 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. 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout I ::0 Brown Road South Subdivision 1117/01 page--1 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 of by representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District, Board of Water 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 \\ith 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 eisewhere when findings were made to justify not building a road. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/17101 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 MUS.-\ 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 th~ south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-lB. 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 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. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, -L 5 and 6. . . Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout l 20 Brown Road South Subdivision ill 7101 page--3 Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the Cify 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 3 00' of the high water mark of the 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. 6. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and 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 stormwater management plan shall be designed to handle run off from Apple Glen Road in addition to the proposed development. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision·· 1117101 page--4 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 I~ co' . 1:!i~ 0 ·1' Cl Z!<l'. 'O o·~ <{ Oz Ct::'.'.3 .o 100::'. U CD ..._, I :,;"OP.TH 0 50 100 •-I j _1 __ ,. - SCA:.! 1:-i FEET ,,/ "\ GENERP..L NCTES: TOT AL .A.R ::.t-. GROSS AR:.J. PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: J i 20.17 ACRES 5.04 ACRES 14.15 ACRES 6.02 ACRES FIN.t..L HOUS:: _OCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETER\h\::J ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDiN•:; :..,·::JN FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DR.O'ING ll'AS PREP!RED FOR REVIEW BY TBE CLIENT, CITY A."fD OTHER REGO'U.TORY AGENCIES. THE DRAll'ING SHOULD NOT BE R!UED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PUNS. THIS »IU.TING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REV!SlONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CU!Sr OR OTHER REVIElrlNG AGENCIES. ' I A I i I CREEKSIDE I FOREST ~ CITY OF I 0 R 0 N 0 .M I N N ~ s 0 T A Q!lltl!: ·:I?m "f:C'~ Mr. C. VanEeckhout 'rel: 5t.2/ h.c a:.21 ' I I -----... --·--·-----·· I .. , •. !_.:_ ·----·-- --~--- ' :.,00"\.!~-~~;:~-=-=-~=-----------:,,.::0-r-:..-~E~:.::--~? ~v ~ .:..= ~ .. .,~--,: _.-;:::.._ .,. ___ ., __ ,_:...:,,:,.,__ ... _ ,,._.,._., _______ ~ ~ C ::'. 7.::::...:: ==:-;...~ . .=..-r i ll!VSC"o tm : .. sc,-:··•. ! ;~~~ .. ~~~-.._ : ;~=-._.-.. ~ .... -- ! ' i Qt:AL'T't w.&..V....:;OiD"!' ~ "' >-:. ' A"2f!...~ ,.__. • lip,cn • ~ .......... ~ ,_...,.. _____ :a--___ -- ..,...-.-.. .......-:r ·- coi,;::E?:" ~r:-E p~.;,:; ~! C2-B ] VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 City of Orono 952-473-0825 Mayor Jabbor, City Council and City Staff Re; Application #2550 Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my application #2500 at the City offices yesterday Dec 14, 2000. I requested the meeting to review some options and I appreciate your willingness to review this matter. So that I might verify that we came away with the same general conclusions I would like to summarize my thoughts on what was discussed (and a couple of things not discussed) Attending were Mayor Jabbore, Ron Morse, Mike Gaffron and Paul Winberger and the undesigned. Problems; 1) The City seems to prefer 6 Lots on the 14 acres of "high buildable" rather than the 7 lots in the application. 2) The City has stated a preference to exit the project off Brown Road rather that off Apple Glen Road which seems to be very unpopular with the residents of Apple Glen. The City of Orono is very concerned not to support any actions that would be viewed as offensive by the City of Long Lake that could damage the spirit of cooperation that is currently in place between the two Cities. The City of Orono has the opinion that the present driveway easement is inadequate to serve a seven lot subdivision. The owner of the easement has refused to sign any of 3 separate purchase agreements, to expand the permitted use,that have been submitted to him and even though he promised to do so. He has never made any offers or counteroffers to my purchase offers. 3) It appears that it will be quite difficult to obtain permission from Long Lake to Access Apple Glen Road and access the sewer at the end of Apple Glen. 4) It seems unlikely that all parties will agree to the application in it's current form and It is important to me and I am sure the others involved that every effort should be.make to achieve a result that can be \videly supported. I therefore make the following requests of the City council; 1) That the application be tabled so that a proposed modification can be presented to the Planning commission which after their review can be considered by the city council. If the proposed modification is supported by the Planning commission and council I would then agree to modify my application #2500 to be consistent the proposed modification. B VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 952-473-0825 2) It is agreed by the applicant that any rights that may have been acquired by the 120 day approval statute will not be asserted during a normal processing period. This is not intended to be an extension of processing time but rather a stay of the exercise of rights that may have been acquired. 3)The proposed modification includes the following differences from the proposed plan: a) reduction of lots from 7 to 4 b) Two lots would enter off Apple Glen c) Two lots would enter off the present driveway off Brown Road d) There would be no public or Private Roads or Public Sewer. The sewer if obtained from Long lake would be utilized with individual service lines. e) The applicant would agree to hold the City harmless should any issues be raised concerning the access from Brown Road. f) The applicant will make make an effort to meet with the City of Long Lake residents and other interested parties prior to the matter being considered by the Orono City council. g) Open space and other easements would be limited to an open space easement over the delineated wetland area plus the usual property line utility easements. h) The City and the applicant would use their best efforts to obtain sewer service from Long Lake since it has been concluded that given the environmental sensitivity of the area that central sewer would be in the public interest. c) Should central sewer service not be provided by Long Lake the applicant agrees to use septic systems and should that prove to be unworkable the applicant agrees to access the existing sewer line in Brown Road. · Should you not agree with the content of this summary please let me know so we can work on any problems. :~~~~ Chuck Van Eeckhout MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moilday, December 18, 2000 (#2 Recognition of Desyl Peterson, Continued)· Mayor Jabbour, on behalf of the Cities of Long Lake and Orono, presented a plaque to Desyl Peterson in recognition of her contributions to the Consolidation Committee. Desyl Peterson commented she has dedicated the majority of her career to public service, and was glad to have the opportunity to serve her O\m community by being on the Consolidation Committee. Peterson stated she would like to see the other members of the committee recognized as well, noting the committee came together as a group over time and in her opinion made a good decision regarding the merger. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH- PRELL\IINARY SUBDIVISION Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated City Staff has met with the Applicant to discuss a revision to the lot layout. The re·.-ised plan \vould eliminate three lots, reducing the total number of lots to four. Two lots would access off of Brown Road and two would access off of Apple Glen Road. Weinberger stated Staff would prefer to send the revised plan back to the Planning Commission for their review and comment on January 1th. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to reach a solution that is agreeable to all parties. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the City Council to table the existing proposal to allow him time to discuss the proposed change with all the appropriate parties involved, and if a consensus is reached among the parties, the revision \vould be made to the plan. Van Eeckhout stated the revision would consist of two lots being served off of Brown Road and two lots off of Apple Glen. Van Eeckhout stated he would like to review the proposed change with the residents of Apple Glen and the Long Lake City Council and Planning Commission, and if a solution is reached, the plan would be revised accordingly. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the Applicant \\·ould like to get some input from the Orono City Council regarding his application. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the application to be revie\\'ed by the other parties. Mayor Jabbour stated he has spoken with some representatives-of Long Lake, who indicated they are not in favor of this proposal d1:1e to some stormv.-ater issues that need to be addressed. Van Eeckhout stated he will look at his options if no consensus is reached on the new proposal. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the 60 day time period \Vould need to be extended on this application. Vari Eeckhout stated he has written a letter to the City of Orono detailing his intentions for this PAGE3 C MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mo.nday, December 18, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development. Moorse indicated this application has been going on for a considerable period oftime, with the review period having been extended a number of times. Moorse stated the Applicant's letter indicates that he is willing-not to exercise any rights he may have acquired regarding the 60 day -time period at this time. Moorse stated the Applicant's letter is not a formal extension of the 60 day time period but in his view a request to table the application to allow the Planning Commission another opportunity to review his application. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion the 60 days has expired, but as his letter indicates, if he has acquired any rights vvith regard to the 60 days, he is agreeable to not exercise those rights duri.:.,g this process. Kelley stated in his view the City Attorney needs to get involved in this matter in order to ha\e the proper papenvork signed by the Applicant. Mayor Jabbour stated the City of Orono needs to have in writing an agreement by the Applicant to extend the 60 day time period. Van Eeckhout stated he agrees not to exercise any of his rights regarding the 60 days. Mayor Jabbour inquired v,hether the Applicant would be willing to sign a letter indicating he is ,villing to extend the 60 day time period. Van Eeckhout stated he has been instrncted to not sign an extension letter. Moorse indicated that early on in the application process the City received a general letter fro:n the Applicant giving the City an extension oftime until the major issues were resolved, which have not fully been resolved at this time. Moorse stated as the application process continued.. as each 60 day time period elapsed, the City requested the Applicant .sign an extension letter, which . was done. In the middle of the process, one 60 day. time period elapsed and an extension lene~ was not signed by the Applicant. Moorse stated it is unclear whether the Applicant has gained any rights from that failure to sign an extension letter. Flint stated in his view there are two· issues before then1. One· is \\·hether the time period has elapsed, and it is his understanding that the Applicant does not wish to give those rights up at this time. The other issue is the ongoing period of time and whether or not there has in fact been a waiver of the 60 day time period. Van Eeckhout states his letter indicates he is \\·illing to nofexercise any rights he may have acquired. Flint stated in his opinion that is different from an actual extension of the 60 day time period, and at the end of this process the Applicant may choose to exercise those rights that he may have acquired. Flint stated in his view the letter should be amended to say that the Applicant does not ,vaive any rights as of today. Flint stated that would-preserve any rights the Applicant may have PAGE4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\1EETING Monday, December 18, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) acquired up to today's date, but does not necessarily give him any additional rights in the future. . . Mayor Jabbour stated the City of Orono can continue to help facilitate this application with the City of Long Lake or deny the application due to the unresolved issues. · Van Eeckhout requested that Council Member Flint read his letter that he has submitted to the City. Van Eeckhout stated it is his opinion that the 60 day time period has expired; Van Eeckhout commented he has been taking steps to address the unresolved issues relating to his application, ·and he would like to proceed fonvard with the City of Long Lake. · Flint stated the letter. could be .amended to read, the foregoing is signed without prejudice to any rights which may have accrued to the Applicant in the past. Van Eeckhout stated that change is acceptable. Mayor Jabbour requested the record reflect that Mr. Van Eeckhout is freely signing the change to his letter. Jabbour encouraged the Applicant to speak with the adjoining property owners regarding this application. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 South Brown Road, to allov, the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the proposed revision. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2645 BRENSHELL HO1\1ES, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL-RESOLUTION NO. 4587 Steve Behnke and Tom Stokes, Brenshell Homes, were present. Weinberger stated the preliminary plat for this application was approved on October 9th • The approved preliminary plat consists of five lots, with one outlot that would be created for open space. Weinberger stated the following items still need to be completed: 1. Final street designs, sanitary sewer, grading and stormwater management facilities shall be provided for approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final approval of the stormwater management plan by the MCWD. The Board deferred to vote on the final plan until the City had made a determination whether an EA W would be required. - 3. Final covenants, easement documents and maintenance agreements shall be approved by the City Attorney, including language within the maintenance agreements that would permit the City of Orono the ability to require maintenance and assess fees to the property owners within Wildhurst Woods. PAGES z (2~) "' 1 (22) (3) (76) (9) .: a ,r1. 5 . , ( 10) .(7) • ("37) ~ ,.,,_. ~ 315 • (38) ( 11) ,.,,_ .. -... , (2) d'lf-.,., 17!.32 1!:a. 53 (I) \\) , ___ ,_ (~ ~ II ~U®@IWK$ sn»~D n rn x r:;-c;-. AIM[) SlD®@I ,,__c, SIEt"H©OO 3 .·~-,........_ I . \ . . '.\ -.~} Minnehaha Creek .. Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Life MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafner, Senior Technician ¥ RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafner (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16, 2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction was not knovvn but estimated to be over fifty years ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did.not-have w.ater seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland: The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), \viU reqt-J.ire wetland buffers that would.extend out [ to that contour as part of the MCWD permitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: October 24 2000 LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District County: Hennepin LGU Contact: __,,_Jim~H""""afu=er"----------- Project Name/#: Van Eeckhout Phone #: -'('""'9"""52=.,)'--'4'-'-7~1--"'0=59~0'-------- Location of Project: Tl 17N R23W 03 NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 Orono Hennepin Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X) SWCD: David Thill (X) BWSR: . ..,,D~o,.,,u:1:,.g.,:cSn,,.yc,,d::e!er'------------ (X ) LGU: Jim Hafuer Other Wetland Experts present: ___________________ _ TEP requested by:,__:C~ity~o~f"°'Or=on'"'o"----------------------- 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check tho.re that app(y): _1L Delineation check 2. __ Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption# __) No-Loss Determination __ Replacement Plan Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39). ______ _ (Cowardin) ____ _ b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths ofacre). _______________ _ 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed?_ yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater m.2llagement plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat . Fisheries Habitat Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes ( ) No ( ) 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(X) No() Ifno, why? _____________________ _ 8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) ~ .0 11/8/00 SWCD Representative (Date) ~9~11/8/2000 BWSR Representative (Date) }~d~ 11/1/J.ooo ', 7--1-U..:.......;rep::...Z_;,;n,c;tattve::::· ___ (Date-1,r ) ·.-SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES p~oviding. the Sharper Edge· in Natural Resources & Environmental Consulting I •-' I April 4, 2000 Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner III City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crysta_! Ba.y,-MN 55323 _RE: SER Project Name: .SER Project No.: Dear Mr. Weinberger; Van Eeckhout-Orono Parcel Delineati,on 98-060-03 ·-~ APR .1 5 ?nno -. \ _ .. ·. . . . CITY Ur yriOi\/Q Tl!e putpose of this letter is to provide you with an update· regarding the above project. To briefly re~iew its status, this parcel wa;; visited by Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) on October 14, 1998. At this , , time; two areas were determined to bejurisdictio~al ~etl~nd and were _delineated by SER (see _SER ·Report No. 98-060-03 for more,detail). · The edges of these wetlands were located by SER using·a Trimble Ag 132 GPS equipped with a.Juniper Systems field data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in ;eal-time using signal~ transmitted by the Coast Guard station in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter f!C 0curacy when using real-time differential correction in.the field. ,, I • In 2000~ SEI,l determined that the boundaries of Basin~ I needed revision due to factors that were not evident at the time of field visitation. The northern boundary was r~drawn an_d red~ced {Figure 1f,..Th1s , revision was due to the presence 9f sand and gravel fill found in th is area, which iri_dicated that it would ,not meet jurisdictional wetland status. 1n addit.ion, the boundary of the northwestern finger of this basin was redrawn and reduced (Figure l).· This reed ~·anary grass dominated·area,recently.has become drier . . due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus; the extent of the wetland boundary as was determined in 1 ?98 'was decided to over-exaggerate the scop_e,of the northwestern wetla.iid edge. pJease note that the . ·i:nodified boundaries on Figure i are not exact an.cl are subject to field verificatio~. Shouid ycn.J have any questi'ons about these revised boundaries, please call me. '. ,. \ ' ' . • I , Sincerely, Svoboda Ecological Resources . · -~if-~ Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB, PWS President , cc: Chuck Van Eeckhout, Van Eeckhout Engineering Services 24 77 Shadywood Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1100 (Office) • (612) 471-0007 (F°ax) • :!'..; . ~ . . , · -· Svoboda Ecological Resources Aerial Photo of Site Approximate Basin Edges Van Eeckhout Paree Figure J.fljsonestroo _______ Rosene '71Anderlil<& 1 \j l Associates Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G. Bones:,:oo. PE.• Marvin L. Sorvala, PE. • Glenn R. Cook, PE. • Rqbert G. Schunicht, P.E. • ;erry A. Bourdon. P.E. Senior Consultants: Ro~e,: w. Rosene. P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. • Richard E. Turner. P.E. • Susan M. Eberlin. C.P.A. Associate Principals: Hc·.•.-2rd A. Sanford, P.E. • Keith A. Gordon. P.E. • Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. • Richard W. Foster. P£ • 02·.:d O. Loskota. P.E. • Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. P.E. • Michael T. Rautman·n. P.E. • Ted K.Field, PE. • Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs, PE. • F --- Engineers & Architects David A. Bonestroo. M.8.A • Sidney P. Williamson. P.E., L.S. • Agnes M. Ring. M.8.A. • Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. August 14, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckhout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloc;c. Rochester and Willmar. MN • Milwaukee, WI Website; www.oonestroo.:::::om We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a ma-timum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feet. Plans should be submitted to the City of Long Lake for their review and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of paved width with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards. The street section should provide for a minimum of 8-inches of Class 5 aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We recommend 1 ½ inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of Type 31 bituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2. Grading: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion control plan may need to incorporate bale checks and fiber blanket in the ditches and along steeper slopes. A \Vetland mitigation plan should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City's' Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. Long Lake Creek, a Mn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP standards. All proposed ponds should specify normal water level (NWL) and high water levels (HWL). The final plaris should include final pond grading including a 10: 1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides I-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure details should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to a pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer system. A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot 1, Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be extended to the westerly boundary of Outlot A. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. . I.. ---,<~ i'O?'Y? ) ., Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono November 10, 1999 Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344.-·Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds, and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well, and should be clearly disclosed to future landowners. Sewer plans are a-third. This plat identifies a line running from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is nq request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer would be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road South being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono Orchard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for the horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the developer and futl.!fe landowners be made aware of property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR Information: 6 I 2<!96-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 6 I 2-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a ~., :'vlinimum or 10\l: Post-Consumer Waste G be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail. This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement. The DNR would be willing to work with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, ~~~w~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344.--office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. December 6, 1999 City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, . _ .. ~ . :-. This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit in regards to the application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot # 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the deYelopment plan. As it exists on the preliminary plat map dated 10-14-99, the sewer runs from north to south and intersects the trail east of Brown Rd. S. Trails & Waterway's preferred route for the sewer extension would be to follow the Brown Road South right-of-way. This would minimize interference to the trail right-of-way and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. \Ve also support the City of Orono's position that Lot # 7 be set aside as a conservation outlot. This would benefit both the landowners and the trail users by providing a screening of vegetation between the housing development and the trail. Please note the above concerns in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, s'-'6~w~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5-1-8-1-. 1-800-657-.3929 An Equal Oppor1uni1y Employer Who Values Diversity ft Prin~;-J on Re<:)dt:d Paper Containing a '-4' ~tir:imum of I(}'(" Pust~Con:-.umer \Va!\lt!' August 19, 2000 ll32 PM To the city planners of Orono & Long Lake: Mr. Paul Weinberger & Matt Goldstein. The Belangers Ramon & Geraldine are opposed to the extension of Apple Glen for the purpose of :MP, Eeokhoots builamg praject. J~e~~~n ;v~rj I t890 Qlt Zl9 3183A 30NVA ~d8Q:E OOOZ · tz•inV Arlo H. Vande Vegte Pamela S. Vande Vegte 50 Valley View Road Long Lake, Iv.IN 55356 August 21, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE TRANS:MISSION TO the City of Long Lake & the City of Orono Our homestead adjoins Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. We see no benefit and only burden to the citizens of Long Lake and the property owners along Apple Glen Road to the extension of the road into any part of Orono. l 'd 80LO·ON v890 9Lv ll9 3183A 30NVA ~dl0:8 OOOl · tz·~nv August 21, 2000 · .... City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Creekside Forest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout. We are against the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: • In 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft. width that was originally proposed as part of Lon·g Lake's plan to · have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree along the right of way and approximately only 14 residences located on Apple Glen Road a narrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ . residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which is clearly not what the road was designed for. • Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessive wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. • We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road. It appears ha may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the· street to go by his front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic cre~ted by the new homeowners.driving by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen). • Apple Glen Road Is having a sort of turnover of young families living on it. These families have young children and any increase in the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing In the neighborhood. • It ls our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed in 1997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono _about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake's request. It is ironic that lhls roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposec;I to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger, many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other issues involving the City of Orono in which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would greatly increase the anti-Orono sentiment. -----{over} 8 'd 80LQ·ON t890 9Lt Zl9 3183h ~=\~h ~dZQ:E OOOZ · tz·~nv Page2 It ls clear that the best way to allow for the development of the Creekside Forest for all involved Is for Mr. Van Eeckhout to pursue acquiring property from his neighbor to the north so that access to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. ··1t is our understanding that the property owner is willing to entertain legitimate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a portion of the property. This scenario affects by far the least amount of property owners {2 versus 14). ·,··"~. Thank you for reading our concerns! . .,. Sincerely, c/.4 ~-~ YY1a1VL·. Charles & Andrea Miner · . ' . G · ; . 59 Apple Glen Road, Long Lake .. . . (952) 473-6049 · : ~ .. . cc: Matt Goldstein, -Long Lake City Planner Fax: (952) 476•9~22 ••• I '• ) . ,' . ··: • :'• I ~ •• #. , ,··· ... ~--- ·) .. ,:. .. : .... ( . t 'd 80L0·0 N t890 9L, Zl9 3183A 30NVA ~d£Q:8 OOOl · tz·jnv 1964 Park Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 952.473.8961 952,476.9822 (fax) Fax To: Mr. Paul Weinberger CITY OF LONG LAKE Prom: Matt Goldstein, Planner Fax: (952) 24~,_1_6 ______ P_a....:...g_es:_·_X._._6 _________ _ Phone; (952) 249-4600 Date: 1/5/01 Re: 120 S. Brown Rd. CC: Van Eeckhout file □ Urgent □ For Review □ Plea:m Comment □ Please Reply □ Please ~le Paul: Induded here is the Van Eeckhout staff report that will be forwarded to the Commission this afternoon and discussed on 1--9-01. Please forward comments to me before noon on Tuesday, 1-9-01. I have not forwarded this to your applieant yet Thank you. 900/100"d Gl90# ZZ96 9Lv zs6 ov=v1 1ooz,so·wr STAFF REPOR'T To: From: cc: Re: Planning Commission Matt Goldstein, City Planner Paul Weinberger, City of Orono Property File 120 s. Brown Rd. Lot Subdivision CITY OF LONG LAKE January 9, 2001 ----------................. , ........ _____________ --- PROPER'IY ADDRESS 120 s. Brown Rd. PID# 03-117-23-12-0005 PROPERTY OWNER Chuck Van Eeckhout Plan Reviewed • Proposed Property Division for I.Dng Lake Tracto~ prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated 9-29-00, ClL date-stamped 9-29-00 Request Mr. Van Eeckhout is seeklng approval from the City of Orono to subdivide his 20 acre property into four residential lots located at 120 S. Brown Rd. in Orono. This parcel abuts the southern end of Apple Glen Rd., and the applicant is seeking access from this road to serve two proposed residential lots. Background This subdivision proposal has been under Orono review since at least 1999. The outstanding environmental issues have been addressed with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources, with access to the pan:el being the only remaining unresolved issue. The City of Long Lake has indicated to the applicant that it will not act upon the access issue until a site plan has been approved from Orono. The minutes from the 9-11- 00 Orono City C.Ouncil meeting indicate that Orono ''will approve the subdivision if Long Lake grants access from Apple Glen Rd." Orono prefers full access from Brown Rd., and Mayor Jabbour stated that Orono "cannot approve the plan without having suitable access to the property because the C.OUndl would then be forced to find the applicant access." Previous draft plans indicated a 7 lot subdivision (see Exhibit 1). Currently, the parcel is accessed from Brown Rd. via a 40 foot wide access easement across a parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dunn. The applicant has indicated that the Dunns have not accepted any of the compensation offers to e.xpand the easement to construct the 28 foot wide 900/ZOO'd Zl90# Z'i::96 9lv ZS6 ov=v1 1002:,SO'N'lir road as required by Orono ordinance. The most current plan is induded as Exhibit 2. If the applicant is not granted access to Apple Glen Rd., his intent is to continue his negotiations with the Dunns in pursuit of a seven lot subdivision with access from S. Brown Rd. The four unit proposal disturbs less of the mature and sensitive vegetation than the seven unit proposal. loning_Reyiew The City of Long Lake's Zoning does not apply to this parcel. Because the subdiVision is a planned residential development (PRD), the City of Orono may be more flexible with its application of the zoning code in exchange for public enhancements, and may place additional restrictions on the development because a PRO is developed with a conditional use permit. The homes are dustered to preserve open space and environme~lly sensitive areas. The proposed setbacks are greater than those present on Apple Glen Rd., and the minimum lot sizes are greater. Legal The City Attorney has indicated that because the City has jurisdiction over Apple Glen Rd., the City can legally regulate access to the road, therefore, the City has the authority to deny access to Mr. Van Eeckhout The City is not obligated to permit access to this parcel. Engineering In 1997, Apple Glen Rd. was reconstructed with a capacity to support a seven ton load, similar to the design of Bollum Ln. This capacity is standard for residential streets, and is adE..'quate for accommodating personal vehicles and limited commercial vehides. For reference, existing Highway 12 has a ten ton capacity. Apple Glen Rd. is 26 feet wide. The minimum width is 30 feet, however, the width was rmuced to preseive some existing mature trees. The applicant is proposing to extend the 26 foot wide pavement within a SO foot wide right-of-way. Orono's City Engineer has provided comments discussing construction standards for improvements to ... /\ ~ Apple Glen if approval were granted. vJ "~ A cul-de-sac was not constructed at the end of Apple Glen Rd. Commonly, cul-de-sa~ have .J:ii O QJ.Y foot right of way with a pavement width of feet. As a result, public safety and commercial vehicles must reverse for long distances and use private driveways to tum around. Staff recommends that if approval were granted, the applicant be required to construct a paved cul- de-sac with curb and gutter as a condition of approval. Typically, cul-de-sac bulbs have a pavement radius of 40 or 45 feet, and a right of way radius of 55 or 60 feet The current plan illustrates access to the two lots via a driveway easement, not a cul-de-sac. Trip generation models commonly a$Ume that a single family home generat.es approximately ten trips per day. The two additional lots would therefore add approximately 20 trips per day on Apple Glen Rd. This represents an 11 % increase over the traffic that the existing 15 homes would presumably generate. 900/£00·a: 2:l90# Fire, Public Works Creating a cul-de-sac would enhance public safety by providing adequate space for commercial and public safety vehicles to tum around, and minimiie the use of private driveways for private vehicles to turn around. It would also enhance stonn water management by controlling water flow with curb and gutter. The Public Works DiredX>r has indicated that there is adequate water and sewer capacity in the lines that would serve this subdiVision, and recommends that the water line be looped with the existing line on Kennedy Ln. Echoing the comments of Orono's City Engineer, staff recommends that a written water and sewer agreement be created if the subdivision were approved. The applicant is proposing to create a gravity sanitary sewer system tied into the existing manhole at the south end of Apple Glen Rd. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Are.a (MUSA) as regulated by the Metropolitan Council, and accordingly, a MUSA expansion must be approved by the Orono City Council and the Metropolitan Council. other Staff has received several letters from various residents that are in opposition to granting the access. However, at the time these letters were sent, the applicant was proposing seven units with the only access to the subdivision being Apple Glen Rd., as illustrate-J in Exhibit 1. Rec;Qmm@ndations Staff is supportive of permitting the acces.5 if some public benefit to the City of Long Lake may be created as a result of the subdivision. The increase in traffic is marginal, and this is an opportunity to improve storm water management that may otherwise not occur in an area that has continued to experience flocx:ling. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the access on Apple Glen Rd. subject to the following conditions: 1. Extension of Apple Glen Rd. in an urban cross section with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet with full concrete curb and gutter in such a design that is oonsistent with the e)dstlng road; 2. Construction of a standard cul-de-sac bulb with full concrete curb and gutter at the end of Apple Glen Rd. with a minimum pavement radius of 40 feet, and a minimum right of way radius of 60 feet; 3. Creation of a written water and sewer agreement which includes approval to expand the MUSA as regulated by the Metropolitan Council; 4. Creation of oversized storm water management facilities that minimizes flocx:ling at the southern end of Apple Glen Rd. as approved by the City Engineer; 5. Looping of the water main to the exigjng line on Kennedy Ln. as required by the Public Works Director; 6. Final approval by the Qty Engineer 900/!iOO"d 'ZL90# ~ <.:)a>:!l= mn,:::~ ~!;£0 C"J I ~o~,~-, ~i 0 t ';! ~m;, .. i -~ ~ ;:, ;,:,u c;,o :,,. G)~~ t~ C~p·, !:,1s:' z ;gtls 0 ~ 'O ;,1 ;;J ZOS°? ~ !{' 8 ·r,:2!~ ,a: §>~ ~ ~~l/) ITI~~ o,,-N ~ ~~o 0 ;""b, ~ z :.'! -..J -CD -" 'r)!!'.!"\l fi~~~ v,;,:rn ;ti ;:g:x, ~B IT1M!ij Vl <n {;l M-_.o Sa]:... "I .. " .. ;:\ i:i -s vi I t,,j ~ ! \ -""3 ... -.. .....;:._ .. -•I-••-••-••-••-••-( ' I (.:h ~ I !:: 0 I~ ; .r~ ' l :•Ii ~-~ () ~ 2 , .. !"' :,: ;o _,, ::0 C •.... .,:1 Ol"'l I. !'"· 11 ! .. !:i l 'I' ~ :z: 0 :::0 I"'\ ,..;'! [j! '" fT1A j:ll'! r.1r~ ~ :, Cl) U) ll '11 ,.. VI z ,,,_ l,l "' -ia sg iH · 0 0 ,,, ,.. 0 fT1 j i!' ::r ..; f 0 r, 1Jp I ~. 5. :,, "' .!.. !/ ··,:..'!~ ..... ,,. f I ( f.11111, ZL90# 111,1,,,1111,1'1 ■1 900/SOO"d :iDI',:{'I t:,NO'I .a:o l,.J,I:) ZZ96 9Lv ZS6 zv=n i:ooz,so·wr ~i m,m., 11,;I~ / ·/ /:;;\ /~/ r ~ _:,:,y -=~r ~~~ -_j;,~-:t , ::-{ ·., 1 1 1 _ --::::--;:_' _. ./ / .,.,v; / /t ~-· ~~~-~~ -:::----=-__?~ II \ · ,: . 1 JAN -I 2JOl . ..----:_ _<"' (//(',/./' ~, ~--,,,_? ''\~, ----?-F-::::--~..,._ '\\ ) \ ~ yl /' -/.-,, ' / / ~ y '-2~F--.-.-.,, • \ . I O } ,_---:::,..,. / /.'~ /4• ~---'-,~ -· --....::.--,_ -~-'t\ ~ ;,.../ -\ ~ I f,t / / ,//I / / 'l-''-. ' --' ' \ . ~ . I ,/-/ /,i. E ' ' -~-I ' I L...------r---i. Yf / I "1/// i 1/ t 1/ -" \ ~-\ :. j!l( r/ / ----1.----~ _..,,I -'·I .ff J 91s.li".<t:' l.?¥s , // / ---. ../ J / '-, ~ ~ a <Y . I ~ :q]Rlll (I ~ LOO --' i. ~ ~•~ 1:T n::n (' ____ ,,. . ... . . , I I / I I / / ,r .,.._,._........_¼._,__ ' . , ... l _.,.-u--:::._ "f. , /,, I/ // / r 2 /"'~~.........__'--...... ->\. . 1 } r'!'7~/ /, , / {. ( ( \-;,,.1 ~ t..,-<.~~---.--\., '· ·-i.... ./ I ... J. i I , / j,>-, l r<'f l I l T' . . . . \ ..., • . ..-. . ; I I ' C/, ' ,'l I -\ ,,..Y, __ ...,... I . I , : .' r· ./ /--/" I /;;-< r '· \. -~ \ \'.. ,/; I Gll•S-'IG y-=c, ',\ I I r· -' / • ,: / , / / ( • ; '-...._ -,..,.._., -......... _ t ~ · -· ,.. "~----.., ' -.. ' ~ ' '~ // / I \ \ -. ' r<....._·,-,,-. r----';.,. . ..-: --d '\ / -.," .. ~ .. ~-=~--'-::::,,__ ' ' ,l, ........ I • ___.. . ., __:::::-..,__ --s...~-. ..., _:,;---L~~~~~ , .../ {"\ti" \ -,, PPPRO:O:O.l!>TE EDGE CF : , l~r.-r _ ../ __..--;:;~_,.,.,.,~--,.,,.. ..,,,\~' -~2<.2.---::..).,,..._,,.E':=-' ~ ~ -r'y.__, \ cam,:.,,-rn wEn_Mm / 1-§;l t:::=-~-: ,t .J.J',...__,_,_ f l'-·1 • ---",....r . ·-~~ ~ / '\ •. l (41'-''"'""'""''( ,C,} YL<.'< f\.ClOO -g3a ,-.i/ I Ob' ,,... .,,-,::---'. . ·-.::--_.-") ~ \ ' ·\ : f ~ -~\ ~:'\.. \ '{ > (<P.,,<;O<N"[ l<-:-1.N -;,w ,-.) ~ ,' I ~~ ,,.t _,:.· ·1 • • / .. l . / l : I ,,;p-)~rt •~~~\~'¾)... ~...... \ -, , · . 7\ \ 4:, i /· . } ---!Jl·m ~ .............. ~ .,)\.• ·---;,. ";'-\ , , ~~ ---, 1,-..-_, _ :' / ,<_...,._,,...rh:: ? ~ ,~~;( r:r-.<V ~ .-•.. ·· I . :0 i~.... ,l : --. -· -. /.,....,;,-y -•· .,-._ ;--;---,"'~ •. ,--> ,_,f .-,. I 12§ 1 r t; I ;1 .. .. : .. · I r --.· -, /,',,-L/'1 H s----->--,~'1h:S· \.-~ "-~ -~ · , r I ,_ /3 ! 1 .-· · r l .. •),-.l~-.tH · --'\-.;J!r-t-~· ·.-_ \3 ::.:~\ tJI L ' I ___ : :: I I !4 ·. !I.'-::_.•:f li~'-. _,,,:_:·_A}/,\ ... :1j ~~ · .. '•:~?-faR. : \ I 1" · I · , 19 JCR_srf'(~),-r "-· ,, · · · .!q , / r · ....___/ · , ,_ :_. ·~-~> •:, r:-J/ 1 .,1 ---7 ::~;, .~~:~~~,'el 11 G€N-C:P.J.l NC::'.S: TOTJ.L ARE.'-. GROSS ~R::~ PER LOT UPLAND 'IIETLAND ~-~i£: 20.17 ACRES 5.04 ACRES 14.15 ACRES 6.02 ACRES ANAL H0L'SC: _!)C,,.TI0NS AND TrP-i:S TO B ;'. OETEP..\11;,. ::::; OM A SITE BY SITE 8ASIS Di::PENC'llG .;::::::,M flliURE O'IINERS. C~171((1N \ \ . ' . ! ' -·-..: __ _., ., . , ! I . -~ . . Ci<l- l .\ ·-. ~~~-~ ~~~/ <:. ;/ . _---·· .. -·. . . . ---,_ <> ·. " ,_-., \ -_ .. ___ /~1,f1: / .. r':.,·,·-·-·~·V . l ~--~ ~;~;::,~,A~}.o \, •·.·. ', .\ . .-7;/ .f . --·-. . /_-. / : ___,__,----) \ ' ,-:.-: = ~yr:/-·. j_-" /.• ---~ ;_.......-r-. i . \. · ~·, -~ .. (~~-:~~i; ... -~J§t'.oc1<{\ r'(. _/?·:;; · .1 / · -, .. --.-~-~--------__ ·1 j, ~,,..-0, ~ ·-~---• -, • • • _./ ~ -~ :::::-:-.-~ ••• I ;/-;t: :· ~-/,~ --<-✓ • / / 3 _ _j c _/ /. • !~~-:· ( /f• s=-':•:;~:5-., .:. ~--_ •-_ / / ./· . -':!1.0~ ./ /i~ -/ ,/.--. . i.. -....... .. ! ;( 1, . , ,,,,.. -, • ,:c -.....,.. __ ·::<:·,. r ,, .-..... -___ · =---·-·/,✓,--, ,,,,--.--.. ....____ )._: ":/)·/ ·.:· I ✓__:! ·., --~ ·. --./;,.---:;~"' . .--~--·. /. / , ~ __.. / . . './4 .. '__..._,.,..,-,;::::: ~--.. ' ~~"~-_,.-e;.-£<-· ..r ,,,..---/ ----~-:i=--~.. ~ ~-::::, .. ~~ .. ~e'?~ --~ ._, .,.:. ~ -✓ •" /•--I .,_:... ~"--•. . -;or ~~"'s,,!; _"'"'~l<\:-2--,-,.....~_,.-•,-,-,-,.·,~-.-.-,--I ~ -~._,Y --- .~; ,P...7/.,,__:·/ / ., _,,..~-:~ ... --~ . .........._ ---=-......... -. . ~ , . 1/ . '.• -,Y -· -., •.. ' - 1 t/1, '.,//? · ! -<---.. \ ... \. ·. '-, '-. ---'-.. --___.., EXIIlBIT 2 :::..,--t l~ 1:7.,, , _. · · -· · , · .. -.. ~d · .%~7 !i~~,'(>r:• ~\-• >::.,::> .··-. ---... -. ;;, ! /._✓ • .,..// ,.:. r .' ; _. -•. • \,. •: ••••\ ......_ -........._ -~ "'-'-... ~ .~:-.-v.·...-.. · .. ,;'~ _.,, \ i . i i,: 'j --.:;::::-,=-~~~ ~ ~, ... Til3 1>:um~ y.u P.IZP.&3.tD roR :P.J'l'tP OT tac Cl!L'i'f.. -/fl · 11 i ~: \-. _..._-=-~ ~ -'~ ./ , ~~ ~~--,,,. _ .,,.. ~ .. c;rr .L'ID Gmn UGEJU.TOI!?' I.Gffl'CUS.. TI[3[ DRJ,.~ 1iSOlilll I·"· IJ I J ~------=:::. _:---,._. ~~c-~ _.::::;-==1-~ __. ;' ✓'~ "' r -------'--~ EJ!I 'Rl1JED CNN 'J'(1l C~H' Oi i'QJI, TB1 781!.YJ.a.ATIC:..'-f • .,.,..•, 1...__-_ ,#~-,:::::;....,,-~---=--,.-r---_,-l r' · --, ~ ct om2!t PU..-..S. mis a.&:mrc iS SQ'3111.J:f TO fUR!BE3. .J~ , • ·t 1' ---=-:~ ~ --IPI r .l .,,,;' ----L--~ ~ ._.i;;:Qo,a:lDIUT'Dctmfl .. ar:mlRE>"!Ellm> .. "'°'""· ~-., ~ -~-l-\ ~ -<==. \ ' ,: -•~ ...__ -...._ ____ ......... r:: --:---~-::::::..::=--: ---==-"-bi:,....~ 1-• . ---. -=-----= --__..:-=t_u1..,c."":7 ,_,_ -= =...-:,-~.-. -r . r~-. ·. ::.._~..._.._~-::::::,1'-"~-:::::--J~..., . .J., " CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ ~ I ORONO MIN Ii ES O 1 Al :1:7. Vant,;ckhoul I : --~-=--;;.., __ :.:. ... ~«eh ~..,,_~ ,-..r--.;-1,._.,.._,...,.._ --~~=-=-- cos::cr. sr.c pu:,;; ~_r ~-C2-~ "-I ~ C> {J'I -N C> C> I-' I-' ..,, ..,, {J'I \0 {J'I N ..,, ...J 0) \0 0) N N (1 H 1-3 i--< 0 hj I::"' ~ (,) I::"' ~ tr:! ~ C> 0\ ...J N '1j C> C> 0) ....._ C> C> 0\ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Mary Ann Johnson, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2550, as mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 4th day of JANUARY, 2001. . CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952)249-4622 Fax (952)249-4616 The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 beginning at 7 :30 p.m. to consider application #2550 , 120 Brown Road South for Charles Van Ee ckhout for a 4 lot Planned Residential Development of a 20 acre parcel. All persons wishing to be heard should be present. Written comments can be submitted to City Hall. Commenis should be received by January 9, 2001. The plans may be reviewed at City offices by appointment. For further information call City Hall at (952) 249-4600. City of Orono By : Planning Commission Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner ( Published in The Laker and Pioneer Dec. 30 , 2000 and Jan. 6 , 2001) Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07 , and other applicable laws, as amended . B.) The printed __ A_p_p_l_i_c_a_t_o_n_:ff:_2_5_5_0 __ Van Eeckhout which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 2 successive weeks . It was first published Saturday the 3 0thday of __ D_e_c_e_m_b_e_r __ 20_0_0 , and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the 6th day of January 20_Q_!_; ~ Auttionzed Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this Notary Public KRISTI HOLM NOTARY PUBLIC· MINNESOTA My Commission Expires J~. 31 , 2005 Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space : $13.45 per inch _ (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $13.45. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.49 per inch . Each additional successive week: $5.44 . CITY of ORONO City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices REQUEST TO EXTEND LAND USE APPLICATION #2550 Crystal Bay , MN 55323-0066 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brnwn Road. The term of this extension shall be to February 28, 2001 . I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. This extended deadline is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to permit additional time for review of the road access issue. Property Owner/ Applicant Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 tz:2~ I-(;, Ml :?h W1 C 1/0 Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 18, 2000 (#2 Recognition of Desyl Peterson, Continued) Mayor Jabbour, on behalf of the Cities of Long Lake and Orono, presented a plaque to Desyl Peterson iri recognition of her contributions to the Consolidation Committee. Desyl Peterson commented she has dedicated the majority of her career to pubiic service, and was glad to have the opportunity to serve her own community by being on the Consolidation Committee . Peterson stated she would like to see the other members of the committee recognized as well, noting the committee came together as a group over time and in her opinion made a good decision regarding the merger. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Charles Van Eeckhout , Applicant, \Yas present. Weinberger stated City Staff has met with the Applicant to discuss a revision to the lot layout. The revised plan would eliminate three lots , reducing the total number of lots to four. Two lots would access off of Brown Road and two would access off of Apple Glen Road . Weinberger stated Staff would prefer to send the revised plan back to the Planning Commission for their review and comment on January 18 "". Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to reach a solution that is agreeable to all parties . Van Eeckhout stated he would like the City Council to table the existing proposal to allow him time to discuss the proposed change with all the appropriate parties involved, and if a consensus is reached among the parties, the revision would be made to the plan. Van Eeckhout stated the revision would consist of two lots being served off of Brown Road and two lots off of Apple Glen . Van Eeckhout stated he would like to review the proposed change with the residents of Apple Glen and the Long Lake City Council and Planning Commission, and if a solution is reached, the plan would be revised accordingly . Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the Applicant would like to get some input from the Orono City Council regarding his application. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the application to be reviewed by the other parties . Mayor Jabbour stated he has spoken with some representatives of Long Lake, who indicated they are not in favor of this proposal due to some storm water issues that need to be addressed. Van Eeckhout stated he will look at his options if no consensus is reached on the new proposal. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the 60 day time period would need to be extended on this application. Van Eeckhout stated he has written a letter to the City of Orono detailing his intentions for this PAGE3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 18, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development. Moorse indicated this application has been going on for a considerable period oftime, with the review period having been extended a number of times. Moorse stated the Applicant's letter indicates that he is willing not to exercise any rights he may have acquired regarding the 60 day time period at this time. Moorse stated the Applicant's letter is not a fom1al extension of the 60 day time period but in his view a request to table the application to allow the Planning Commission another opportunity to review his application. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion the 60 days has expired, but as his letter indicates, if he has acquired any rights with regard to the 60 days, he is agreeable to not exercise those rights during this process. Kelley stated in his view the City Attorney needs to get involved in this matter in order to have the proper papenvork signed by the Applicant. Mayor Jabbour stated the City of Orono needs to have in writing an agreement by the Applicant to extend the 60 day time period. Van Eeckhout stated he agrees not to exercise any of his rights regarding the 60 days. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to sign a letter indicating he is willing to extend the 60 day time period. Van Eeckhout stated he has been instructed to not sign an extension letter. Moorse indicated that early on in the application process the City received a general letter from the Applicant giving the City an extension of time until the major issues \Yere resolved, ,vhich have not fully been resolved at this time. Moorse stated as the application process continued, as each 60 day time period elapsed, the City requested the Applicant sign an extension letter, which ,vas done. In the middle of the process, one 60 day time period elapsed and an extension letter was not signed by the Applicant. Moorse stated it is unclear whether the Applicant has gained any rights from that failure to sign an extension letter. Flint stated in his view there are two issues before them. One is whether the time period has elapsed, and it is his understanding that the Applicant does not wish to give those rights up at this time. The other issue is the ongoing period of time and whether or not there has in fact been a waiver of the 60 day time period. Van Eeckhout states his letter indicates he is \\'illing to not exercise any rights he may have acquired. Flint stated in his opinion that is different from an actual extension of the 60 day time period, and at the end of this process the Applicant may choose to exercise those rights that he may have acquired. Flint stated in his view the letter should be amended to say that the Applicant does not waive any rights as of today. Flint stated that would preserve any rights the Applicant may have PAGE4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 18, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) acquired up to today's date, but does not necessarily give him any additional rights in the future. Mayor Jabbour stated the City of Orono can continue to help facilitate this application with the City of Long Lake or deny the application due to the unresolved issues. Van Eeckhout requested that Council Member Flint read his letter that he has submitted to the City. Van Eeckhout stated it is his opinion that the 60 day time period has expired. Van Eeckhout commented he has been taking steps to address the unresolved issues relating to his application, and he would like to proceed fonvard ,vith the City of Long Lake. Flint stated the letter could be amended to read, the foregoing is signed ·without prejudice to any rights which may have accrued to the Applicant in the past. Van Eeckhout stated that change is acceptable. Mayor Jabbour requested the record reflect that Mr. Van Eeckhout is freely signing the change to his letter. Jabbour encouraged the Applicant to speak with the adjoining property owners regarding this application. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 South Brown Road, to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the proposed revision. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2645 BRENSHELL HOMES, 1181 WILD HURST TRAIL -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL -RESOLUTION NO. 4587 Steve Behnke and Tom Stokes, Brenshell Homes, were present. Weinberger stated the preliminary plat for this application was approved on October 9th . The approved preliminary plat consists of five lots, with one outlot that would be created for open space. Weinberger stated the following items still need to be completed: l. Final street designs, sanitary sewer, grading and storrnwater management facilities shall be provided for approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final approval of the stormwater management plan by the MCWD. The Board deferred to vote on the final plan until the City had made a determination whether an EA W ,vould be required. 3. Final covenants, easement documents and maintenance agreements shall be approved by the City Attorney. including language within the maintenance agreements that would permit the City of Orono the ability to require maintenance and assess fees to the property owners within Wildhurst Woods. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 18, 2000 (#2645 Brenshell Homes, Continued) 4. Payment of Park Fees and Sewer Connection Fees. 5. Letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of improvement fees shall be received by the City subject to the execution of a Developer's Agreement between the developer and the City. 6. Title Opinion shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Weinberger stated the City Council could approve this application contingent upon approval by the MCWD, which is expected to review this application this week. Weinberger reiterated the City would have the right to require maintenance and assess fees to the property owners within Wildhurst Woods under the maintenance agreements. Weinberger stated the City and the Watershed District would need to approve any changes to the stormwater management plan. Flint requested the language found on page seven relating to the homeowner·s association being responsible for the maintenance and/or repair of the NURP ponds be brought to the City Attorney's attention to insure that is adequate language to cover the stonmvater management ponds. Weinberger stated all documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the plat being released for filing. Flint inquired whether the retaining wall is included within the conservation area. Weinberger stated the ponds and retaining \val! are within the conservation area. Weinberger stated a conservation easement has been placed over Lots 2 and 3 over those areas that are below the 1014 contour, \Yhich would require that those areas remain natural. Weinberger stated markers have been placed designating those places as conservation areas. Behnke indicated the MCWD will be meeting Thursday night to give final approval to the plan, noting they have given preliminary approval previously. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4587, a Resolution Approving the Plat of Wildhurst Woods, 1181 Wildhurst Trail. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Stokes expressed his thanks to the Orono City Staff and Counci I for the professional manner in which their application \Yas handled. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabbour stated he met with the Hennepin County Public Works Department regarding the Dakota Rail. Jabbour stated it is his understanding some legislation will be introduced in the near future prohibiting the County from negotiating for the railroad line. Jabbour stated he will continue to work on this project. PAGE6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Title Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: List of Exhibits: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Bro\\TI Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-1 B One Familv Rural Residential " A TEP Panel Findings and Determination B Letter From Apple Glen Road Property Owner (August 21, 2000) DATE: December 15, 2000 ITEM NO.: 3 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 of lots from 4 to 2 adjacent to Long Lake) and resolution of the access to the lots (this \Vill 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. Minnehaha CreeK • Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Qµality of Life MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafuer, Senior Technician ¥ RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Pact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafuer (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16, 2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction was not known but estimated to be over fifty years ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The · LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out A to that contour as part of the MCWD permitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT ·_,-. · .. ·-· .. .,, Date: October 24 2000 LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Cotmty: Hennepin LGU Contact: ~Tun~H=afu=er~-------- Project Name/#: VanEeclchout Phone#: _(=9=52=)'--'4'--'-7-=-1-0...:.=59'-"0'--------- Location of Project: Tl 17N R23W 03 NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 Orono Hennepin Township, Rmlge, Sectioo, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County TEP Members (and others) mio reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X ) SWCD: David Thill (X) LGU: Tun Hafuer (X) BWSR: Doug Snyder Other Wetland Experts present: __________________ _ IBP requested by:~C=ity~of~Or~o=no~-------------------- 1. Type of IBP determination requested (check those that apply): l Delineation check 2. __ Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption#__) No-Loss Determination __ Replacement Plan Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a Wetland Type (Circular 39) ______ _ (Cowardin) ____ _ b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths ofacre) ______________ _ 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed?_ yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Grotmdwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shqreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat ;Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland fi.mctions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes() No() 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(X) No () Ifno, v.hy? _____________________ _ 8. SIGNATURES (,JTEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) ~ IJ 11/8/00 +!:!::::::=.::&=:::::::=-___!._:./.'' 1/)060 SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) (Date) (3 ___. August 21, 2000 · .... . City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Creekside Forest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout. We are against the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: . . • In 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft width that was originally proposed as part of Lon·g Lake's plan to · have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree along the right of way and approximately only 14 residences located on Apple~ -- Glen Road a 11arrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ . residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which is clearly not what the road was designed for. • Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessjve wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. • We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road. It appears he may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the· street to go by his front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic cre~ted by the new homeowners.driving by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen), • Apple Glen Road Is having a sort of turnover of young families living on it. These families have young children and any increase in the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing In the . neighborhood. • It Is our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed in 1997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono _about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake's request. It is ironic that this roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposec;I to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger. many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other issues involving the City of Orono in which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would greatly increase the anti-Orono sentiment. (over) £ 'd B0L0'0N t£90 9Lt ll9 31~3A 3ONVA ~dl0:£ OOOl · tz•iny Page2 It Is clear that the best way to allow for the development of the Creekside Forest for all involved Is for Mr. Van Eeckhout to pursue acquiring property from his neighbor to the north so that access to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. ··n is our understanding that the property owner is willing to entertain legitimate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a portion of the property. This scenario affects by far the least amount of property owners (2 versus 14). ·---~~. ·. ·. Thank you for reading our concerns! -.. Sincerely, ~ 9--.~ YV7,r-f!t . Charles & Andrea Miner · . ' -L, · ; . 59 Apple Glen Road, Long Lake .. . : · · · (952) 473-5049 · : ~ '• . cc: Matt Goldstein, .Long Lake City Planner Fax: (952) 476•9~22 '•• t ... . ~ . ' . ·. . ·• .. . (· . ~ .. ~ ,··· ... -. .. " . ·.:. .. : . i-: . . . ,. (. t 'd 80LO'ON t890 9Lt ll9 3183A 3GNVA ~d80:8 OOOl · tz·jny September 23, 2000 Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 To: Members of the Orono City Council Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of the article which appeared in the September 20, 2000, edition of the Sun- Sailor Newspaper, we feel compelled to clarify the record with regard to the issue of access to the proposed VanEeckout development. Following several preliminary conversations, we asked Mr. VanEeckout to draw up a proposal and make us an offer for the easement he sought. We suggested that said proposal clearly specify the scope of the easement he was seeking and that it be in legally recordable form. Eventually, Mr. VanEeckout submitted a proposal to us. However, the amount of compensation offered, the vague description of the proposed easement, and the inclusion of other unrelated issues in the proposal indicated to us that we were nowhere near to reaching an agreement. We informed Mr. VanEeckout of this fact in a letter which clearly specified the criteria to be met in any future proposal. (Copies of Mr. VanEeckout's proposal and our responsive letter are available upon request.) However, rather than making a realistic offer to obtain an easement through our property, Mr. Van Eeckout chose to switch course and pursue an access through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. In fact, following receipt of our letter, Mr. VanEeckout has initiated no further discussions with us regarding an easement to his proposed development off of Brown Road. Mr. VanEeckout's characterization ofus as "uncooperative" is disingenuous and just plain false. As we indicated in our responsive letter, we are more than willing to consider a reasonable proposal for an easement to his proposed development. In fact, we openly acknowledge that we are willing to grant such an easement for reasonable compensation in light of the value of Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development. However, thus far, Mr. VanEeckout has demonstrated a willingness to proceed only on his terms, at his price, and his schedule. Now that you have a slightly more balanced picture of the situation regarding the issue of access to Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development, I think you are in a position to conclude for yourselves who is being "uncooperative". Should you have further questions or desire a copy of the documents exchanged please feel free to contact us at 473-8396. }1~ ;u-~<--v</ John and Mary Dunn (l ~ 4) )-7 l (9) D) ( I) 1· 475 I TI 0 (76) n )15 2. R L $ (41) : l rt L. ~: r:ll!J ~\) I 5J 10 : (74) : (73) .,.. (21) :(75) : 151 9l : .......... -11~ ....... .; J---!."-'-'-"-=---, I ------•------••----------T-------• :...J~ ·····················)1.~ ............... ··~ -l---_;!.;~--'--7 (69) <\>. (. ~- ----~·· E H I ( 5) f/36) ( 10) ( 62} 10 ( 63) CITY Of LO'lG LAKE ~.6 C[TY Of ORONO '\ Ii \ ~ C "'f --i -~ I -~ <P I I ! . ~I s! \ d·-_,,,,,.,_,,,,,,, -------1(--- I --/-·····,,, ✓--··· @".@'~ ) I ~~--/ / T ( II) ·•·•· ... ••l ........ . ( 2) .....___ -,:::::--v --::::::=- 6 ( 10) 5 (9) ( 2) ( I) ... NORTH hrl.Joo SCALE IN FEET GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: I I I I I \ \ _, -"" 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DRA'IING 'll'AS PREPARED FOR REVIEW BY THE CLIENT, CITY AND OTHER REGUL\TORY AGENCIES. THE DR.A.lllNG SHOULD /, / I / I ✓ I ! 7 2s ··-.... ·."-.. ~STING~s./"------.,. ~ ··-· "'\ 3 ~ . APPROXIMATE EDGE OF r \ DELINEATED WETLAND ) I " . I ~ (APPROXIMATE ,oo YEAR FLOOD = 938 ·1-v 1 " PPRTMATE N.H.W. = 936.5,-) _ -~.:b26 1 ---. . ·1\ l ·I I . I I . . I ! -OPEN SPACE.EASEMENT TO DNR ~--APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV-938 1/. TREES -· -.,,,.,---- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND ·-- I I CREEKSIDE I FOREST ~ CITY OF 0 RON 0 I I I I M I N N E s 0 T A il:!Ktlle:Im.'2t2 Mr. C. VanEeckhout T..t SU/ hr '12/ , __ .. ,._ .. , ..... _,.. ______ -~---.. ·---···---· ___ , ______ .,. ___ ,_ --·--- ~----_..,_ ~~.::~~.::.::--=-.__..,.._,_,_ ___ ~,....Ooa:t-----.. -........ ----~ .. ,.,_.,_IINf,lcl _______ :.: .:::--z==·---= ~o/~•-=-...... _ .... ..,._.._ .... ..-... .. ..---·---c:,m,._ ...... _ «-..... -4_...,~ .......................... __________ __,,,_ c,,i,--~-_,, .... _____ ......__ 1 ..... 1-..,. I ...... CITY SV'IHITTAL. 1-a-00 ... I QU.&U!'TlU,lf...::oa:,n'U11E'W': ... .. ,., .il!."5!!. ~ ,__ . .,._.,.....,.. ................. -...... ..::.-::.= ::..==:.--··-I I PREUMINARY SITE PLAN I jr:;J1 I I C2-1 I City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (952) 294-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 12, 2000 TO: Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Review of Zoning Application #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout -120 Brown Road South 1. 2. Application Date: City Extension: November 1, 1999 to March 2, 2000 3. Applicant Extension: March 1, 2000 (No official date for action was requested by applicant. Mr. Van Eeckhout' s letter states the extension is granted to allow the city additional time to review road access and wetland issues.) 4. Applicant Extension: to August 31, 2000 (letter dated 7/10/00) 5. Applicant Extension: to October 31, 2000 (letter dated 8/15/00) 6. City of Orono: Other important dates: Sent letter requesting the applicant extend the deadline to December 31, 2000. (City did not receive a signed copy from the applicant.) 7. City sent letter requesting Long Lake comment on potential access to Apple Glen Road. (Long Lake Response is attached) 8. September 26, 2000 City received updated copy of wetland report that confirmed the wetland boundaries and revised lot layout of property 9. October 16, 2000 Technical Evaluation Panel TEP met to determine wetland boundaries as determined within the September 26, 2000 wetland report. November 13, 2000 City received findings of TEP. 10. December 15, 2000 City sent letter to Long Lake requesting review the Apple Glen access issue. The City had concluded the proposed road extensions were not within a defined wetland area. Application # _2___,5,.....5_0 ___ _ Date Received / J -/,-? 7' Amount Paid :J. 7 05 o O CITY OF ORONO -SUBDIVISION APPLICATIO~~ A pp/. DAfe "1' It? PROPERTY LOCATION Site address I zo .S &12..ow ~ r-..o fl.. o Property Identification Number (PID) _________ ~~----~-- Please check one -Property __ abstract or ~torrens? Attach legal description to application. T~-':i'-r H sz. Ls APPLICANT Name C I.\ tl...12.. Lo..::>s. Address I 2-o S VI\N C2.~1<.1--1ou r &e.c c<J i,) ?P Phone (home) ~7~-D<d ~s· City 1.,-0H)i.-, (..~ 'et;; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Zip5'>3SL, Phone (work) ___ _ ----------------------------Address __________________ Phone (home) ___ _ City ________________ Zip __ Phone (work) ___ _ ( attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use ( check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL z.o Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ___ _ Other (specify) ___ _ 7 Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) v Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites I Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) (.. New Units 1 Total Units --==3'------Units per _i _ Acres ____ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land V Residential ---- ----Other (specify) ___ _ 9 •-• I a CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION December 29, 1999 Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, Iv1N 55356 RE: ZONING APPLICATION #2550 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an application is considered complete. Your application completion date was November 1, 1999. The 60 day review period may be extended by the City of Orono by notification to the applicant. The City Council has tabled your request for subdivision, conditional use permit and variances. The application deadline date for #2540 is December 31, 1999. The City of Orono is hereby extending your application an additional 60 days to allow an extended review period. The earliest your application can return to the Planning Commission in January 19, 1999. The new application expiration date is March 2. 2000. The earliest potential date that the City Council could take action on this application is February 14, 2000. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions. Sincerely, ~'Id,~~ Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 f<Ol'l I CF, r·A>< 100 FA>< VAN EECKHOUT HOMES, INC. /9.~5 H'.,O'ZATA BL 'VD. Wl'llG LAKE, MN. 55356 City of Orono Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 March 1 . 2000 F'A[iE (H CJ (612) .J'?3-l.'>78 It is my understanding that certain statutes exist that require Cities to handle certain tand applications within certain time guidelines. It is further undwstood that my application for a subdivision at 120 South Brown Road is nearing the lir1 t of these time guidelines. In order to allcw the city additional time to review the Road access that had been approved by previous City actions and allow the applicant additional time to review certain wetland determinations and interpretations, it is requested the this application be tabled and continued until these matters have been resolved. Sincerely; Chuck Van Eeckhout RESTDENTIAL AND CO,UMERC/Al. CONSTRl.!CTTON MN. LIC. 2444 City of Orono P.O. Box66 CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices REQUEST TO EXTEND LAND USE APPLICATION #2550 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting variances and a conditional use permit for a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brown Road. The term of this extension shall be to August 31, 2000. I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. This extended deadline is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to permit additional time for review of the Road access issue and to allow additional time to review certain wetland determinations. ,#~~ ~ Property Owner/ Applicant Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Bro\vn Road Long Lake, MN 55356 7-/0-;).ooo Date Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us CITY of ORONO City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices REQUEST TO EXTEND LAND USE APPLICATION #2550 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting variances and a conditional use permit for a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brown Road, The term of this extension shall be to October 31, 2000. I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. This extended deadline is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to pennit additional time for review of the Road access issue and to allow additional time to review certain wetland determinations. /~~8/;s/zcoo -Property Owner/ Applicant Date Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us City of Orono P .O. Box 66 CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono , MN 5535 6 Municipal Offices T o""' B CA.-< "'-Vtr Mailing Address: P.O . Box 66 Cry stal Bay , MN 55323-0066 ~l'A..S copie_s C-t O f1t(\i\J REQUEST TO EXTEND L AND U S E APPLICATION #2550 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting variances and a conditional use permit for a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brown Road. The term of this extension shall be to December 31 , 2000. I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. This extended deadl ine is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to permit additional review of the Road access issue and to allow additional time for the TEP review of the wetland evaluation report . Prnperty Owner/ Applicant Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Date Tel ephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us CITY of ORONO October 30, 2000 Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: ZONING APPLICATION #2550 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 The City of Orono is requesting an extension of your zoning application to allow time for the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to complete their wetland determination. We have not received a final determination as of the date ofthis letter. Please sign the attached extension letter and return it in the envelope provided . · Once we have received your extension and the TEP has completed their review we will place your request on the next available Council agenda. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (952) 249-4600 should you have questions. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us Paul Weinberger City of Orono P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, :rvIN 55323-0066 CITY OF LONG LAKE RE: Preliminary Plan Review for 120-South Brown Road Charles Van Eeckhout -Orono Zoning Application #2550 Dear Mr. Weinberger: August 9, 2000 In response to your letter dated· August 1, 2000 requesting that the Long Lake City Council forward any concerns regarding Mr. Van Eeckhout's request prior to your August 21, 2000 planning commission meeting I would offer the following. Long Lake city staff has previously met with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss his proposal. Staff directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek final plan approval from the City of Orono prior to submitting a request to the City of Long Lake for road and/or sewer access. I have discussed this course of action with both the Long Lake Planning Commission and the Long Lake City Council and they have agreed that they prefer to review the request once the plan has received final approval by the City of Orono. Please feel free to· contact me if I can be of any additional assistance regarding this matter. nnonSw-s~ City Admini~r ) SJS/ss cc: Matt Goldstein, Planner Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator 1964 P:irk Avenue• Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fox)• http://www.ci.long-lake.mn.us SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL'RESOURCES Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environ~ental Consulting_ . . '\ September 26, 2000 Mr. Chuck Van Eeckhouf 120 South Brown Road . Long Lake, MN, 55356 RE: SER Project Name: Van Eeckhout Property SER ProJect No: 1998-060-03 ( - 'I, · · Project Location: ,NW 1/,4 of NE 1/4 6f Section 3, Tl 17N,.R23W, City of Orono, . Hennepin'County, Minnesota .. · · P.i;oject Description: Final \Vetland Delineation of Parcel' Dear Mr. Van Eeckhout: As requested, Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) visited the above ·referenced property on August 14, 2000, to iden!ify areas meeting wetland criteria as specified \n the 19~7 U :S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Dylineation Manual. This site was initially delineated in a SER report (No. 98-060-03) dated December 22, i 998 on the same'parcel ofland. A second delineation was performed in April of 2000 by Frank , Svoboda. This delineation line, a modification of the northwest wetland boundary ofbasin #1_ was field reviewed on August 29, 2000 by JohnSmythe ofBonestroo & Associates and the City of Orono. The City of Orono represented by Mr. Paul Weinberger recommended on August 29, 2000 that Mr. Jim Hafner from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District make the final wetland boundary decision_alo~g with Mr. \Vayne Jacobson of SER, which occured on Septembe~ 9, ' 2000. The delineation data presented irt this report supports the fi~al wetland delineation line on the parcel which was agreed to in the field. : The Routine On-Site Deli~eation Method along with atypical investigation procedures was used for this analysis. Iri this method, the, following procedures were used to determine the wetland boundary: ' · 1) · The vegetative community was sampled in ~11 present strata to determine whether 50% of the dominant plant species '\ere hydrophytic. · · 2) . _Soil pits were dug using a bobcat-and a post hol~ auger to a depths of 23. to 44 inches, ' . noting soil profile and any hydric soil, characteristics. . , ' ~ .. . ·_2477 Shadywood Road • ~xcelsior, MN 55331 . (95~) 471-li00 (Office) • (952) 471-000? (Fax) Minnehaha Creek. Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Lift MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafner, Senior Technician 1 RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafner (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16, 2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction was not known but estimated to be over fifty years ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The · LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out to that contour as part of the MCWD permitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT ., ·-· Date: October 24 2000 LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District .-··. -·· .. : ... _.,. Cotmty: Hennepin LGU Contact _.:!,;Tllll~H~afu=er:!,_ _______ _ Project Name/#: Van Eeclchout Phone#: _(,..,9..,._52...,}w4..._7....._1-0~59,c..:0~------ .. Location of Project: Tl 17N R23W 03 NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 Orono Hennepin Township, Range, Scctioo, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County TEP Members. ( and others) v.ho reviewed project: (Chedc: if viewed project site) (X) SWCD: David Thill (X) BWSR:.~D::.!o<!:Oug=Sn~y~d:::2-er ___ ,--_____ _ (X) LGU: Jim Hafner Other Wetland Experts present. _________________ _ TEP requested by:.--:aC=ity:.,...;::cof:..;Or=o=no::;__ __________________ _ l. Type of TEP dete.nnination requested (check those that apply): .1l. Delineation check 2. __ Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption# __) No-Loss Determination __ Replacement Plan Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a Wetland Type (Circular 39) ______ _ (Cowardin) ____ _ b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) ______________ _ 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed?_ yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. The project \vill affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wtldlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/ Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes() No() · 7. Does Tec~cal Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item l.? Yes(X) No() Ifno, why?. ____________________ _ 8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is not a consmrus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) 11/8/00 SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) (Date) December 11, 2000 Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ron: CITY OF LONG LAKE RECIE~VED DEC 1 2 2000 CITY Ur UHONO Recently Shannon Sweeney forwarded to me correspondence from you that discussed the subdivision proposed by Mr. Chuck Van Eeckhout located at 120 Brown Road South. As requested, the City of Long Lake Planning Commission will tentatively review the plan on January 9, 2001, and the City Council will tentatively review it at its January 16, 2001 workshop. I am glad to have the opportunity to forward this proposal to our elected and appointed officials. To expedite the review, please forward to my attention any pertinent minutes, plans, and staff reports that have been discussed at public Orono meetings. If I have any questions, I will direct those to Mr. Weinberger. In the meantime, I will research the capacity and design of Apple Glen Road, the water and the sewer system, and any other issues that surface . Staff will provide copies of the staff report to Mr. Van Eeckhout and to you prior to those meetings. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Matt Goldstein City Planner Cc: Mr. Chuck Van Eeckhout I 1964 Park Avenue• P.O. Box 606 • Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 • 952-473-6961 952 -47 6-9622 (fax)• http://www.ci.long-lake.mn .us City Council Meeting Decemb~r 11, 2000 *5. #2480 Spring Hill Golf Club, 725 Sixth Avenue North-Final Plat Approval 3 Resolution No. 4576 and Resolution No. 4577 · Sansevere moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4576 granting an · extension of the effective period of preliminary plat approval for the plat of property located at 725 Sixth Avenue North, and to a:dopt Resolution No. 4577 · approving the plat of Spring Hill Golf Club, applicant: Andrew M. Hunter III, President. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 6. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Preliminary Subdivision Charles Van Eeckhout, the applicant, was present. Weinberger stated that the application was tabled at the last Council meeting. One of the main issues facing the applicant was the wetland delineation. Staff recently received the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) findings that approved the delineation as presented by Svobota Environmental Services, resulting in just over 14 acres of dry buildable , including areas set aside for right-of-way and NURP. The developer has requested a CUP to allow the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD), which would allow the developer density credit for all dry buildable land on the property. The concept behind the PRD is to allow for an alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision, and to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces.· The present plan provides 4 lots on the north end that are all about ¾ of an acre in size. The second issue facing the application is access to the property. The applicant has requested access via Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. The TEP concluded that the proposed road would not cross wetland boundaries. Long Lake prefers not to grant approval until the Orono Council has given conceptual approval of the development. Staff sent Long Lake the current plan and will follow-up once Council has discussed the plan. Weinberger stated that preliminary plat approval should not be granted until Mr. Van Eeckhout submits drainage area information, and storm sewer and ponding calculations for review. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application on August 21, 2000 because they felt the four north lots should be reduced to three lots, thereby increasing the average lot size; and they wanted additional information regarding wetland determinations within the development. The development as proposed under a PRD would meet the one unit per two-acre density that is required in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council, however, does have discretion regarding lot layout and density under a PRD . Weinberger also asked that Council give conceptual approval of the plan so that Long Lake could consider granting access from City Council Meeting December 11, 2000 4 6. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Preliminary Subdivision- Continued Apple Glen Road. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that he believed a preliminary plat approval \vould satisfy Long Lake's requirements. He was seeking to avoid any further time delays. · Sansevere stated that he would not approve the plan until he was assured Van Eeckhout had access to the property. He asked how discussions with the adjacent property owner were progressing. Van Eeckhout stated he believed he has legal access off Apple Glen Road and would like approval based on his conviction. He would then work \vith Long Lake and continue to seek access from Brown Road so that he could have both entrance points. Mayor Jabbour stated he had casually inquired at Long Lake whether Mr. Van Eeckhout's application would be received favorably. He felt it would not be easy to gain access from Apple Glen, and it would be significantly more difficult to gain access after January 151, because of the new council at Long Lake. The Orono Council could not give preliminary approval of his application contingent upon access being granted from Long Lake. He also stated that he received a letter from the adjacent property owner declaring that he read in Council minutes that he had been approached repeatedly by :tvlr. Van Eeckhout, when in fact, he felt he had not received reasonable offers for his land. The letter stated he was prepared to work with Mr. Van Eeckhout if he was properly compensated. Kelley stated that he favored a plan with 6 lots, and only 1 access so that more dry buildable would not be taken from the lots and used for roads. He therefore would not approve the plan in front of Council. Mayor Jabbour asked Barrett if Council could grant approval contingent upon his receiving access from Long Lake. Barrett replied that if preliminary plat approval is granted, it obligates the City to find the applicant access if he meets a series of conditions, therefore the Council should not grant preliminary approval until access is provided. Mayor Jabbour asked Mr. Sweeney, Long Lake City A.dministrator, if they could decide on access before the next Orono meeting. He replied that they would not be able to respond before January because it would have to move through the Planning Commission and the Council. He also stated that the Apple Glen residents are strongly opposed to granting access. Mayor Jabbour stated that Council had to deny the application because of the pending deadline. Council wants the subdivision to succeed, but could not approve the application before Mr. Van Eeckhout gains access to the property. City Council Meeting Decemh~r 11, 2000 6. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Preliminary Subdivision-- Continued Moorse stated that Long Lake had asked for approval of the concept before them, which Council could give without actually granting preliminary plat approval. Mr. Sweeney stated that Long Lake would not be able to respond to the application before the fourth Monday of January. Mayor Jabbour polled the Council as to their preferences for lot number and road access to the subdivision: Peterson Kelley Sansevere Flint 6 lots 6 lots undecided 6 lots Brown Road Brown Road Brown Road Apple Glen Road Mayor Jabbour stated that Council would deny the application and Mr. Van Eeckhout should gain access from Brown Road, then bring a new application before the Council. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated he was willing to grant an extension. Mayor Jabbour replied that because the application had been in the system for over a year, it should be decided at the current meeting. Mr. Van Eeckhout offered to resolve the issues before the next Council meeting if possible. 5 Mayor Jabbour moved, and Flint seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying Mr. Van Eeckhout's application for the next Council meeting, if, however, the applicant brings a plan for a six lot subdivision with access from Brown Road to staff before the next meeting, Council would consider the new plan instead. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item 7 appears after item 8. 8. #2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail-Citizen Petition for EA W- Resolution No. 4578 Steve Benke, Brenshell Homes owner, was present to answer any questions. Gaffron stated that the City received a petition from a group of citizens that came through the Environmental Quality Board requesting an EnYironmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the Brenshell Homes development. The City has been designated as the appropriate "responsible governmental unit" to determine whether an EA W is required. He stated the Council had up to 30 working days to make such a determination. Also, there was no requirement for a public hearing. Staff found that an EAW was not mandatory, but not exempt, leaving the City the option of requiring an EA W. If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others demonstrated to the Council that the project may haYe the potential for significant City Council Meeting December 11, 2000 8. #2596 Brenslzell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail-Citizen Petition for EAW-- Resolution No. 4578-Continued 6 environmental effects, then Council shall require an EAW. If evidence provided by petitioners, proposers and others failed to demonstrate to the Council that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, then Council shall deny the petition. Staff found that the Bren.shell project did not fall within any of the Mandatory EAW categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 because none of the thresholds are exceeded or even approached. Two exemption categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4600 were potentially applicable to Bren.shell Homes: 1) Subp. 2(B): Projects for which all goYernmental decisions have been made. MCWD has withheld their final effectiYe approval until after the EA W need determination has been made. 2) Subp. 12: Construction of a residential development of less than 20 units in a Fourth Class City (Orono) is exempt, except when part of the project is within a shoreland area. Approximately 80% of the Brenshell site is within the designated Shoreland area. Gaffron stated that the staff memo addresses each concern raised in the petition: erosion and increased pollution to Forest Lake, filling in of the wetland, irreversible damage to the last remaining area of Big Woods, and a hazardous intersection proposed to gain access to the development. Staff also considered 3 letters from individual residents when determining whether an EAW was necessary. Staff concluded that under the conditions of preliminary plat approval, which was granted earlier this fall, with certain refinements proposed in the staff memo, they felt it was appropriate and reasonable to find that the development has no significant environmental effects. Gary Welsh, of 1214 Wildhurst Trail, stated that the petitioners are not obstructionist and are prepared for development. They do want the EA W and may even contribute toward its expense. They would also accept the results of the EAW as final. Jack Perry, attorney with Briggs and Morgan at 2400 IDS Center, stated that he was asked to review the EA W and help the petitioners to understand the process and the resulting report. He cited Gaffron as stating the rules are unclear whether a public hearing is required. Mayor Jabbour stated that Gaffron said the hearing is not required. Mr. Perry insisted that Gaffron stated there is no mention of a public hearing being required anywhere in the relevant literature. He argued that a public hearing, even if not required, should be held out of fairness to the petitioners. He asked that the petitioners be given time to have their experts review the staff report and respond to it. Kathleen Kasprick, of 1067 Linden Lane, stated that the citizens have acted with good will toward the Council and the developer. She felt the EA W would be good for the Application Deadline: December 31, 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-IB One Family Rural Residential DATE: December 8, 2000 ITEMNO.: 0 Agenda Section: Zoning Application: Seven lot Planned Residential Development of land located at 120 South Brown Road. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F TEP Panel Findings and Determination Letter From Apple Glen Road Property Owner (August 21, 2000) Letter From John and Mary Dunn -adjacent property owners (September 23, 2000) Plat Map Proposed Lot Layout 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-I B, two acre zoning district. The developer has requested a CUP to allow the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). A PRO would allow the developer density credit for all dry buildable land on the property. Under a PRD 'the property could develop to a maximum of 7 units. The concept behind a PRD is to allow for an alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision, to enhance the appearance ofneighborhoods 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 Application Deadline: December 31, 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-lB One Family Rural Residential DATE: December 8, 2000 ITEM NO.: 0 Agenda Section: Zoning Application: Seven lot Planned Residential Development of land 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 ofrepresentatives 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-lB, 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 of 7 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 of lots 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 of lots 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. Minnehaha Creel{ • Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Life MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafner, Senior Technician ¥ RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafner (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16, 2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction ·was not known but estimated to be over fifty years ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. Toe TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated.as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. Toe · LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out A to that contour as part of the MCWD permitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT I r-.-....-:•! ,' r •. , Date: October 24 2000 LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District County: Hennepin LGU Contact: ~Ji~mH,,,,,:=!afu""'er::e...._ _______ __;_ Project Name/#: Van Eeckhout Phone#: _("""9""'52::,)c..;4:..:..7""""1-0-"=59,:;.,0=-------- Location of Project: Tl 17N R23W 03 NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 Orono Hennepin Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County TEP Members (arid others) 'Ml.O reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X) SWCD: David Thill (X) BWSR:.~D~o,:.,;,u:o.g-""Sn~y...,,d~er'------------ (X) LGU: Tun Hafner Other Wetland Experts present:. _________________ _ TEP requested by:.~C=ity--'-"o ___ fOr=o=n=o ____________________ _ 1. Type ofTEP determination requested (check those that apply): _x_ Delineation check 2. __ Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption# _) No-Loss Determination __ Replacement Plan Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39). ______ _ (Co"\-WIWll) ____ _ b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths ofacre), _______________ _ 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed?_ yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland fimctions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland fimctions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes() No ( ) 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes (X) No ( ) Ifno, 'Mly? _____________________ _ 8. SIGNATURES (if'TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) 11/8/00 ~9~11/8/2000 SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) (Date) August 21, 2000 · ,:· City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, _, .. .. We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Creekside Forest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout. We are against the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: • In 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft width that was originally proposed as part of Lon·g Lake's plan to · have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree f3 ___. along the right of way and approximately only 14 residences located on Apple ---"· Glen Road a l')arrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ . residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which is clearly not what the road was designed for. • Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessive wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. • We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Roa~. It appears he may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the street to go by his front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic cre~ted by the new homeowners.driving by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen). • Apple Glen Road Is having a sort of turnover of young families living on it. These families have young children and any increase in the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing in the neighborhood. • It Is our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed in 1997 the City of Long L~ke approached the City of Orono _about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake's request. It is ironic that this roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposec;I to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger, many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other issues involving the City of Orono in which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would greatly increase the anti-Orono sentiment. {over) £ 'd 80LQ·ON v£90 9Lv l!9 3183A 30NVA Page2 It Is clear that the best way to allow for the development of the Creekside Forest for all involved Is for Mr. Van Eeckhout to pursue acquiring property from his neighbor to the north so that access to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. ··n ls our understanding that the property owner is willing to entertain legitimate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a portion of the property. This scenario affects by far the least amount of property owners (2 versus 14). ·, ... ,~. ·. · Thank you for reading our concerns! ·,, Sincerely, c/.-4 9--, ~ YJ1,vi0· . Charles & Andrea Miner · . ' . L, · ; . 59 Apple Glen Road, Long Lake .. . : · ~· · (952) 473-6049 · : ~ .. . cc: Matt Goldstein, .Long Lake City Planner Fax: (952) 476·96_22 '•• . ' . ... ·. ! . .. . ·• .. ... • f• I : '•': ' ; •, /·· .: .. (. v 'd 80LO·ON v£90 9Lv ll9 3183A 30NVA .. .:., : . i-~ •• t• September 23, 2000 Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 To: Members of the Orono City Council Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of the article which appeared in the September 20, 2000, edition of the Sun- Sailor Newspaper, we feel compelled to clarify the record with regard to the issue of access to the proposed VanEeckout development. Following several preliminary conversations, we asked Mr. VanEeckout to draw up a proposal and make us an offer for the easement he sought. We suggested that said proposal clearly specify the scope of the easement he was seeking and that it be in legally recordable form. Eventually, Mr. VanEeckout submitted a proposal to us. However, the amount of compensation offered, the vague description of the proposed easement, and the inclusion of other unrelated issues in the proposal indicated to us that we were nowhere near to reaching an agreement. We informed Mr. VanEeckout of this fact in a letter which clearly specified the criteria to be met in any future proposal. (Copies of Mr. VanEeckout's proposal and our responsive letter are available upon request.) However, rather than making a realistic offer to obtain an easement through our property, Mr. Van Eeckout chose to switch course and pursue an access through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. In fact, following receipt of our letter, Mr. VanEeckout has initiated no further discussions with us regarding an easement to his proposed development off of Brown Road. · Mr. VanEeckout's characterization ofus as "uncooperative" is disingenuous and just plain false. As we indicated in our responsive letter, we are more than willing to consider a reasonable proposal for an easement to his proposed development. In fact, we openly acknowledge that we are willing to grant such an easement for reasonable compensation in light of the value of Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development. However, thus far, Mr. VanEeckout has demonstrated a willingness to proceed only on his terms, at his price, and his schedule. Now that you have a slightly more balanced picture of the situation regarding the issue of access to Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development, I think you are in a position to conclude for yourselves who is being "uncooperative". Should you have further questions or desire a copy of the documents exchanged please feel free to contact us at 473-8396. //~ ~~~ John and Mary Dunn r1 ( I) ~) )--;, !) ( 9) -- l (9) 1· 475 40.02. nn D (,6) '315 S. rt L s (41) (. I (/30 ( 10) • l r\ L. ~. l':lU ~i) I 5) 10 ; (74) ; (73) .,.. (21) :( 7 5) : L--='~51.:..::• 91~-, , llO , I ••·· ••·•••• ••· ·••·••• •• ., : 15 -----------ji;-----------r--------~-..... ···•······•·········· ··················•.-; ( 69) --·-7w.:1··. E H ( 5) 10 (63) ( 62} CITY Of L~ LAKE '300 7 ~-" CITY Of ORONO I! \ .: C ~r -~ A/ .--1" cf) I I ~' ~, I d·· // .-.:::-- 1(--- ✓• ••• .l.j----••J' ~~J> I; T ( 11) ........ U) ........ . ( 2) ~~--·~ --~ V -..........-.....-....._.--:::=---- 6 ( 10) 5 (9) ( 2) 4 (8) ( I} ... NORTH hrLJOO SCALE IN FEET ...., I \ ,.,,-/ I f I / Ir<--✓/ I.\ GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAt... HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION I -OPEN SPAC~-EASEMENT TO DNR / I ! 7 26 I APPR0X:YATE 100 YEAR FlOOO E:...EV•938 ~ TREES --. --......✓- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND --: CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ CITT Of 0 R ON 0 M I N N E s 0 T A I I 11:Da:ILC:Im.::c:J Mr. C. YanEeckhout I I r.t m/ h.r 512/ I l __ ., .. _ .... ___ ft __ ,.. __ -·-·-... ----· _____ .. __ .,. ____ _. ____ ~----.,.,...,.........,.. ~~::. ~~ .:.=-~ ... --------~-t,,r,,:D-_______ ,_._.,..,. ___ ....,.co ,,, .. _..........,_......., ______ =-=:r.:r~----=~~--~ ........ __.._ ... ,....._..,. .. .,.__... .. ,,,_ -...-•-•-CO(O ........... _ .. _.,._J_...,_.,. ___ ., -----.------C.,.-.-J"'J,,r,,o,,or_..,., .. _____ ,,.,. ,-,.,. I ...... CITY $1..'9-ltTTAL. 1~•\10 , ..... qu~ _.,,..~ ~ ..., 0,..-:-t;- .il!.~. ~ ,.__. . ....,._.,........ .................. .......... --------._,._.......--~ ·- PRELl!JJNARY SITE PLAN ~I C2-1 I Deadline Extended to: 10/31/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 7, 2000 ITEMNO.: q Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator/Planner Item Description: List of Exhibits: A Wetland Map B Site Plan #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Subdivision -Planned Residential Development C Planning Commission Minutes (August 21, 2000) D Planning Report Planning Commission Recommendation: Zoning The Planning Commission reviewed the revised application at their August 21, 2000 meeting and recommended 6 to O to deny the subdivision request based on the following concerns not being addressed by the applicant: 1. The four lots located on the north end of the proposed development (proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7) should be reduced in number. The lots average about one acre in size in a two acre zoning district. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. 2. The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding certain wetland determinations and regrading that may have occurred within a protected wetland. (Please refer to item No. 1 in the Application Summary below.) The applicant's representative requested the Planning Commission vote on the proposal to allow the item to be discussed with the City Council. Application Summary: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review two primary issues. L. To complete additional s·oil borings to determine total dry buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13.7 acres of dry buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density in the RR-1B district. Wetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. Svoboda has determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. F Request for Council Action continued Page2 September 7, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout The City of Orono and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are reviewing the wetland delineation for those areas that were deleted as a result of the re-evaluation. Those areas in question were identified on the City's 1974 Wetland Inventory and are protected. The MCWD is the LGU and is the organization that has the authority to approve wetland delineations, they will be reviewing the site on September 7, 2000. Orono has not received confirmation of the wetland determination by the MCWD as of the date of this memo. 2. To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a "drivewav easement" across an adjacent property. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a "roadway easement" to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Appl_e Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. The RR-1 B 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 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. These 4 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 35' front yard setback, IO' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established s·etbacks are sirriilar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to I acre in size. The subdivision request would require the following approvals: I. 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. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 7, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 3. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA will have to be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 4. Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections ( curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling the application to allow additional wetland review by the MCWD. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide direction to the applicant regarding the following issues: 1. Access via Apple Glen Road vs. Brown Road South. 2. If the road access is approved by the City of Long Lake, would the new road be private or public. (The Comprehensive Plan has stated rural developments to be platted with private roads owned and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Apple Glen Road is a public road.) 3. Should the four lots located on the north end of the proposed development (proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7) be reduced in number, per the Planning Commission recommendation. The lots average about one acre in size in a two acre zoning district. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. I -OPEN SPACE -EASEMENT TO ONR - APPROXIMATE -- EDGE OF WETLAND -I ............. CREEKSIDE FOREST ORONO MINNESOTA Mr. C. VanEeckhout' floaels ~&..,,4.;,,,,,,.!:l.o ---·-·-·------- ~I C2-1 I ~, -~;"~-. """' NORTH 0 ,o 100 ji!i_J I : I I 1~~ Iola! 1;:~l :~!ti 18~::\-, I I I I i SCALE IN GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA FEET GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS ANO lYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION TRIS DRA..-JNC 'll'AS PREPARED FOR 1t£VtElf BY THE cuttff. CTTY .\."ft) OTHER RECUUTORY AGENCIES. TJ[E I>IUW'lliC SHOULD . , , ~i ' -' I ,r.,, I' A .. '/ /, 11 /'ll ,. ,_.,.,~,\\,'\• ... ·•.,---~ /Y;}f;I II_J \ p1--., /✓/ ///I/,~ I, c-------, -r~,--..:-~~~~::-;;:--3 Y~?-r------,-•:,- ,,.,., .,I .,,...._,...,,,.//,·,"., I. , ► -f, ,~,':-... ,.,,_......_=~~~,:::"'~_,,·/4' 11: l \ • --__ ,, --_. __,.. / / ,,, , , / -✓ ~ l5 J ~ '--"-,.::,"':::,-:;;_,: ---;::_ --_, / , \ \ \ \ ) I /,. ---_,,., --( t' ,/ ; / I i , . ~-----, ~4... _/ ~ ~-=--~~ _::~~-::__. ' \ 2 \ ·! ,',..--__,..---,,.,./,,../I// / f/ '1 ,-"1 @-:._----,------~, ~ 'f -~---:-,,,-·-_,,, //~/ / ,,/t.~J ( -.._ ,_,:,• --'C 1---'-:-;;1•• • I \•._ ' 0 I 1 --/ // //' ,, / )'c_ " /_ a,_,,--~ --q_ ---' ••• i I I \ .., \ ;J. \ ; / /// I , ,• / I., <.._ '-. ', -..; "., ( I I' I: ,, ///' // / ,,,....-,---. \<1, : ..._,,,. "~ ' ---'-'· J\ \-\ ___ r---;. I .YI / / / / / / / / / -, , ~ ,. ,.f-\ '\ -, ' -::---;" -. C 1 ----TREES -- APP?OXJMA TE EOG~ or We TLMID lZZ2] \l l?Ti AN i) fJ Rf fl S TD ls f~ 1) E" T t= t? fVi i tJ E: D CRl:.:t.K~lUt:.. FOREST ~ £..!..LL21. ORONO M 1 N N E S O T A,, Mr. C. VanEeckhout ,..,r,,·· ~~=::-·=- ~ '..fii1kEe~ ~~-~ -·-·~·-·-·-------- -~ '""' PP.E:..f.\llN,\RY Si.E PL,\N c2-1 j C MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 ddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2593, Ace 3349 Crystal Bay Road, granting of the variances outlined in the August 16, ort, with the condition that the pitch of the roof will be reduced to 10/12 Gaffron noted no variance is nee or lot coverage if the structure is to consist of 1,082 square feet, but recommended ~e Planning Co · ion make a finding that that variance is not neededc:l,'v\e -(k IS" 00 sf. l'--\~o(A;~'--{,\.CL~ --· ·--·~ Ha\vn noted no variance is needed if the structure 1 der 1,500 square fe_er;;)~~~ ) . ~ . ,</<VI:? whichever is greater. C)t' P 5 -u~---:=:-LI:' Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to amend his motion to inclu variance is needed for lot coverage since the proposed structure is under feet allowed by ordinance. VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PROPOSED SEVEN LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:15 p.m. -7:46 p.m. John Bergh, Louck's & Associates, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. \Veinberger stated this application was tabled by the City Council at its February 14, 2000 meeting to allov:,.· the Applicant time to review tv,o primary issues that were being discussed in relation to this development. Weinberger stated this development is located on South Brown Road and consists of approximately 20 acres, 14.1 acres of which are dry buildable. Weinberger stated the last plan by the Applicant was proposing to gain access to this development through a tract of land owned by PAGE7 ·-to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 John Dunn. The Applicant has indicated he is unable at this time to obtain a roadway easement to access Brown Road and has submitted a new plan that requests access to the lots from Apple Glen Road, which is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has requested Long Lake grant road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. The City ofLong'Lake is requesting the City of Orono review this plan prior to their review. Weinberger stated the revised plan shows, Apple Glen Road being extended, with another road with two cul-de-sacs on the north side to serve those four lots. \Veinberger indicated the Applicant has completed the additional soil borings necessary to determine the total dry buildable area of the property. The wetlands in this area have been re-evaluated and it has been determined thattwo wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been, with the total land designated as wetland on this property consisting of 6.05 acres. This results in a total dry buildable area of 14.1 acres. Weinberger noted the two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of seven lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. Weinberger stated the_second issue was to secure access to this property, which is not currently resolved. Weinberger stated in order for this subdivision to be approved, a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development needs to be approved, which would allow the property to be developed at a t\vo acre density using cluster development and preservation space. \Vein berger noted a road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements is requested, with the Applicant requesting to constnict a 24 foot roadway. Weinberger noted City Code requires a minimum paved width for roadways serving seven or more sites to be constructed at 28 feet, v,ith Apple Glen Road being 26 feet \Yide. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAA1NING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Weinberger stated since this property is outside the MUSA area, it would require an amendment to be approved by the City Council and t_'fie Metropolitan Council to provide sewer to the site, with . approval by the City of Long Lake also being necessary. Weinberger stated access to sewer is available along Apple Glen Road. Weinberger stated this area lies ,,ithin the Tanager Lake drainage district. The DNR has requested that the wetland area on this property be protected by the granting of conservation easements on all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek, and all the property south of the creek, with open space being preserved south of the creek. The Applicant has agreed to place conservation and open space easements to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and the.developed land north of the creek. \Veinberger stated City Staff feels the proposed preliminary plat is in a format that could be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Cou~cil approvi_ng the Preliminary Plat, the Applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection, and the 1fet Council shall approve a :t-.fUSA extension. 2.• The road shall be .constructed to a ,,idth consistent ,vi.th road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding constmction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for final plat. 4. Granting of 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. 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. PAGE9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION l\.1EETING AUGUST 21, 2000 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlet A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000, by the City Engineer. Bergh commented the first concern expressed by the Planning Commission at the last meeting was the small lot size on the north, noting the consensus was to either eliminate a lot or to achieve bigger lot spacing. Bergh stated by having the roadway as proposed, it will create a better road\vay system and affords the developer the ability to spread the lots out more. Hawn inquired what the size of the lots on the north side is. Lindquist stated he would like to know the dry buildable area on each lot. Bergh indicated he does not have the numbers with him tonight, but to his recollection Lot 1 is just over three-quarters of an acre, all dry buildable; Lot 2 is approximately eight-tenths of an acre, \Vith approximately 80 to 90 perce_nt dry buildable; Lot 7 is all dry buildable, and Lot 3 is approximately 30 percent dry buildable but still contains a large dry buildable area consisting of approximately three-quarters to one acre. Hawn noted the City 9f Orono has received two letters from residents of Long Lake opposing the extension of Apple Glen Road. Havm noted when the wetlands were remeasured, there was mention made to a ditch that apparently \Vas not there in 1996 and also to some fill that hadn't been there in 1996. · Ha\m inquired \vhere the ditch and fill came from. Bergh stated he is uncertain of the exact history of the ditch and fill, but a wooden ditch exists in the area, \vith the creekway having been re-dug, which reduced the water level in this area. and resulted in the area becoming dry buildable. Bergh stated the only fill he is aware of is in the area of Lot 7. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Tom Woolin, 20 Apple Glen Road, stated Apple Glen Road currently has a cul-de-sac, whic~ he would like to see remam. Woolin stated he is· opposed to the extension of the road due to the extra traffic that it would bring and the additional safety concerns for the young children in the area that would result from the added traffic. Melanie Wollin stated she is in agreement \vith her husband. April Bresner, 50 Apple Glen Road, expressed concerns with e:-..iension of the street since Apple Glen Road is a narrower road and the added traffic. Mary Ann Hansen, 64 Creekside Drive, Long Lake, stated it was her understanding this area was part of a state refuge when she purchased her property three years ago. Hansen stated there currently are signs denoting the area as a state refuge, with a large number of wildlife living in the area. Ken and Judy Bigelow, 32 Apple Glen Road, stated they were opposed to the extension of the road. John Dunn, 20 South Brown Road, stated he owns the adjoining property to this development, and it is his impression the Applicant has done quite a bit of ditching on the property. Dunn also expressed concern reg_arding the small size of the lots. April Bresner questioned whether once an area is designated as a wetland, regardless if a ditch is constructed and the area_ is now deemed dry buildable, if that area is still considered to be a wetland. Stoddard stated there are many standards that go into designating an area as wetland, with the presence of water and flora being the two primary criteria used in determining whether the area should be considered a wetland. Stoddard stated the characteristics of the land can change. Stoddard stated the DNR can designate certain areas as wetlands, with the City of Orono protecting additional \Vetland area beyond the DNR designations. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Bergh noted this area has never been delineated as a wetland. \Veinberger stated the original delineation for this area was revised, ,vith the area in question not being designated as a wetland. Hav..n commented she has some concerns regarding the sand and fill having been found. Hawn inquired if City Staff has any information concerning where that fill may have come from. Weinberger stated the only information the City has is that it may have come from the excavation of the creekbed area. Weinberger stated he is not a\vare of when the area may have been filled or where the area was filled. Havm commented it is her understanding this area was wetland in 1998. Dunn stated he has seen backhoes and tractors at various times in that area, which in his opinion was done in an attempt to lower the water table in that area and to create a buildable area. Ha,\n stated she does not know whether that is in fact the case. Dunn stated from a lay person's perspective, something has occurred in the area to have lowered the \Vater table from what it was in 1998. Bergh stated if this area ,vas truly a wetland area, excavation of the creek area would not result in a lower \Vater table. Bergh stated it is his understanding from Mr. Sobotta and Mr. Van Eeckhout is that the ,vatershed going away from this property was lowered at some time and lowered the water table in this whole area. Bergh stated by digging the creekbed out would result in the creek . ,. . being filled \vith ,vater if this was a true wetland, which has not occurred. Bergh stated the outlet vvas changed to the east of this property some\vhere, which resulted in the lower water table, and he is not aware of where that change occurred. Ha\vn commented the Planning Commission will probably not be able to gain a clear understanding of the ditch and fill at tonight's meeting. Ha,vri expressed a concern regarding the small lot size. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I\.IEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Lindquist commented the Planning Commission is looking at some very small lot sizes, noting he cannot support a project with those lot sizes. Lindquist noted there is a fair amount of opposition from the residents of Long Lake to the e'l\.1:ension of Apple Glen Road. Hawn concurred that there is not a lot of support for the ex.1:ension of Apple Glen Road among the residents of Long Lake. Kluth commented the minutes reflect that the Planning Commission has expressed concerns on a number of occasions regarding the small lot size, with a recommendation being given to lower the number of lots in this development. Hawn commented the amount of dry buildable was increased slightly. Lindquist indicated the size of the lots still remain relatively small, and reiterated he would not be in support of the development as proposed. Stoddard noted he was in agreement with Lindquist. Kluth noted the City Council minutes reflect that hookup to sewer would not be allo\\'ed if it increased lot density, noting the City Council would prefer to see a two acre minimum. Kluth pointed out the Applicant was requested to address the issues relating to dry buildable and access. Bergh stated the over~ll average for the lots in this development are a little over t\\'O acres with respect to the PRD. Ha\vn commented that there are some minimum sizes that people tend to be interested in . . . regardless if the overall lot size is above the two acre minimum. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission can either act on this application tonight, which in his view it \vill be denied, or the Applicant can request the matter be tabled. Bergh requested the Planning Commission act on the revised plan. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 South Brown Road, due to the concerns expressed regarding access and PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION TvIEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 small lot size. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Havm stated the Applicant should obtain additional information regarding the ditch and fill in this area prior to appearing before the City Council. Bergh indicated tonight was the first time he became aware of it. Weinberger noted the City has requested an updated wetland delineation report and explanation regarding the fill. Havm pointed out a hearing will also be held before the Long Lake Planning Commission and City Council regarding extension of Apple Glen Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2603 JAMES RENCKENS, 3020 \VATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PER.tvlIT AND VARIANCES, 7:47 p.m. -7:52 p.m. Todd Irvine appeared 011, behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance and conditional use permit to permit the removal of approxim8:tely 1,600 yards of fill out of a City of Orono protected wetland. The pond ,vould consist of approximately 16,000 square feet of surface area, with the ma-.._inmm depth being proposed at five feet. The proposed slope would be a 10:1 ratio. The wetland would become a wildlife habitat pond with water and a nesting island in the middle. The fill will be used to form berms on the left and right sides of the driveway along Watertown Road and a berm south of the pond. City Staff feels the excavation of the v::etland will make it a Type 4 wetland, with the proposed land alterations resulting in a positive improvement and provide a higher quality wetland for PAGE 14 To: From: Date: Re: Chair Ha\Vll and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner August 14, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Bro\Vll Road 3 D ---- Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area: Proposal: List of Exhibits: A Site Plan B Grading Plan C Sewer Plan D Site Survey 20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable) Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. E Planning Commission Minutes (11/15/99) F Planning Commission Minutes (1/19/00) G City Council Minutes (2/14/00) H Engineer Comments (8/14/00) I Wetland Determination J Comments From City of Long Lake (8/9/00) .K DNR Comments (11/10/99) L D:-JR Comments (12/6/99) M Photo of Apple Glen Road N Property Owners Notification List #2550 Charles Van £eckho11t I 20 Broivn Road South Subdivision 812/100 page-I Application Background: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review 1:\vo primary issues. .L To complete additional soil borirnzs to determine total drv buildable area of the propertv. The wetland delineation report indicated onlv 13. 7 acres of drv buildable area which v.:ould allow onlv 6 lots based on the two acre per dwellin!Z unit permitted densitv in the RR-lB district. \Vetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. It has been determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allo\V a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. 2. To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the aoplicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property O\vner since this propertv does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The onlv access to the oarcel is via a "drivewav easement" across an adjacent propertv. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a "roadv.ray easement" to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road ovmed and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac frorh \Vatertov,n Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Outlot A would provide driveway access to at least one property. 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 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are simil::.r to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shO\m on the site #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8,2/ 00 pag~•-2 plan indicate a 35' 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. 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. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. 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 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. 4. Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections ( curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be O\\ned and maintained by a homeowners association. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached 11inutes (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. Planned Residential Development The RR-1B zoning district allows, by conditional use permit, the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout I 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--3 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 10.32, Subdivision 1. Conservation easements would protect all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek and all the property south of the creek. Open space would be preserved south of the creek. The DNR had concerns with the development of the land south of the creek. A permanent crossing of the creek would have been required. The developer has agreed to place the conservation and open space easement to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and developed land north of the creek. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Storm water 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. (City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H) Sanitary Sewer The City of Long Lake must approve sewer connection to the property. Due to the existing water table and the location of the DNR waterway, Long Lake Creek, this site is environmentally sensitive area. Without sewer it would be difficult to develop this site. 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. To the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, deYeloped 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--./ 3. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 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 $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 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 water mark of the 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. Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat the applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion. 2. Road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property. lines will be required for the final plat. 4. Granting of 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8.21100 page-5 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas.= 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000 by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 4. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 5. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 6. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 7. The applicant provides final lot area determinations for all proposed lots( dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage). #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121/00 page-6 --~ '• ----.......,. •• '::.:)' --·····i-' ---------. I I /; _ __, ✓)~: //.~/ ,. ::~~}~·t'::I\:-i~j{1f/H,r:~.---~-):'..t-jt~: · l~~ • 0 e1 ii/!1 :<>:~1 1s~~. : I I i ~~' NORTll O 60 IOO r~~ SCALE l:i U:l:.T -·-_✓ -,,, ,, / ,, • • / / -o "' I I ,. · , '-::..--~: ·..:c. = -=· ·-· -· :-.--· / ' · , \ \ 1 · \ I ✓-------~-~-~-(---l/:>~:--1 / 1;:~-;,---:r---~,;·'---t::/'~·\t·~~~--7~:::-~:--~-1•>\ 2 \~ l I , 0-·· --::--,...--.,,_-:· ~~ .. -_,,,,.}. l,,~"> ,-t "'-.. ,......,, __. -.:.....:, ,tc,,nl---......_ ~tco;\.\ I \ ...._,."'I , : /.,----__...,,,_;>,/"' / / ·-~!--~ ~...,,......---~;;.a --,.:~~ ... __ -----~. ·."_'"I'\\("" \. _,llti . I: . · ,'/ , ,,. / ., · 1 ··-r • -t, , --•. •· , J , -I _ -,..-r I ' ./) / f I/ I • / / 7 I ~ . / '-.:_ \ -,_ :-.,__: ---. 4 -_o-,-~ 26 Uo / ( / ."/ // l, ----□ ,\_~-->-"'--, ~1· 1•1 ~ ~ ·' I l .! / /d .-· /@ \ r '-: _ ---;:-/-\ 1 I · ' · · / ,; ...__.,, ~a\" ·· -.l '"0 '" \' 8 ~ f: E/IS/11,IG; ,7 c£5 //,' ~t,, /-,'-<..., .1'0 ,, r"" •, @ , .J...r" : I 1 \1i_.·1 1 ,,.,. ; , i'o _ ,/.,~ ,,.._._ .• ,_,_ '-, ~ ,\ ) 11 ,,.-,, ..... • -//,. _ _I,',' I / -~/ 11 " <;>'· ~---. -.. "X -·-•~,, '--...._ l!;i ,--' •. : \ I /~ 1 ~--•··;-:'),-r,·:,,_/,1/ r>I I / /? ;1, r/./ -1,,./'-,, \'-,~_:-:-;~L--~ "•\1: I .• ' , ~-• . I I ,,..., " ,,-' .. l J '\ ' ', I I fl" ('!''1 1 -': D"' r,·----~ .. ~ ', •I , ; I 1: I; I ,·1 1 1 ·, \ 'r<J '·1:;t. _.,,._ -..., ·.._ _______ -..... , 11 _.,1 ' ' I /'.· /-' , ,/ / tr:"'' I ' )'~• -.~ •. ..,_)~:.--_.,..,,✓✓✓ ,~• ~~ _:·:•',t"' \ ·, .. ~S'IIIG l'.::f.':./" -..,I\ --1• • --.,._.. _, I '"\....y." ,• / / i ;:__ ', -:J.. -...._ • "_:").--I -,___ --:_. ~ h ....... \ • • -• • •~ \ ,, '\-~:::.::: ""-,,c.'~~, 0==.t~?':"'::"'::"':,..:-=:c --~---. ' ,..."-" ('-•• -'·, , 3 'I I :, --, . ~-===:r::--1---'.r'.---:: ~--'-ourtor-=::.IC.--:._-'...c ~-::--" ppt r>.i '-_,, •. );, / \ j ·-, '-APPPOXIMA TE EDGE OF I I l / ::::----:-_--;;::-.-c-,, ,-,'Nr,',-,Yrl ,.r,,;:,> r .,,,,~--,.. • ., ;;,.:-;;:.;: '1-~~r.. , ,.,;-,--, . ' -L '\ ' DELINEATED WEiLAND ,/1 I ( .:---✓:.-f{ ,,,-~-.,_, \ \ '•',' '-'"" \ 0 \''· '-'·' ,\ ',:·•,j t}\ ,/ •··, 1 \ '-,.,(•PPHOX1MA!f1oovEARrtooo-9JB•1.)./ 1,1 l ,,.. / -~,,,.rr-,, --;i:-----y---r-:......--:;;r-,---'r--···-' ~( l ,/'--..yr " l .-1 ,. ,, -. 1 -::✓ _ , • ..::::..-,.."'-1 1 , , 1 " 1. ;, . . •.• ~·~i. ~ •-L., . ... c,, , . (t"£'('q_,,M~ll_!J -~"'-. _2J~s:0 __ c-"""'£1 /'/, \ \ ; [G' I I I I ~.,,-;_,-· ,1·-.f--""".'..;::-·.1. ,:~''-;·'-'·. '-:,; :-.~ f ·' ·\ ·'11·' \\ ' ! . ,.,, , I ,,...-...,/~::...-,~·:.,_-.~,'."""'--··"l:\_\i.\. ·\.-,, ..... I / I -I.Ii I' ' ' l I / ) Er ~ i " -1 '""' '-. ......._) t ,-, \ . ' 'l / /,,. \"-._ ._ ~ '--''!, J•l, // ✓-.•n.1/_so~ :ln-('·.--:,._·-1,• r-.(1'\. '·,c -...) I I I \ . • , / I / .. " / I .. -..,, ":;_,, \ \,-'--. . ', .... I / i':, \ I'-~ ~ :i ,,-_ ,.· ,' / I / ,,,;::~:i:j;:1-,.:,-·,,::.,i,.,_.,;~,~::,-~\, \\~~...,.-~ .. '-\~--5i'✓ I I , 'I \ Lr s :l : ., : 1 , 1 , 1 ( .. _;,~ • ,.._1k' .. , • · 1 .. --.-,,t .·,~:s>, ,. 4\ --~-" .. , , _l -OPHI Si't,C[ .EASFMFtlT 11 \ i,,, 1 I I I/ 11 1 11 :/ ,',•/ I\ ?~i.l1:111~\./ \\ \ .:1 I 1),-.-10 ortr' \ : , __ ---.. , 1 I I I I 1 / I I ,, I / 1 (-.. I,. · ,7. I / :I 1 , \ ,,, / : I' j 111 II t I I I/ t 1/ \ l,~" I/'··.-..· 5'~:-j 11 .t,lj\ I!\/ \\ ),,. I i \I I \ I I I I ! I '. i; 1\;t ' I I , >~::~· 1// ,,,--:-·, ;-,: /.? L J ~~ ) .,,....,-) : I \ \ I \ I\ I f / \ \ \ '! ; ' I \ I,\ \ 0 ) '1• \ ~ ', \ c~ / ,' ,' / []' \ "'t -J ~ / I ! / •,!--...\ \ r , . , i , , ~ . ,.; ' ,,, --' • w. -'-/ . -, ---...... ' I ' \ 1 \ \ \ i \\\ ~ .. \ ._,..J. \/--'__'; j\ \\ r--";;-.--l--v~.t'i ;--...,. rtt. I / •! I I I I \ I \ \ I I • 1. 1 \I½ ·, I 1.-, I \ ;--\-\-1-1J. I \ i ' / }' -5,_ ---1 ,.J' ,,-· I t; \ I \, 1 I\ 1\•:,a ,~··t ,t, ... c,.i~ \\1 1, J-,,: '/ ,' SI' I ,.T. / I;; \ I \, ,-,\·_,:i.~ 1··•.,/-...', .• -·~-,,/1·'/1-;:,:,._ ,-_-r "'~,,_... I · ' \ • \ · \ .' . , \ >t )1i( · / -/ --1---:._ ---~ · . '-i_·. •. , I \,,\I, . I •.41-'/.;t:t/, / 1 I ..J L,· :--;.,,\J } -..·-.::. _-._· I I , \'·'\I.. •~,I -P'P,i;i;// / P.-•·.,--✓~, I \//: .• APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR Fl.000 ELEV•9J8 -:,. TREES -· -~ APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND -.., '.:, I·:\ · ,·\\\\' ·, i\ $ 0 1 f•15 ,-,✓,{.t / ·.. i) ~ -\\ I''\ \ '· \.' ~ ) 4;"-'/'""✓.,'I r-/ /,:---. \ '\ • \ I '/":,,.\ ' ' 1, ''I-,-,,-/;, ··1 , • 1,; / ,-·"'"--~r , . / \', • ·,, \ I 1(1\,'.,\._ \ \I·., .._,'1-'"';,-; '. / ,· /,> / .✓-· ·),.,. 'J .. j . -,--,~-----GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER UPLAND LOT \' ' 1 v,· •I\• ..• ._._·,. __ ,,.,..,,...~,./ · /J-It' , •; .. --,-:--.--.-rr1 , '). .,.___ A WETLAND 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES ,. , \ ·:1;-.:_\;l;.> .::-.~.:.-:f:,"'..;_""_1=:.:.<~8t.OGf<r I J ! // / . //. ,("•'! ,...-.,.,·-=---:-.-:::..""'-<.. 1., , .. 1/ "2l:v/?-,.•~:,~~:;:=_r",f ::.-1-:<. -/ \ '"·-·_,,,/:__ c. f./:. ✓-----....,''-.... 'I-.~. /</'• ;. r ~~!?-. -~ I .. / .)-,✓--/." l. -~·,;,,'? , •. '-...._ •·• ... ,-.,-I/'·: .f,· ,....-\·~•flf··:•:-1, __ -;:,,oao ,-,-,-,-.-, . ..._ / . ,.<,·'//✓y_.'.[·,;5 --\ ' '-.._...,.... NOTE: FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND 1YPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DRAWlNG YAS PREPARED POK RMEW BY TIIE CUENT, crrv A.ND OTUIR R.EOUUTORY AGENCIES. THE PfU.lfL""'G SHOULD NOT Bl RtUtD UPON FOR CONSTilUcnON' OR FOR TUI PREPARATION or onrER PUNS. nus DRAWING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS RE'-IUIRED BY THE CUENT OR OTHER REVU:WlNG AGENCIES. I:, ,;;,; . / ) ~: ' ·<".':</ Oa>DCE I V ' ,.:.,-•· ,• I I . "- 1)'1.1, I '/1/ ,,:-:._ , -:::-fj""".--~-d.7 .. -.. -.,,1:_, ·;-' . ✓--;:-:,'::,/ / I ! -->-- // ' /; ti.' 0 ,,.-ff:. '3:-::;; :;_: ~-.. ... "~ ~·-?-:•-'-'-'r'' cR~ . ;--/ •✓-.-/ ---I I ~--;:;;C:.l / )/.'.'.('..,·,;:,--..:_.·,, CRt_EKBol'TM • · ,, Sd , · " •• / / • / -_, .. -~-~~'-' ~ / r ~1.1/;// ~~-t~~l~~ 0.EV•~~~OZ ~r.'..c:.:.~._:.~y-,--.,-~-,-,-Yr,-r~ I Ir I., --.:----,:: -1•~--------«""'°/;' /.,. ,... -·.·,·.;, .... \ ..... I ~ .. .::s. .. _,,_______ I •. . -.-. --= -----· ,' p;,, /,,.· _,,,__ \. \'-' '' ,_ ' \ -... --►-~-~-,,.. ,-,, I z,~' ,:. -""\ ,' \ .. ', I ---~ .. I -_,,,.· 1>'-",.,..,,:.....-::·--"'j"-,r<" :f4,:,;, t.;r.?,,'//,--~. \\' '\\\., \. '. L-oPrn sPA1>:' EAsE~tE~1o, • • --...=-:-:---..._~~-~~_-cc~_,,.--:.- 1(~//}:·.·'.·_:,,->,~~~~,' .. ·, -~--:,}\':_-..~·-. ~--=r~~-~~,_:?:;~)~;_:~~~~j.J~;-:~·;:=.'~;Jff[~::. 1-~.,.,, i( ~J .. ✓ ,_ ... -·~·.,:.-'::~'.,--•.,,~,_1R"P:.1\:.-~""-~"6-;:.;::".'\ __ ...::·-..::---:. -, -.~ .~::~lf "t~r;;:;~Jf f 1~~9~,~>\'.-:~':~::: <:..:~ :~~~ ::;~~~:.·:~~: --' Cf<LEI< :,: DE FOREST ~ £..!..!..!...2. ORONO \IINNS~OTM I Mr. C. VanEeckhout Ii •~-•••1: ~:---:~·--:: .-,_::1,7,,.;:.:.:=---· --7 f~ftttm: =F ;:..:_---=t-----=- 1 --p ----·- ,&~.~ -·~--,...--.... --__ ..., __ - PREW,!lt.ARY ~ITE PI..\N :~ 9G20:? ii -1, c2-1-1 ___J ___ ..,y·-····· ....l_ .. ,,1,-,,1 ~ .... ~---- ,. __ , ....... _ . ·--!:.-!~~--~- ~l!!!!F.ill"'"" ""~~ ·'::;"::..""- -~--~ ~::--,·-~.,..,·- ... -•• ::i.,·..!'"".;.!..":'"..:.:t.-:;~~·~~- • ~~::. ....... -.:.:..--:-;~~:.=·-·-. : .. •-_., __ . ___ ... , .. _, ... ·- a..f f£HCE OETAL ....::.:,;,~~::... ~..::;- NOICTII D 50 100 •-I I . I I --St',\U.: IN n.t.r 'I ' . I . ;: . I / -/ ;;_;~/?'//' i ~ / ,, ,,., / // ! l .Ji / I_,// / ...-@/ I ,' I .' , II ' / / 7 I \', I I J ,, /@... ' I I I / / , ., / / ✓~,✓. / 1/-j /--_,. , I I, I / ., --. --I/ I / I ' , / . I ," '\ ,.-...,1.-, . .." --/ / 1 1 I , '/ I / ~ J E11~rii,C: ,j(es // / ,l. / --.., :,; i i; ,,I / ---.---/ , ,,.... / ~ ,' ' / / / 1' : 1....... / ! , ✓•--vrrt•.-/,,l / , r /' , • \ /; / / 1 / ,'")< : __ ..,....,_.,..._ 1 s,~r Pf(•,cE~ .,,.. I I / ( / ,1 I,,,· . ,' ,,..r/ l ;.,----..;: ' '.,,, ~ I . ., _,, ,,, , -\., .I; I \,,... '._ -.....-"-ii I f , I , ,·· , \ •,;' '\ .. ._./"~~---' 1 1 I ., / \ / I/ // / y/ ' '->~ "0~ '(;.'-;-;,-. 1~~ it~:::::;~~~2-:f +f _;;~f 1~:% cf./%l :~~,;:;;; ,--, r-~r ,,:,:, : ... -\-", ... , la ~I /' '[/ \ ; ' i ' I i , J \ I ,,,.;:.._, J ,, ~ 1 <1 I/ ' C I ), I I I -,· 1 . I•. 0 ZI I '--..._ ~ I __,. ✓ / 1 JO I /C::. / . _.,. 1 ·" • ' 10: 3: I --' -/ / · I / V' / / i .'ol 11 i G u ~ I/ , , , ' I ,-,.-.· o·o::: 'I, 3 !§'. ti ,,, ' I I I .,,,. /// /i 10 e ii g 8 ' ! I ' J I I I I ,' i /. : 111,, ·l' r 1,,1:11-;,,:1 1:: .. _ ..... l I ! \ I I / 1 I f ,r;:'.:, . \;I :\, i I 11111\1k'~' • I : I I I I : I \ \' ;\;' . I, I',' 11 ! 11 i !'· ·C.1' ' f-\ I ' ""• -!----"'---+-----"'-----:½ · \ I I I II , -. # j-..ll:..-,.--..L---+--...l<..----t--"',/-t \ I \ \ ', \ \I:,.. '; !h ..c -MHl. \ l \ \ \ \ ', \ ... i ·! ,:J{l l..,.,..,"""""'""""'1.+++,lll--~. --·---;;;· .. ---~--:..1'-1 \' • '-,\.\',i'.:~~ _:.., · · I -OPEN SPACE -EASEMEIH TO DNR - APPRQYIMA TE ~f.•~~il~~"Z~m :,::.~~'t~~ ..._· .... _ \ \ JI \ '.,. \\ .,_,,:,. J,r-r-/z-Lf)' I / ~i~:.t:,-;:~,c<OoPocn ucu,-., ............. --.. ' ', \ '. \i"-.. 1 \ / • =•"' •• • -~" -. · \ I \ , . · , . · , 1/. , • / , ~I ,1 ; /~ TYPICAL 7 TON STREET SECTION'-,'',:--1 1 ,r}\ \'·,:-~, ... ,----1-.{ ":~:r~:i('S_ c -✓: ___ .,. __ \ ~ \\ / 1 EDGE CF WE TL Arm CiRADtNGIEROSfON CONTROL NOTES, ,.u, ...... , ......... n< •O.,.t >(Ill~""" IIOGIH \' • 1 , \ I 11 'I\:"' \ 'I .. -.. , '1 -•;;,ci/·~-/ / /,, / ~-,-·,~ ' j \ l ' 1 I/ ' \ -. ....... \ ...... ./ ,,. ,, ✓ I } 'd . _/' '1 / ,•'.'·\I~-::.."::::-;,±.:;:. cT-.;:'.'.A' · '_.r I/ '),/ .· '~,-,,~,-,•y-,~ · ·t--'--1. \, '1 I 1J9'J,,,---~::_.::..-.:.·(~~....:::d"'✓."::1:JLOCK,, I I'. ,//,' ,,) /; ,t--1 --,-,·;;_-:-,-o=:,,,_. l., / I 1 I ............. 1.l '1:Cf ,nr, n< W•• iol(.IIIIUIKl1.,.1>oooo.l. IJA.UrT 1,<U rtU5 IO ~~~~:~Cu \ :'1 'f};,/ ~ r ,o ... J :.-1 · \ / ~/ c:: · r,r:!.;.• __ '--,..,_ ,....1- 1 . I , rr ~~.-Jo I , ,., , ,.,. .. / "•~· ;, ,-----. /-·r / ---, . '1 ('I,~, /'I J ~-\ ... -.,--1!:_c:.E:I( -'--.~..,,,.-:~ao ,->,-..--..-,.-.. /" " /4,,..,;--·~;(/ ...-.,w: --'-, --,, "'.-y-,,---. I , \; / ' // / ) °"' :-_'c,</ ao,oc, , ' y' . . ~,• ,/ / 'l'---EXIS lite 'TREES \ ...__ __ ,. '.!!,c.t\NI ···- "'"" M lOCJrt. -.....:t. no( (.....a,(p, 10 ,OIIQl(C' .. llt.L IU!u.l(D _.lfllfC1" ~ _... I( IIICln:-o ""'" A lll•l>OO 0, 4" flP tllll ""· un OIi lllD Al Dl.tCCIU U fH( , ... l>Ct-', -..m,i,, II~, 0, tl..S.[111:J,o g,-lt,( ..,._ oc11v1n III n.., """"..,..,. ""1:&. A AU. uo. ,111, M,.1,c;,.O ..... f(ULUU JIOAI.I,. Cc,,,'IJll,o wm• f><. ,a.l.D\/10,C. .... IWf 11"1:tl'ICAIDc:li, Al CUWl(D IClO"' !,' 'I.,, I 'If.~/ ,,,.-'""---'-'~,(-Lor" . _,,, ,,,."':.,"'_.,.-·// 1 1 I \ _) / /', /"·1 ,,, -. '---~ ---.,. .. -.. ___,,., -. .,.. ~·,.,.-, ' / , ,, L • -~,,,,,, -: :::. -:::-.::--, -, , -. -"-I-...,_>-r7 c'i'-£'<Y, ,✓,,-...... • ,..( 1 -1 · ' __... --:. , : .. -· J~ :-:-~,,-_-==.=:.:::..:-->, CR£EKeo'rr~ ~~ -~ . __, .. r .. ,,./ ---1 : --~--;;._,,.:O::iJ s'f :,,c,.,,, . ,,SJ;;J~·Tit!'Q; El.EV•9" 02 ~.-'<:::,--=..._:,,.:::::", ~ .... ,-,-,.., ..... ,.. __ ? / / 1 _, ,I ' ----.._ -· ---~c~ ~ _ 'p,%'""'/1'.,; . , .. '~ .. .._ , . ...__.,_.::,.,._.,_.,"""' I I ' ' ----_-------,-'1,,-'----, y✓, !1/,.-,' . ,. • ---' \ ~ ' ~ ' ........ -' \ ,. -·---~ " ~ ~ ---- ;,/" ~/ 1:( /,,✓~, -_\, \\ '' .. ' ---........ ~ •••• ( ' -_, __ ,-' .... ,,~~-~---- li:', ::: ''.f, ,/' I •i/,,, , . -" .. \ , •\ \ • !. -8"'f'I SP-cr__E~SEMEN,, __ ;:-,--, ~-:,...-;::;.,-,-_.!,-,::rr<;_ 5a~·~:;-:~•1 ~~, If 1 __ ;1.,:; 1 1 _,.., ---~,, \ ·•,,., ;o-DhP, , , _:::::---:..._--:;::;:,=.-"_/-~~ :,-~=~~r~!-~--:-:-~~~---- "'~ .. "''IIUriU.llt"'-""' ..... (Uo''....:"'""'"'·''ILL°"'"'ncJroCd"u1"" \//!I:/ ,', -\ \ -.. ---......_ ..;;..-"';::;),,;;_.':J....>c~-;=--::::-----=,-.-r ... -:,..,-f("1?\ \ c.1~i;1!.:~L~~[;,'"~c:.:.,,'°'""',.uiu.u~1oa.sc-~--/-:://,1 :/(/,' i. ··., ~ \ '/~·\ , ----. _ -~:.=,,. .... ~~~--;;.~-;:.--~,:.~,~. ~;e/1 f~--< .... '-:::-:_:~'-:~~·-...... ,.,W.IJ\INP-atcoo1ftl.C:tttc.1.,,:•vcur<•s-.A.tttM1..c1rorw10,,...,i:,.-/,:•'.l/,1 .'/': \~..J · ! -r ..,,.>_..J-.'\.._-_ .. ..:,.1-:/1R"P.;J\:,.-::_:~-~;::.-:; -:='-.-;::---\.. CAUTf(in:...',""~• .. ·~ ·?!1$~~~~~;~ -· -'~c · '~~~~~'c~f Jff :~~t~ti{ ff ;~~~~jco~ <-::::~j~~~t~~£l~l~~ CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ .5..!.J..L2.!. ORONO MINNESOTA Mr. C. VonEeckhoul -~----- :""'"'.-..---.._'-:'.':,-' ~;:_ s§?~::··==~~-I... ! .. -.::-'.:' ... 1;;;,....J.,,,,,...,__~.....,..., -~us!L.~ -•.-•-·-·-----------__ ... _ l-'KEU!.UNARV CRADlt-:G ,\NO EHOSION CONTROL PL\N '"""'-" __ ,]' :: __ ~~~-I ·1 -~1J I I! :u 1 <0 • :t:~1 •oloi 'zlc§ li,~1 '"" ;;cl 'a~ lum, :n 11 i ~-•·_,·,---SultTtl hrt .. J :sc.-.u; IN tu.·r 1-·, .,., I I CAUTION = nus DRAWING YA.S PREP!RID POR REV1P DY TUI CUltff, CITY lND OTIIIH Kl:GUU.TOKY &GUIClrS, TIil DRAWl?.U. SHOULD ~:i.: JO NOT Bl HIUKD Ul'ON FOR (ON:tlHUCTION OH FOil TUtl l'llt:PAKA.TION or OTHER l'UN~. TUl':I Dtu •1NC IS StlUJt:C'T TO rOHTlft:K ktVl!ilUN!I .u RI.QUUn:o U'I' TIii: c.UlNT OR Otllrk lllV1UINCf AtikNCIU, ---:~~~~~~~ _: ~= ~ ~; ·~ ~~.?~~~.~~},;i-·~~-~~ I -OPEN SPACE ,EASEMENT TO DNR - ,\PPROXIMA TE -· EDGE OF WE TL AND ' '·---_......, -....... ~... -...... .,., ....... . \. l_t._.\.,_,, ... " ...... 1_,_ £,:'..., ::::._7✓-:.·~--::_-·'· _._, ......_ ....,_ C - . ----- ::REE. i<Si DE FOREST ~ £..!...!.L2.!.· ORONO ~flNN!':SOTA Mr. C. VanEeckhout §:~ ~}§:. ~-;:_~~E ~-;.~---====i ·H,'so-4H~¥.~ ,&us!L.~ _,.__,.._ . .._..._ ------ P~Eml!N,\IIY UTIUiY l'l,.\N H:?C! :, C4-1 :u 1~.g1 'ci IOI 1zi< I ·O Oo:, cilz1 10::: 13:1 'o·~ lue : 11 I r,1 □TE: / ----___, ~•!Y or 1Gl1[, l,.,.., , 0 l - /, , J, I / I I ' , ' , ' ' -/ ,, ' ' I ,'I ////•---'·/// f-... -----\\•\,':\'._'•.,'_---/,///1/ !/ \ 1--, // .,,• / / , • ✓ I / , ,_. _,., -• ..._ \. '-. ,'-...::::--..~' _:::: .=:_· ::=:. ··-/,, I l ,( : ,,,,,,,, ./ .-_..,///,·.,,. I; . ----.;,,·,'-..::'..,."-.:?.:::+r:.:--:___,'/;~ I:\ \ J _, 11 . /,-:..:-:__,:-~:_r----;~/::,'// _/--:::G~-.__,,:·-<::~\}i~~,:,_::-'~~;:~-:: i· \ \ \ j :\ ,--_,.,..-/ /' .,,,... / ' _.) .... -------'-\ \ , \ "'i I; l: ""-.--,::::-.,,--,,,,,-:-:✓,..,,._,..,,. _,,,,,, ..,.,., ... \ -' ( ________ -., ✓ \, I \\ ! \ Iv l,1 -,,,.-...... .,.., :·r :/ ,,. _,.,. .......,._~ /-----~ ----._ --.... -.. '-, \' \ -\ 1, , I, / ' ,, I ' , / / ,,,.~--/ ; ----' -'· J ' \ ! \ I @I 1' y, (/ ( I/ I ,' / / ( ____ , ---, ', ,,,. )\ \ \ ·1 I I ' I , I ' / '-' \ , ,., I f ) /' , / , ,. / / r _,.::.,.. ----' ', ,...._. ) / , ~ EXl~Tll-tG,1~£S ,, 1 ✓-, 1 / ', '-/-1 ,/ ! I , , 1'. , / '/" ,-' '-I ,I. r ' I --, I I / / I I ', I, I / / I j-,..,,,,_._,.,,,,,...___, '' ', -, , -( ) , r"'\.. I' --__ 1 / / I I I I , 1 / / / ,l { -~"'--.,_ y , J I ¢ ,,1'~1.....,,, _,,,/,-//Ii I ' ,' I /· ;:--------\. "'""-' --, ,--"\_' I I~\ ; , !' 1 7,-,y1,...,,...---. :./.-i_ 1 1 1 I ( I ~ ,-:' '-~-,___, ':,, __ l,.,_,..,,, ,L_ I -/ I 1 ,, 1 I ' 1 1 ;,, ,, ,,.r-;· -\ I (, / '-,,,.,J --<, 1 '.\ ( E>IST!N~ ~IUVU,IY I ( / / , / / , /_ / ·, I ,r I ' \ \ ~ 'r, JI , , ~ '' -,,.,,-/.,_,.,,,, I Le ,, / ;7\ _ / { /; , //i , \ ,' ~ , -, --',,~, J ,;;,r,, -\ -, l;;;,,.,,-,;;;-,7,'---\ f ... ~-=: ::\ ... I y.,, ..:.." I -._ _ \ .. _ --......_...__ ·,, r\.-........-.-..~ ....... 1.. r~=:::::::::---:-, ~ , '--.. _ .. --· '\ /:: ./~_:::or_,._~· :·-,-""·z~--;,-~~,::=:,-::,:,::, \__,,,,-:k{ -.('. ~ ( )\ : 11 ,, ,;;::---,--;:,,,-;:;:;;;z;.-,h r,,,.,.,-,~~.Jn-¼"'!:'r ,?-,;::.,"---,-.-"·',, --:;=::::-~~~'.'l:c¼ j l1 1 "1. APPROXIMATE EDGE OF ! \ , _,,, ,-( ,r \ \ \\' r--.,, ,,,,-,,---.-;I,' ~.,,\ (-~~---~-:,--..,,,"<...__.,r> 1 · "'",, '1-DELINEATED WETLAND / I ~/ /' 1 _.._....., '--"-\ -~ ,.~ ~ 1(1 /, '\ -~~ ~ l , \_;-,-/ \ I(~,,:'.:'::; -__::;:: __ ,/ \ I '1' I "~'1 i'-1~ ',:,, :,.,,\ '~'-0' ~ 1 \ (APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR ,LOCO= 938 '/:),• I ;,r-;;, 'i \ ' [Q. --:;-i I I 1 \ \ (·,,!-I\(,'.,_~+ ~" \. r (APPRox1MATE NHw • 9365'1-) e,,___-, .1 ,,~,/ , / ~ I! , 1l\ ";-/)H'-,'--::_"<>-~:::) '\1\. ·. 'f / _:;.--·\ 11 \ ( // I ,,,.✓,., '/' ►-------::-,-,,:~_.!'. , 'f ' 1; I 11 I \ \,_ -/!l I _ _,,,,/;/ / ,' I ✓-::-✓-✓ /~' ,---:-:.::::~~'-:.,~~'::\) ,.,'g_~ \ -., ~ // ). --I 111 \ I I /1 / I / //// , .... __ -, .. -, .... ,,, L"( '' ·~ ,,. l 1·, \ I"-"~ ./ / ,, , 1 ,,,,,.,-,,.1,,. 1 r---;; '>',-;,'._:,~-. \"'->-\'-·-{( .! 'i,1 \ u ~ g :', ,,, i / i , /~~~-~✓:-✓,:11 f-_)~-.:-~-s\i~\~~:-o· \\ --¼< " :~ -." ~ i :, 11 1111 \ !// I : / f I (' '(/1 /,/1 y/.1 'i )\1i;111~t\-1 \\ \ ~ I \ ~I, ,, ,. -----•1 I I ' ; I , I I I I I I ~ I 1-_ ( ,_ , / ,;;!/ I qi J wL'' 11 \ / : ) I ~I 1 1 1 11111 ,1,1 , -...:::::\ r,~,,_-,11 111 ,D..,., 1\ 2 111 ',I I 111\\',(, 1,-cc,,'c,\C/(/ /fl// 1.I'!~ '.\ I I : i -, I I I '\ ', I I I I\ 11 f, d(i-;\\~\ .. ,, I I:, I 1'iil B~ )<11~ APPROXIUAlEIOOYEAR r 1 . , , _ 1 , 1 \\ -, 1 , .. 1 :1 \ ,,, • , 1 1 • --r-l , t:: 1 : ',,___/ flOOO mv-., • .,_ I I I ' ·• I \ ' \ ' I\\ t, \ ,~,:,_:: ' f ' I I I I \ I -I ' "•\,---~) I , ,r', I ) -------[ XISTINC TREES I I ' \ I \\ \ ' ' I I½ " I~ I \ I I I I :, I . / / ', / ,J , ' t/ , , 1 :, ·. I \ 1' 1 \1 1 "3 ·, ,',·'.\,,\\ :I l,1;' •1 1 I{' '\ r / c?-€.'<Y- I ' I ·, \ I ' I ' \ I' ,'." ' , I , ' ' , I· {, / I I , I < ,~,"--_, , I I ' ' ', I I • '.. \ \ ':: '. 1/.' ,,,-; I , / I-,' ,, ', ( ' ✓---- ' ,,_, --, , 1 • ·, \ \', 3· • IY •''1/, ,, ,, , .,J /," ,, , ) ( ,,,, '----,-, \' \ ,-. \'.\ ,',,,, ,p'/1,<j // / 1-,-•·-vJ-_,,-, ~-J /_ APPROXIMATE --' -,· \ • ,. I ' '~,. ,', ' // O;,,'; /)J / I • , , EDGE OF WETLAtlO '-\ \ r ' \' '," '".:'j,_ ~ .✓,,, q / / , , -,\ \,, 1·~;',\ \ \\',<' '-_ _} ~1r-z1 // / ~l--r / ,. / . I I 'I' I 1''11\'~\ \ \ \\' ,'-, J; -?,u// 'I I ,' I.,, / ,_-. __ ,,, ____ fr]\ ' \ I '1\\ f \\,, \ , ... , -X:~',;/ / /yY ,,,. ·' .,, · \' \ /, '\,'<;,----Cc":'""-'--:~--,:,C'// j , / 1/ r ---s ~ ~~" NUUTII ~ ~· 'i 1. -SC,\l£ IN n:i,,;r -· - D ,---..., VEfL~NDS DELINFATED BY t\S SOC If·, T[ S. ,·. '\ ,,,,,1,,1r~-::.":::_::c:':_-->':~':,,,,:::;,:;;~,/ ✓-rJ i1,,-; J j. I . J--rr,~,-y--y-,,..,,-r.-.,--"' \I~,,,, ~-::.,---,<,-.:c-----.',,,-,_/ / ·, I\ ' / /; ,I --'77"---:-,-:::.,-,.,, 1-, ,1 ,If. l_;//•r -..~-"_ -__ -::., / 11 • 1 / •• ' ? ;: __:.'/ -'• ;\-- I, 11t, /'(~~-, --, I J _J -_, / r-· ,•.·r ✓--------, ,,____ ~ I I II,: / / '• -....... / _r --• • ' ~? I / ) ',~ -._ -{,,:' }/ ·• ,,.,.-\~~ F.I( --✓-Noot) -h-,-,,\. / ,r .·-✓ ..-~•l __ _ "-, '-, , I •,,P,11 ; ' 2 1 ) ~~ •~·,-.. """"' 1 'v·· · , ~ // /-[Xl',TINC ,1<11 s , ,_,- /','.1/21,/ , l/.7/ ,,,.-~ •,,~,!_ ,,,' ,,,,,,,,. ,,,,.,,',,,,,·· I I I \ _) I /' /',, /' '-,,_,,,~1-;,:J· ,,_ ~· ' ,,,-_,/. / I I / , ' l • ii, ,,----' · ... ., .,,,_,_ · · · , ,,,,-c1>-£.£V-✓-'-, "I ,,,. · ----; , Y,-:✓/ -t,.,.-----... 'rnul(11;i't,1u ~-• '.-~ :.--' : . ,/ I / ...... -~-~·•'' ,~:,,1✓'<_;.✓!--,1::;1:,;r.11'r1::;,"''."'""~"--..._,,,,,_::,-___ ,--;::,,,,,,.,,,,~ I I , , I •:'.;/-~ _ ,,;:, '?/;/~//,, ,,· --·,:-->~"'-:-,', ,....___ ---,-.. -"\\" I I ---• J-}...--:_:~--:-: ... -- ;1rv;/ ·i/.✓;,P" -~, \\ ,, •, ----. ( --, ,,. ~ --1(( Y'/ lt 1/, ,; ---~ \ ' \ \ \\ \ ', '---.,_ '-, ', ·. _ -;-:.,_. , ,-b~·>:"-;.,::;::::::,,-r ::,_,---.,-rF ·1 1~'/1/;'1 ,'"'" , \'-.,,,, , \ ..---.----1 ,_~,..;.._:-__ .,,:c-:..:1--· ___ -:- SVOBODA AND CAUTION \! l/'1,, t 11, ' \ \· \ \\ \ '-...... ---:::::. ,,,.,. .., .... >..-' , ) • , ... v.. ,t r r . 11•'·,r"'.·-~ -• /', , 1, , , _ .... \ • , \ 11 \ , ....._ ___ -,111'., ... ,.) .... _' _ _ _ -__ ,.. ••• { r \ (1 \ , \ , 1/l,l:'(1' I ' \ \ \•\ -----,, ..,,,._.,,A,,,J,,--·• -----,-_ ,_, --.,-;--,/'!--',> -','<·-~--,, nll!IDIUW-INGWilPR!P.UU.:DrORlltVIEWDYTBrcuENT. _J,/,' ! ' 'I ) Ji • ~1.-=--::--~J-:., .... ._J__ .... ~-.fl"~~-~-~ __ ,.::::.--1---·--.. ·~ ':..,', CITY AND OTHER R!GUU.TOftY AC!NCIIS. TIii DRAWING SHOULD /1,\ /, / / ( • ~ J _. _ .,,. l -R_J--.J"-:,_!~·· _.,. --J --,:-O--~\:.---=:::..-=~;::.....-:;:..~ '"\ ..-::r~'-.::: ---l"-~-.....::.:: '-, ' ~~To:1~E:s~9~p~~JS~~~~~,u~~~-~~ORnJ~~BH::E:1:~I!~~ z / I I 1 ~--~ -~~~_::;5C).~-::::.!:~,•_-:.: ~-;.:: ~--\j-~.:.:.---.:,_ _ -~-\ _.-.. -=-;--' --. -::::., AS IU::QUUU:D BY nu: CUENT OR OTH£K R£VU:l'IING AC£NCIES. / -· _..:...... -=--:::-:".-=;:-::.:::;:~:.~~ .... _----: ::'--=----~,~£-. I ~ I __ ,,,,.,.. ------µ --....... --~ -- ___ -_-:_;-?, '.~~~~t)c~=;~_-5;·==~.::.~~~{,;~~-,~_,c<:~<~. --~:(_•-•--,-'"'-~·~--:.:,~_:-'~::-_:.~-~.',, ----- CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ £.L!..L2.!. ORONO MINNESOTA Mr. C. VanEeckhoutl! .... ,:1,.1: .. -· .... -... -~-·-.... _ -... - -------------_--:_~~- ..._,..._:;:::;-.-:::.=..::::;:...__ ~ ,:_~J~~;==-~ :=J - ' t ~--·· .JZ~l~,~ ---=-:.:ir=,.-- ~;X].S1'1~U CU~IJl'rlUhS PL.\N C1-i7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays O. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SUBDIVISION FOR._ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated 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 Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1 B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRD as a conditional use. Under a PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots, Lots 5, 6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRO would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to c::·:ow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet \vide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the severi ·· lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page16 [ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be re platted if he 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 ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for addiUonal review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the ONR issues resolved as well prior'fo approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRO, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some ~f the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRO the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to ttie City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stoc!dard stated he would be in favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlets. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good a1rection to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 .. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, Continued) Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. H2wn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4355 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE:· Ayes 5, Nays O. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. -8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have Page 8 + ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway stJndards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be re platted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public W9rks Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowners Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the develo·per to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated :his proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a fi.ial plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans sh~II be. S_l)bmitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles. shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area rriap, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the Page 9 . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eecklwut, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he 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 1 O percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRO. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact wot.!ld be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were detennined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRO must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot.· The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easem·ent. Weinberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergerncy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. · Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway. · Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending thi$ application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, 120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. -9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1 C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1 C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salVsand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 Barrett state ublic hearing had been scheduled. with the Planning Commission on January 19, 2000. Neither . Hoyt nor representatives on his behalf appeared at the January 19 th public hearing. 1'fr. Sheridan stated Mr. Hoyt · prepared to submit a complete application to present at the February 28, 2000 meeting of the ~1ayor Jabbour stated a new public hearing ·m the Planning Commission may be required. Barrett stated a public hearing would be required to Kelley stated the earliest this item could potentially return to meeting in March. rvfr. Sheridan stated he would be willing to draft a letter to extend the dead · proceed with the variance request. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue this item to SA. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South -Subdivision for Planned Residential Development · Nfr. Van Eeckhout was present with representative John Bergh of Loucks and Associates. \Veinberger explained the issue facing this application was that the dry buildable acreage available totaled 13.7 acres where 14 acres are required for 7 lots. As planned, the subdivision did not meet city requirements of 2 acres per lot. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application based on the total dry buildable not meeting the minimum requirement of 2 acres dry buildable per lot in the RRlB zoning district. · · Kellogg stated that no trail or sidewalk was planned \vith the recommended 50 foot road width. San.severe asked if the applicant had considered a reduction to 6 lots. Van Eeckhout responded that he would prefer 7 lots and felt that would be attainable once soil borings were done in the spnng. 4 G ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 (#2550. Charles Van Ee.ckhout, continued) Mayor Jabbour commented that the city would not allow sewer. availability to increase lot density. All Council members agreed. The applicant must demonstrate a hardship to allow more than the permitted density on the site. Mr. McCusky, the adjoining property owner, was present \.vith legal representation arguing that the applicant had not made arrangements for proper legal access to the subdivision. He was concerned that approving the subdivision may imply some legal rights to access. Barrett confirmed the easement to the property was for driveway purposes and may not be adequate to serve as access to the subdivision. Barrett stated the application deadline is March 2, 2000. The applicant must present a letter to the City of Orono to extend the deadline. Mayor Jabbour stated the applicant should provide a letter requesting the application be tabled, giving the applicant time to resolve the issues of dry buildable acreage and access to the property through a designated outlot. . Kelley moved and Peterson seconded to table the application until the applicant requests further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #2540 Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue -After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit Mr. Sheri B..Q_provided a letter requesting the application be tabled until the end of March. The letter also state hat the property owner, Mr. Hoyt, has granted the city an extension of the time limits for approval. Kelley moved, and Peterso econded, to table the application until the end of March. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, RESOLUTION NO. 4421 9 PARK DRIVE-VARIANCES- Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Re ution No. 4421, a Resolution Gran ting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Su iYision 1 (B) .and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C)(6). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5 • fl 1J Bonestroo f-!Rosene il\ll Anderlik & • \j • Associates Engineers & Architects August 14, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckhotit Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: Bonestroo, Rosene. Anderlik and Associates. fr.c. is an Affjr:native Action/Equal Opportunity \ \ Employer and Employee Owned \I Principals: Otto G. 8onescrco. P.E. • Marvin L. Sc .. ·.2:~. P.E. • C:.:::--.:1 R. Cook, P.E. • Robert G. Schunicr.t. P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene. P.E. • Jose;?-: C. Ande:-.·<. P.E. • Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Susan M. Eberlin. CJ' .A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. P.E. • Ke :.Cl A. Gor,::::-c. P.E. • Rot:>ert R. Pfefferle. P.E. • Richard w. Foster. P.E • David 0. Loskota. P.E. • R:::ect C. Rusi:e<. A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. P.E. • Michael T. Rautm2r-.t'I, P.E. • Ted K.Field. P.E. • Ker~e:c, ~ Andecs:-,. P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • David A. Bonestrco. M.8.A. • Sidney P. Williamsc~. = .. L L.S. • A;;-es M. Ring. M.8.A. • Allan Rick Schmid:. P.E. Offices: St. Paul. S:. Cloud, Rochester and Willrc2c. \!N • Mil·,.ac;..;<ee. WI Website: www.tcnestroo.com We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feet. Plans should be submitted to the City of Long Lake for their revie\\.' and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of paved width with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards. The street section should provide for a minimum of 8-inches of Class 5 aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We re.::omrnend 1 ½ inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of Type 3 lbituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2. Grading: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion control plan may need to incorporate bale checks and fiber blanket in the ditches and along steeper slopes. A wetland mitigation plan should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City's' Comprehensive Storm Water 1hnagement Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. Long Lake Creek, a ~fn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP st:mdards. _-\11 proposed ponds should specify normal water level (NWL) and high water levels (HWL). The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10: 1 aquatic bench 10-feet v,ide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides 1-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure cetails should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to a pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calcwl:3.tions should be provided \vith the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed ccnnections to their sanitary sewer system. A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and 0:-ono will be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot 1, Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be extended to the westerly boundary of Outlet A. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet \\ide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to detennine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ·~1~ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono .,,,,..,.,.,~--· SVOBODA· ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' \ ~.., . . . . 11 __ I._. 'fn. frovid~ng the_ Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Con_sult~ng ! ; I April 4, 2000 Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner III City of Orono P.O. Box 66 . Crystal Bay,-MN 55323 ·.RE: SER Project Name: .SER Project No.: Van Eeckhout -Orono Parcel Delineati_on 98-060-03 .... Dear Mr. Weinberger; Tqe putpose of this letter is to provide you with an update· regarding the above project. To briefly review its status, this parcel w:3:~ visited by Svoboda Ecological_ Resources (SER) on October 14, 1998. At this . , time; two areas were dei:ennined to be jurisdictional wetland and were delineated by SER (see SER · Report No. 98-060-03 for more detail). The edges of these wetlands were located by SER using a Trimble Ag J32 GPS equipped with a.Juniper Systems field data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in real-time using signals transmitted by the Coast Guard station in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter accuracy when using real-time differential correction in the field. _, \ In 2000, SER d-:terrnined that the boundaries of Basin-I. needed revision due to factors that \Vere not evident at the time of field visitation. The northern boundary was redrawn and reduced (Figure l).· _This, revision was due to the presence pf sand and gravel fill found in this area, which indicated that it would not meetjurisdictional wetland status. In acidition,-the boundary of the northwestern firtger of this basin was redrawn a·nd reduced (Figure 1). · This reed c'anary grass dominated area,recently has become drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus, the extent of the wetland bsiundary as was determined in I ?98 'was decided to over-exaggerate the scope.of the northwestern wetland edge. Please note that the r_nodified boundaries on Figure i are not exact an_d are subject to field verificatio~. Should you have_any ques_tions about these revised boundarie_s, please call me. Sincerely, Svoboda Ecological Resources ~d-~ Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB, PWS President cc: Chuck Vari·E·eckhout, Van Eeck.hout Engineering Services 24 77 ShadJ.Wood Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1100 (Office) • (612) 471-0007 (F°ax) I -~ .. ,1, ~,'-,, <{fi ,i/1~ 400 .~:J::!-~-:·--"~ .. +.· l :,I· , .. , Svoboda Ecolo2i.cal R "' esources Aerial Photo of Site Approximate Bas·1n Edges + Van Eeckhout Paree Figure November 10, 1999 Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, 11N 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. PD\J 12. l'J$J CiTY \,.-, -,,·/J;·.;o Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds, and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well, and should be clearly disclosed to future landov,ners. Sewer plans are a third. This plat identifies a line running from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is no request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer would be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road South being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono Orchard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for tlie horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the deYeloper and future landowners be made aware of property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR Information: 612<~96-61.57. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-548-L 1-800-657-3929 An Equal O;:-;:-c:-tunity E:::;,lc,~·er \Vho Valu~~ C:-.~rsit) ft Printed on Rec~ .:led Paper Containing a ~ ~ ~linimum of I O'i: Po,t-Consumer Wa,te be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail. This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border :with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement. The DNR would be willing to work with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, -S~~(>-J~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. December 6, 1999 City of Orono Paul \Veinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit in regards to the application #2550 · submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. · The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot# 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the development plan. As it exists on the prelimiI).ary plat map dated 10-14-99, the sewer runs from north to south and intersects the trail east of Brown Rd. S. Trails & Waterway's preferred route for the sewer extension would be to follow the Brown Road South right-of-way. This would minimize interference to the trail right-of-way and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. \Ve also support the City of Orono's position that Lot # 7 be set aside as a conservation outlet. This would benefit both the landowners and the trail users by providing a screening of vegetation between the housing development and the trail. Please note the above concerns in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, .s~~w~ Suzann \Villhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5-+8-t 1-800-657-3929 An Equ•I Opportunity Employer Who VJ!ues Diversity ft Print~d on R~c)ch:J Pap~r Containing a f.~ :\.linimum of JO(( Pn,t~Con,un11.!"r \Va,1i: L VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES IY\ Site Design • Structural Design • Utilities Design 1935 West Wayzata Blvd., Long Lake, MN 55356, 612-473-1578 ----· .. C . _ :"'.;'7;!20,.,,,_c;-~-'-'' __ .tt§?! :;,ii:,,,· ·L•. ,. ; ;; . "- Appl~ RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TA·XPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 03-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF HINN IDNR) <LUCE LINE TRAIL> 38 03-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20.S BROWN RD Po nox 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RDS W F FARLEY & KG FARLEY WILLIAM & KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON & H DAYTON TOBIN J & HAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE 11N 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF HINN <DNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL> 38 .03-117-23 12 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0010 · 00130 DROWN RDS WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST tt2100 ST PAUL MN 55101 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R & B HACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 BROWN RDS S BITTMAN & L BITTMAN SCOTT & LISA BITTMAN 25 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 BROWN RDS CHARLES EVAN EECKHOUT CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 BROWN RDS JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0011 00140 BROWN RDS D & L COLEMAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEMAN JR 140 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD ETAL DE KIRKMAN & J H KIRKMAN DAVIDE & JOANNE M KIRKMAN 1945 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 .03-117-23 21 0007 00145 BROWN RDS JOHN M · WINTON . JOHN M WINTON 1314 MARQUETTE AVE H903 MPLS MN 55403 .,,-:~71~l\) . ,,. /"',· '•(' ,'.... \ \,\ ,.,. '--.:--;::•·:-•;·:.~~~ .•..• , ......... . . ···:--... '\ /., •·~\ f:J ;; y·:: 1r~1~..:..·. _;,:! (~·_? .. 1 ~ .. ., . ··•·••;) \~ ,, .. ;,• ~: \ 1.·~• ••. f ,<1 :~~ '\ ~'.:, '1\ . l\ ·r .· .. ·. ··," 1.:..--:.,:~,..--;, f.t. /~•-::-.., ~':>'" .·· :, ·. ·,·'. ;';•1 {,( ::. ,,j '·l A'1 '"'i' ~ ., ./ '>; .J')'' \\'I' ~ • .! ., ...... ~ lt/:l;i;)_, r, ~.)/'·',i-;,;,.,.,_ ......,4,._ ... '1-... ~-, --~ ~! . ~,:,!~t~ • .. t~ RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR. OWNER NAME T/IXP/IVER NIIHl://lllllR PROP ADDR OWNER NIIHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP 0 ADDR OWtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADD~ 38 03-117-23 21 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN CDNRl !LUCE LINE TRAILi 38 03-117-23 21 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN PEARLING JOHN PEARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD KV BIGELOW & J T BIGELOW KENNETH & JIJDY DIGELOW 32 /ll'l'LI: GI.EN nn LONG L/IKE NN 55356 72 34-110-23 43 0060 00046 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER & AL PASTER JAMES T PASTER "46 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0063 00064 CREEKSIDE DR HARV ANN IIANSEN HARV ANN HANSEN 64 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0072 00041 APPLE GLEN RD DJ DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 41 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 21 0014 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 44 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0021 00026 APPLE GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO J/IYC: /INN ZULLO 26 111'1'1.E GLEN llll LONG LIIKE NN 55356 72 34-110-23 43 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR . J LOHMAN & RA OHMAN JOHN LOHMAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0064 00043 CREEKSIDE DR R G ROACH & KA RO/\CII ROBERT G & KIMBERLY A ROACH 43 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD NE & HJ STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE.GLEN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYDS KELLEY LESTER SKELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD ME & MB GUTHRIE MARY & MITCHELL GUTHRIE 38 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118~23 43 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN & HR WILLIN THOM/IS & MELANIE WOLLIN 20 111'1'1.E Gl.l:N Rll LONG L/IKE HN 55356 72 34-110-23 43 0062 00058 CREEKSIDE DR M & J BERNS MICHAELE & JOLYNN M BERNS 58 CREEKSIDE DR . LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD SC FEDIE & W L FEDIE STEVEN C & WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0074 01980 KENNEDY LA LR DANIELSON/NH DANIELSON LEER & NANCY H DANIELSON 1980 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 (:: .... ·::;) /i, ·'' \:,:·,.~ :.:=-........ ... . .. f: <·, ,''> ,' I , :) L .. -•. : (i) \\ ,.; '. L:-. .. :,.. ;,\ ,·u •,/1 . ·::, I.-:._••.•., -:r .~ ,'-····· ·. ··1·. (:f ••.$ " ~ / .·., !"', ~l, ,I I "'\}) . .'.( ., -~ . ~~"·\/·,.!, ,'j, • ... fll'J::·.,.l~-·, :,. ~ ·(~ -~➔ \t":t:t:r1, RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 72 34-118-23 43 0075 01985 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 ' . 72 34-118-23 43 0083 00010 BROWN RDS DP & LA ERICKSON DAVID P & LISA ANN ERICKSON 10 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 31 72 34-118-23 43 0081 00055 VALLEY VIEW RD G W ANDERSON & SJ ANDERSON GREGORY W & SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD· LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 00040 72 34-118-23 43 0082 00018 BROWN RDS JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE. ON THE RECORDS OF TIIE IIENNEPIN COUNTY DEl'ARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO TIIE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Ml:. . . DATE 0 9~ 19 BY . 11.t}t ... sddd-1-1 //"-·- ,,:.:;·, r:~ "';·.1 ·' [: .. .. >:~ .,:'./ : ·,· ··:~ . ·. ·~' \1\ ··)~) l. ·. I. ' ,.. .. _) i 0) (, ; I . \ ·. ,,. ' •'' ;/ \~~~~J ·1 •~J r.~.::-, ·. ~:-.. ,,. ·,,. '.· ... ; ··,•:~ :; . :~·.:;:""'1 Minnehaha Creek .. Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafner, Senior Technician \),f:f,_. RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Pact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafner (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16, 2000. Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years. The exact date of ditch construction vvas not known but estimated to be over fifry years ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time. This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small isolated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out to that contour as part of the MCWD permitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: October 24 2000 County: Hennepin Project Name/#: Van Eeckhout LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LGU Contact: ~Jtm=· =H=afu=er~-------- Phone #: (952) 471-0590 Location of Project: Tl 17N R23W 03 NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 Orono Hennepin Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X ) SWCD: David Thill (X ) LGU: Jim Hafuer (X ) BWSR: Doug Snyder Other Wetland Experts present: ___________________ _ TEP requested by:---"C""ity'-'-"o"'-f-"'Or.o..:o"""n"°'o'----------------------- 1. Type of TEP detennination requested (check those that apply): _x__ Delineation check 2. __ Exemption Detennination (WCA Exemption# _J No-Loss Detennination __ Replacement Plan Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) ______ _ (Cowardin) ____ _ b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths ofacre) _______________ _ 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed?_ yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/ Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss detenninations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes() No() 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(X) No() Ifno,why? _____________________ _ 8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) 11/8/00 ~9¥11/8/2000 ~--..=.=--/-1-1 1/Jooo SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) (Date) October 30, 2000 Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: ZONING APPLICATION #2550 The City of Orono is requesting an extension of your zoning application to allow time for the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to complete their wetland determination. We have not received a final determination as of the date of this letter. Please sign the attached extension letter and return it in the envelope provided. Once we have received your extension and the TEP has completed their review we will place your request on the next available Council agenda. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (952) 249-4600 should you have questions. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner September 23, 2000 Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 To: Members of the Orono City Council Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of the article which appeared in the September 20, 2000, edition of the Sun- Sailor Newspaper, we feel compelled to clarify the record with regard to the issue of access to the proposed VanEeckout development. Following several preliminary conversations, we asked Mr. VanEeckout to draw up a proposal and make us an offer for the easement he sought. We suggested that said proposal clearly specify the scope of the easement he was seeking and that it be in legally recordable form. Eventually, Mr. VanEeckout submitted a proposal to us. However, the amount of compensation offered, the vague description of the proposed easement, and the inclusion of other unrelated issues in the proposal indicated to us that we were nowhere near to reaching an agreement. We informed Mr. VanEeckout of this fact in a letter which clearly specified the criteria to be met in any future proposal. (Copies of Mr. VanEeckout's proposal and our responsive letter are available upon request.) However, rather than making a realistic offer to obtain an easement through our property, Mr. Van Eeckout chose to switch course and pursue an access through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. In fact, following receipt of our letter, Mr. VanEeckout has initiated no further discussions with us regarding an easement to his proposed development off of Brown Road. Mr. VanEeckout's characterization ofus as "uncooperative" is disingenuous and just plain false. As we indicated in our responsive letter, we are more than willing to consider a reasonable proposal for an easement to his proposed development. In fact, we openly acknowledge that we are willing to grant such an easement for reasonable compensation in light of the value of Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development. However, thus far, Mr. VanEeckout has demonstrated a willingness to proceed only on his terms, at his price, and his schedule. Now that you have a slightly more balanced picture of the situation regarding the issue of access to Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development, I think you are in a position to conclude for yourselves who is being "uncooperative". Should you have further questions or desire a copy of the documents exchanged please feel free to contact us at 473-8396. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 3. Recognition of Officer Kurt Erickson-Resolution No. 4517-Continued Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to adop t Resolution No. 4517 recognizing Officer Kurt Erickson for commendations received from Presbyterian Homes on Lake Minnetonka and the Mayor of Spring Park. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Jabbour thanked Officer Kurt Erickson for his .dedicated service, and stated that the City Council appreciates the work done by the Orono Police Department. . PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS-ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE Mr. McDermott stated that the Park Commission had an excellent park tour. All board members were present. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Class III Subdivision and Planned Residential Development Weinberger stated that the application is a 7-lot planned residential development request for property located immediately adjacent to the City of Long Lake. It has access via a driveway easement to the 20-acre parcel. Long Lake creek runs through the property and there are wetlands located on the property. The primary change in this proposal from previous ones is in the property access. The applicant has been unable to obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner to gain suitable access to the lots. The applicant is now seeking to gain access from the City of Long Lake via Apple Glen Road on the north side of the property. Staff has contacted the City of Long Lake. Long Lake has deferred consideration of the access request until after the City of Orono has taken action on the application. If Orono approves the 2 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 4. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Class III Subdivision and Planned Residential Development-Continued application, they will then consider the proposed access to Apple Glen Road. Another issue facing the application is the delineation of wetlands on the property. Two areas previously delineated as wetland are now in question. If the areas are determined to be wetland, it would allow 13. 7 acres of dry buildable with 6 lots. If the areas are determined to not be wetland, it would allow 14 acres of dry buildable with 7 lots. Mr. Van Eeckhout is in the process of having a wetland delineation report prepared that will be forwarded to the Watershed District for approval. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application because it was felt the 4 lots on the north side should be reduced in number, thereby increasing lot size, and because the wetland delineation was not complete. Staff recommended Council table the application and give the applicant direction regarding: access via Apple Glen Road vs. Brown Road, whether the new road would be public or private, and if the 4 nothem lots should be reduced in number. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that the wetland survey has been completed and it shows 14 acres of dry buildable, sufficient for his planned development. Mayor Jabbour stated he is not comfortable approving the subdivision with access to Apple Glen Road without first hearing from Long Lake because it would burden Long Lake with extra traffic and sewer hookups. Flint asked if the current driveway could be used for lots 5 and 6, with Apple Glen Road accessing the other 5 lots. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that may be an option, although he would prefer to access all of the lots from the same road. Flint stated that a letter from Svoboda Ecological Resources notes a change in wetland boundaries on the property due to the presence of sand and gravel fill. It also noted that an area recently became drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that drainage from Apple Glen Road runs into a ditch that was dug on the property in 1956. He has cleaned the ditch, removing silt, but he has never altered the land. He also stated that the Svoboda letter is referring to a deepening and straightening of the ditch which happened in conjunction with the sewer plant on Orono Orchard Road long before Van Eeckhout owned the property. At that time, they lowered the creek, leaving wetland soils in areas that no longer qualify as wetlands. Mayor Jabbour stated he is not in favor of any application that would affect Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that Long Lake will not move on access to Apple Glen Road without hearing from Orono. 3 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 4. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Class III Subdivision and Planned Residential Development-Continued Kelley stated he would prefer 6 larger lots that all access Brown Road. Mayor Jabbour stated he prefers smaller lots to reserve more land for natural areas. Kelley stated he would not proceed on the application without having something in writing from the Watershed District. Sansevere stated he would not want access going through a neighborhood where it is not wanted. Van Eeckhout stated the City is responsible for getting him a road to access his property, and the City has the power to condemn a property to gain the road. Mayor Jabbour stated that they cannot approve the plan without having suitable access to the property because the Council would then be forced to find the applicant access. He suggested staff draft a letter to Long Lake stating that Orono has considered the application and will approve the subdivision if Long Lake grants access from Apple Glen Road. The letter will make it clear that Orono is not in any way pressuring Long Lake to grant access, or trying to sway their decision. The application will be tabled to allow time to receive the Watershed District report and to hear from Long Lake on access. Kelley moved, and Sansevere seconded, to table the application and direct staff to write a letter to the City of Long Lake asking them to consider whether to allow access from Apple Glen Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. #2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail-Class III Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval Steve Benke was present. Weinberger stated that the application is for a 5-lot residential development on a 7-acre parcel located adjacent to the Saga Hill park area. Access is proposed from Garden Lane. He stated that new information was presented to staff on the afternoon of September 11, 2000 .. Mayor Jabbour moved, and Flint seconded, to deny the application. Mayor Jabbour stated that he spends the weekend studying the Council packet, and does not feel the-Council should have to make a decision based on new material without time to review it. Mr. Benke stated they were responding to a staff report that stemmed from a meeting held with the neighbors that neither he nor the property owner were invited to attend. 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 5. #2596 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail-Class III Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval-Continued The surveyor was notified of the meeting, but was not the appropriate person to invite. Mr. Benke stated that he is listed as the contact person on the application. He stated that the new information was provided in response to a staff request. Mayor Jabbour stated that normally when new information is presented to the Council, they refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review. The application in front of Council should be denied. Mr. Benke stated that the new information simply demonstrated that the applicant was willing and able to comply with all of staffs requests. Mr. Tom Stokes, President ofBrenshell Homes, stated that they were trying to respond to staff requests, and it would be appropriate for everyone to have an opportunity to review the new information. Mayor Jabbour stated that the Council should have the benefit of the opinions of the Planning Commission, staff, and neighbors before moving on the application, and that requires a certain process. Mr. Stokes suggested the application be tabled so they could incorporate the changes suggested by staff and go back to the Planning Commission. Barrett reminded Mr. Stokes that he had a right to a decision at the Council meeting, and that he would be waiving that right in order to extend the application deadline. Mr. Stokes asked if he could begin the process anew if the application was denied by Council. Barrett stated he would have to wait 6 months to resubmit the application. Mr. Stokes stated he preferred to table the application. He reviewed a letter to that effect and signed it. Mayor Jabbour withdrew his motion, and Flint withdrew his second, to deny the application. Peterson moved, and Kelley seconded, to table the application and refer it back to the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2606 Rick's Super Value, 3333 Shoreline Drive-Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances-Resolution No. 4518 Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4518 granting variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.42, Subdivision 7(G); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L) and Section 10.61, Subdivision 10(0) and approves the issuance of a building permit for Rick's Super Value for property located at 3333 Shoreline Drive per Municipal code Section 10.42, Subdivision 2 approving the commercial site plan, building elevations and landscape plan, and approving the 5 Deadline Extended to: 10/31/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 7, 2000 ITEMNO.: q Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator/Planner Item Description: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning Subdivision -Planned Residential Development 1 --------------------~co List of Exhibits: A Wetland Map B Site Plan C Planning Commission Minutes (August 21, 20oor D Planning Report Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the revised application at tneir August 21, 2000 meeting and recommended 6 to O to deny the subdivision request based on the following concerns not being addressed by the applicant: 1. The four lots located on the north end of the proposed development (proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7) should be reduced in number. The lots average about one acre in size in a two acre zoning district. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. 2. The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding certain wetland determinations and regrading that may have occurred within a protected wetland. (Please refer to item No. 1 in the Application Summary below.) The applicant's representative requested the Planning Commission vote on the proposal to allow the item to be discussed with the City Council. Application Summary: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to pennit the applicant to review two primary issues . .L To complete additional soil borings to detennine total dry buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13.7 acres of dry buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit pennitted density in the RR-1B district. Wetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. Svoboda has detennined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 September 7, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout The City of Orono and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are reviewing the wetland delineation for those areas that were deleted as a result of the re-evaluation. Those areas in question were identified on the City's 1974 Wetland Inventory and are protected. The MCWD is the LGU and is the organization that has the authority to approve wetland delineations, they will be reviewing the site on September 7, 2000. Orono has not received confirmation of the wetland determination by the MCWD as of the date of this memo. To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a "driveway easement" across an adjacent property. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a "roadway easement" to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit L Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. 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 of lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. These 4 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 35' 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. 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. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 7, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 3. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA will have to be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 4. Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections (curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling the application to allow additional wetland review by the MCWD. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide direction to the applicant regarding the following issues: 1. Access via Apple Glert Road vs. Brown Road South. 2. If the road access is approved by the City of Long Lake, would the new road be private or public. (The Comprehensive Plan has stated rural developments to be platted with private roads owned and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Apple Glen Road is a public road.) 3. Should the four lots located on the north end of the proposed development (proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7) be reduced in number, per the Planning Commission recommendation. The lots average about one acre in size in a two acre zoning district. By reducing the number of lots the average lot size would increase. ~~ I ' !~~ •olol 1z1< I~:~\ o•z ,a:: 13: \si~, : I I i ,...._go-- NORTH 0 50 100 ri.!'"1...J SCALE IN n:ET GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION 1_:HIS DRATINC 'l'A.S PREP.UU:D FOR RJ:VIP:1f BY TBZ CLIENT, /·/ / I A r-1 i t<_J'{ I : , ______ I\ I \ I 3 i ,I I --- ---- APPROXIMATE EDG:: OF WE TLAMD tzz:21 \J l?Tt. AN{) fJR.f AS TD ls£ l)[;TE"Rfvt itJE[) I CREEKSIDE FOREST I~ I .u!..!....2..!. ORONO MINNESOTA. Mr. C. VonEeckhout ,., ___ ,._,.,_ ---~--··---------- -------- i:::::==-~=~-; __ ~ ~.-•· ... .. ' ' .J!~l'5!L. ~ -•---•"'-·~------- M202 PfU::J).IJNARY Sr:t PLAN C2-1 [ I I c.o • -st-01 -Cf) I ·I I 1o,a ZI<( laio <( .a::: o!z 10:::/3 I • ;O !8n I I 1 NORTH 0 50 n.r, SCALE IN GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER UPLAND WITLAND NOTE: 100 I FEET LOT 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DRAlfJNG ll'AS PREPARED FOR ru:vtE1f BY THE CLIENT, CITY AND OTH:ER REGUU.TORY AGENCIES. TKE DRAlfING SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PLANS. THIS DRAWING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CUEN1' OR OTHER REVIE1!1NG AGENCIES. APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV=938 "/- TREES -· --- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND B ·-- CREEKS! DE FOREST CITY OF ORONO MINN:C:SOTA. Mr. C. VanEeckhout ! T'el:512/ ru:. 5"'..2' ' --· ........ ,_, .... ··-_ ....... _ ... ·----.. -... -......... _.,_, __ ,_, -... ,f ............ __ ,_, ..,.,_ -..... ·-·· -•···· .. -·-· ----···-- :,,00"1.,t~n: ... ~~::~..z.:--~~_,:_ '•-----~-)o,ol.1-:,..,:C .. _ I--.... ~-------,...---1 ,,,.,. _ ___,,.,::-.._..t,_..,...,,._.,....., __ : ::~:;:.:::::,E·:~ i ·--.. ••-•"'--,;,a;:o-:i--._-I :rl\""i\ojl,_ol,,.._..,_..,....,. __ ,,, ' ·-----------! ~.~---.. --·-~-. , 1-4-ca icnv Sl.;3"'t-:--:-.&.:.. 7-2!-00 IC:.T Sl..01'i: .. ....._ "---•~·,-..,..•~-~ .,.,,__._, ______ -- ,...,.._,~ -,~ PRE:.NJNARY S[7E PLAN -·~9:02 11 C2-1 I: C MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 ddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2593, Ace 3349 Crystal Bay Road, granting of the variances outlined in the August 16, ort, with the condition that the pitch of the roof will be reduced to 10/12 Gaffron noted no variance is nee for lot coverage if the structure is to consist of 1,082 square feet, but recommended µie Planning Co · ion make a finding that that variance is not needed/4"v\ E'. ·-h::, -(l.L l S-00 sf. (_'\...\\..o<A.;c'-,l,1...('.L~ ------~ Havvn noted no variance is needed if the structure 1 der 1,500 square fe;_~)~~nt, ) _ ~---</<Vf? ;/.) whichever is greater. (Yt1 PS -C_,J IC---{_,,.c- Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to amend his motion to inclu variance is needed for lot coverage since the proposed structure is under feet allowed by ordinance. VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PROPOSED SEVEN LOT PLAN:NED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:15 p.m. -7:46 p.m. John Bergh, Louck's & Associates, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated this application was tabled by the City Council at its Febmary 14, 2000 meeting to allov.-the Applicant time to review t\vo primary issues that were being discussed in relation to this development. _ \Veinberger stated this development is located on South Brovm Road and consists of approximately 20 acres, 14.1 acres of v,hich are dry build:1ble. Weinberger stated the last plan by the Applicant \Vas proposing to gain access to this development through a tract of land owned by PAGE7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 John Dunn. The Applicant has indicated he is unable at this time to obtain a road\'vay easement to access Brmvn Road and has submitted a new plan that requests access to the lots from Apple Glen Road, which is a public road O\vned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. \Veinberger noted the Applicant has requested Long Lake grant road access from Apple Glen as \\·ell as connection to sewer. The City of Long"Lake is requesting the City of Orono review this plan prior to their review. Weinberger stated the revised plan shows Apple Glen Road being extended, ,vith another road with two cul-de-sacs on the north side to serve those four lots. \Veinberger indicated the Applicant has completed the additional soil borings necessary to determine the total dry buildable area of the property. The wetlands in this area have been re-evaluated and it has been determined that t\vo wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been, with the total land designated as wetland on this property consisting of 6.05 acres. This results in a total dry buildable area of 14.1 acres. Weinberger noted the two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of seven lots based on one residential unit per t\vo acres should the PRD be approved. Weinberger stated the.second issue was to secure access to this property, which is not currently resolved. Weinberger stated in order for this subdivision to be approved, a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development needs to be approved, vvhich would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation sp::i.ce. Weinberger noted a road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements is requested, with the Applicant requesting to construct a 24 foot roadway. Weinberger noted City Code requires a minimum paved width for roadways serving seven or more sites to be constructed at 28 feet, with Apple Glen Road being 26 feet \\ide. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COi\'IMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Weinberger stated since this property is outside the MUSA area, it would require an amendment to be approved by the City Council and the Metropolitan Council to provide se\ver to the site, with approval by the City of Long Lake also being necessary. Weinberger stated access to sewer is available along Apple Glen Road. Weinberger stated this area lies ·within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The DNR has requested that the wetland area on this property be protected by the granting of conservation easements on all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek, and all the property south of the creek, with open space being preserved south of the creek. The Applicant has agreed to place conservation and open space easements to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer bet\veen the trail and the developed land north of the creek. Weinberger stated City Staff feels the proposed preliminary plat is in a format that could be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City CouI?,cil approvi_ng the Preliminary Plat, the Applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection, and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA extension. 2.• The road shall be .constructed to a ,vidth consistent ,vith road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for final plat. 4. Granting of 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. 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. PAGE9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlet A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000, by the City Engineer. Bergh commented the first concern expressed by the Planning Commission at the last meeting was the small lot size on the north, noting the consensus was to either eliminate a lot or to achieve bigger lot spacing. Bergh stated by having the roadway as proposed, it will create a better roadway system and affords the developer the ability to spread the lots out more. Hawn inquired what the size of the lots on the north side is. Lindquist stated he would like to know the dry buildable area on each lot. Bergh indicated he does not have the numbers ,vith him tonight, but to his recollection Lot 1 is just over three-quarters of an acre, all dry buildable; Lot 2 is approximately eight-tenths of an acre, with approximately 80 to 90 perce_nt dry buildable; Lot 7 is all _dry buildable, and Lot 3 is approximately 30 percent dry buildable but still contains a large dry buildable area consisting of approximately three-quarters to one acre. Ha,vn noted the City 9f Orono has received two letters from residents of Long Lake opposing the extension of Apple Glen Road. Hawn noted when the wetlands were remeasured, there was mention made to a ditch that apparently ,vas not there in 1996 and also to some fill that hadn't been there in 1996. Hmm inquired where the ditch and fill came from. Bergh stated he is uncertain of the exact history of the ditch and fill, but a wooden ditch exists in the area, ·with the creekway having been re-dug, ,vhich reduced the water level in this area. and resulted in the area becoming dry buildable. Bergh stated the only fill he is aware of is in the area of Lot 7. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Tom Woolin, 20 Apple Glen Road, stated Apple Glen Road currently has a cul-de-sac, which he would like to see remain. Woolin stated he is opposed to the e:\.1:ension of the road due to the extra traffic that it would bring and the additional safety concerns for the young children in the area that would result from the added traffic. Melanie Wollin stated she is in agreement ,vith her husband. April Bresner, 50 Apple Glen Road, expressed concerns with extension of the street since Apple Glen Road is a narrower road and the added traffic. Mary Ann Hansen, 64 Creekside Drive, Long Lake, stated it was her understanding this area was part of a state refuge when she purchased her property three years ago. Hansen stated there currently are signs denoting the area as a state refuge, with a large number of wildlife living in the area. Ken and Judy Bigelow, 32 Apple Glen Road, stated they were opposed to the extension of the road. John Dunn, 20 South Bro,vn Road, stated he owns the adjoining property to this development, and it is his impression the Applicant has done quite a bit of ditching on the property. Dunn also expressed concern reg_arding the small size of the lots. April Bresner questioned whether once an area is designated as a wetland, regardless if a ditch is constructed and the area is now deemed dry buildable, if that area is still considered to be a wetland. Stoddard stated there are many standards that go into designating an area as wetland, ,vith the presence of water and flora being the two primary criteria used in determining whether the area should be considered a wetland. Stoddard stated the characteristics of the land can change. Stoddard stated the DNR can designate certain areas as wetlands, ,vith the City of Orono protecting additional ,vetland area beyond the DNR designations. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM~IlSSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Bergh noted this area has never been delineated as a wetland. \Veinberger stated the original delineation for this area \Vas revised, with the area in question not being designated as a wetland. Ha\"n commented she has some concerns regarding the sand and fill having been found. Hawn inquired if City Staff has any information concerning where that fill may have come from. Weinberger stated the only information the City has is that it may have come from the excavation of the creekbed area. \Veinberger stated he is not aware of when the area may have been filled or where the area was filled. Ha..-vn commented it is her understanding this area was wetland in 1998. Dunn stated he has seen backhoes and tractors at various times in that area, which in his opinion was done in an attempt to lower the water table in that area and to create a buildable area. Hawn stated she does not know whether that is in fact the case. Dunn stated from a lay person's perspective, something has occurred in the area to have [oy-,ered the water table from what it was in 1998. Bergh stated if this area \Vas truly a wetland area, excavation of the creek area would not result in a lower v,ater table. Bergh stated it is his understanding from Mr. Sobotta and Mr. Van Eeckhout is that the v-:atershed going away from this property was lowered at some time and lowered the water table in this whole area. Bergh stated by digging the creekbed out would result in the creek being filled \',ith water if this was a true wetland, which has not occurred. Bergh stated the outlet was changed to the east of this property somewhere, which resulted in the lower vvater table, and he is not aware of where that change occurred. Ha\"n commented the Planning Commission will probably not be able to gain a clear understanding of the ditch and fill at tonight's meeting. Ha\"n expressed a concern regarding the small lot size. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 Lindquist commented the Planning Commission is looking at some very small lot sizes, noting he cannot support a project with those lot sizes. Lindquist noted there is a fair amount of opposition from the residents of Long Lake to the extension of Apple Glen Road. Ha'Nil concurred that there is not a lot of support for the e:-..1:ension of Apple Glen Road among the residents of Long Lake. Kluth commented the minutes reflect that the Planning Commission has expressed concerns on a number of occasions regarding the small lot size, with a recommendation being given to lower the number of lots in this development. Ha\vn commented the amount of dry buildable was increased slightly. Lindquist indicated the size of the lots still remain relatively small, and reiterated he would not be in support of the development as proposed. Stoddard noted he was in agreement with Lindquist. Kluth noted the City Council minutes reflect that hookup to se,ver would not be allowed if it . . increased lot density, noting the City Council would prefer to see a two acre minimum. Kluth pointed out the Applicant was requested to address the issues relating to dry buildable and access. · Bergh stated the over~ll average for the lots in this development are a little over two acres with respect to the PRD. Ha,vn commented that there are some minimum sizes that people tend to be interested in regardless if the overall lot size is above the two acre minimum. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission can either act on this application tonight, which in his view it \vill be denied, or the Applicant can request the matter be tabled. Bergh requested the Planning Commission act on the revised plan. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 South Brown Road, due to the concerns expressed regarding access and PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION rvIEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 small lot size. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Ha\'tn stated the Applicant should obtain additional information regarding the ditch and fill in this area prior to appearing before the City Council. Bergh indicated tonight was the first time he became aware of it. Weinberger noted the City has requested an updated wetland delineation report and explanation regarding the fill. Hawn pointed out a hearing will also be held before the Long Lake Planning Commission and City Council regarding extension of Apple Glen Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2603 JAMES RENCKENS, 3020 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERi.'\'IIT AND VARIANCES, 7:47 p.m. -7:52 p.m. Todd Irvine appeared o~ behalf of the Applicant._ The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance and conditional use permit to pennit the removal of approxim3:tely 1,600 yards of fill out of a City of Orono protected wetland. The pond would consist of approximately 16,000 square feet of surface area, \vith the ma"imurn depth being proposed at five feet. The proposed slope would be a 10: 1 ratio. The wetland would become a wildlife habitat pond with water and a nesting island in the middle. The fill will be used to form berms on the left and right sides of the driveway along Watertown Road and a berm south of the pond. City Staff feels the excavation of the wetland will make it a Type 4 wetland, ,vith the proposed land alterations resulting in a positive improvement and provide a higher quality ,vetland for PAGE 14 To: From: Date: Re: Chair Ha\VIl and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul \Veinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner August 14, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Bro\VIl Road 3 D --- Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area: Proposal: List of Exhibits: A Site Plan B Grading Plan C Sewer Plan D Site Survey 20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable) Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. E Planning Commission Minutes (11/15/99) F Planning Commission Minutes (1/19/00) G City Council Minutes (2/14/00) H Engineer Comments (8/14/00) I \Vetland Determination J Comments From City of Long Lake (8/9/00) K DNR Comments (11/10/99) L DNR Comments (12/6/99) M Photo of Apple Glen Road N Property Ov.-ners Notification List #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout I 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121/00 page-I Application Background: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review t\vo primary issues. L To complete additional soil borim1:s to determine total drv buildable area of the propertv. The wetland delineation report indicated onlv 13. 7 acres of drv buildable area which would allow onlv 6 lots based on the two acre per dvvellin2: unit permitted densitv in the RR-lB district. \Vetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. It has been determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The tvvo acre zoning of the property vvould allovv a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per tvvo acres should the PRD be approved. To secure legal access to the propertv. Access to the prooerties vvould require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent propertv owner since this propertv does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The onlv access to the parcel is via a "drivewav easement" across an adjacent propertv. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a "roadway easement" to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road ov-med and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as vvell as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from \Vatertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allo\vs a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Outlot A would provide driveway access to at least one property. The RR-1 B zoning district allO\vs 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 7 are limited and are betv;een 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout J 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 8:2 J 'OO pagi!-2 plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10' 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. The subJivision 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. 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 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. 4. Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections ( curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 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. Planned Residential Development The RR-lB zoning district allows, by conditional use permit, the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Broun Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--3 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 I 0.32, Subdivision I. Conservation easements would protect all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek and all the property south of the creek. Open space would be preserved south of the creek. The DNR had concerns with the development of the land south of the creek. A permanent crossing of the creek would have been required. The developer has agreed to place the conservation and open space easement to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and developed land north of the creek. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Storm water 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. (City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H) Sanitary Sewer The City of Long Lake must approve sewer connection to the property. Due to the existing water table and the location of the DNR waterway, Long Lake Creek, this site is environmentally sensitive area. Without sewer it would be difficult to develop this site. 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. 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page-./ 3. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 4. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 5. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlet 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 $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 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 water mark of the 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. Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat the applicant shall secure access from the City_ofLong Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion. · 2. Road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 4. Granting of 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121/00 page--5 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas.= 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000 by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall· meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 4. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and v-vetland mitigation. 5. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approvedby the City Attorney. 6. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 7. The applicant provides final lot area determinations for all proposed lots( dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage). #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8/21/00 page--6 '..---'.:'!::--::. _;,;;;..~.:._.;__ l'\OIHII o ~o 100 nr~ SCAL.t: IN U:t.T I ~~'>: ~ ': /:', ;/ . t ~-,<,> tc~~ c c~-1:-,,,;--·---. , . 0----" ', • / • .. ,,c,--<·> I /•"·"·•s"~.f',.0-' -,.,·,-,--'--I / --11 / ': /, -/-'/-' •. •. / '/ m -~, ,.<c.~.c~' ,,.c_~ce·· / ,·' ·:-, -.-17 . I · /' , , ,' / ' ' / , ), µ 35 I ~"' ---_;:---~-: -::_ --\ \ ' J '6 ' • , , ,· / / , • , -·, / • ' -~· ---2 -· ------' :, ' @. / /1 I _' // , , / ,-,--f ~-·-• ---~•,/" --'. ~-:,•. \ 2 \ ,· I\ I , 1 1, ,-11, / /] r'1: v., C· -...._ ---._,;v··, ,·,, l ·E/1s1 r' P; /@/ \ 'Z-~ ,---•,. i' ' ~ '.."-,I •· "!<"' es , , I '· / '--• -, . , I \ ' , 1 ,. , -, / " , , / -' -----<:_ ' -' -.• ' -·;. ., /-"1--/-__ .1 \·, _. ,, • ,, / ,,,. ,-,',, 1 ,L.---•-.,,,----s-: l ' , . >.,/•·'/,,'I, 1/' , , / , _:o~ s_---<-;.~,1--7, • i ,,: /· .. t,.,-.. , .. 1. i ,;' , ' • ' ... # , ..... ,. r .. , ' ,, I I ~ 1 1 , , ·-, / . I •'f / : I/. I ,.,. ,,. / ,,,, ' @ _..1,_r· : I ~ I I . ' I / I I , / • ("' ·, , I ( --<,. '' .a•. ' { I 'I -,'-.' __ , /~ /., /,.--. I ·//,i \ .----' /· ,; ,• • ,'\ '··· -, "" -\', J,, ' ,-, /, ,, / ,,, . •' -' ' < ' / . ~• ,r -•. I ' I:• ." .. :CC: , 1 ',,.,· , , 1 ,;' 1 ,.:-~-'-\~-· '. #, .,?_/ ' ·--','1 ,, 1, ',1' . I 1 ,,, .,.,. -----------,----=:c,-"-=~~ ·--rL;..-·-\. ~-, ·;:--, °"' ,' ~-~4) r 11 -·· --------'--•-"'-·~·~ ': I I-•~• l,l ,,,-.. ::------, --~--~rv .,,. t--' --_:-.~· -,c&,c'•-. 'rh,,../ , , 'ft·· .;,.--. "-J ~\ 1 'd I ' ,..-; .. ", ' ,( -• , ..... \ ",,_-c., -'-,~o,~·'S _;,c:o-. C, ' , -, -'C. ~ • ·, -~,-· -,:..-/ I lz ~, ; 1--;;, '\ I y; --~ 1 1 " ', .. _.,., .. , ·---~3 -=-;eel<'-' c / ~ " ,, ", ," , \ · ·.::'', ,,,c rnc,v '· \ ,~ ' / \ \ ' . I I ' I I I ' • ;·' ,: 0 \,''' ,' . ' , • \:'" ""°''" ', I, , d I 1 / I \ , • , ! : _ ,, ;; / , ', : ,,,..,,/ ;. : ·=1 ,i-,.~ \\\~:\<,~, · / · I \ ', J: '"'"" "~·~11~;,g• 3 1 , 1~·~11··1/ 1 / l' 1 "'' -~ ~··; r (1"''. ", Ye , '\ ·-' \ .. _ .. ---..,,\ om, 'I ' o ,', ,. ,' Y''•-·r· '·'" ·L ~, "' \ >'"'oo""" I I, 1 Lf ' ,, , , , 1 • ,,/1,-.• ., , .,., \'/'' · ,.. , 1 ____ z..,,,, ! ~ ,ti \_ I'" I ! ;: /. .· ,' ,' : / 6c. , ~ , I /"1 ;,p ,;L,'$:" ,,, %'\_;•, -----\ ,.~ ' ( P~'2_"rM~L~ 0 _:)_/..:_"..':]j2~~) 938 •;.) /1 I , I, , , , , •, J 1u·•·,,,;,," r ,../,,.,,,_.-\ · i·' ~ ·,, , 1 1 ~ 7 I . i v1 ... ~,:: , . ' , " , ,, ,: ,11 . , i .. , .,::, .. , ,,?,.v(, '\:',.: .... ·,, .... ,. , , -i'-1, GENERAL N01ES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND I I I I I I I : I I I ' I I ' / I ' lJ"1 I ,·I •)Y' I \ l's '-, ;-·. \ ,J I ,,, ,, 1 11 "'',. "' i I' ,. 1 ~· l,1\ 11\1 \I 4, /' '-o1 / : : . . , : , ,, ... 1 it,. : 1 .:::,/ .r"', -1; ,,,:: 1 [ru·: \ , _/ , , ½Y-~ -?6E~tl~? ACE .[ASEMEfl T / 111 • , , , 1 11 11 , ! , . 1 I,, -cs,;,, , · ,,i; 11' ,, " >·' ~I' / I 1 \' \ I I \ ' I ' • ~, : \ \ I 11· -~. •, :ii ' t-f-""l /.l~~ )Y_,. I / 1 I . I ' ' • ' • • ii ,. U \ • '' I ' /'' .o , ' • I I \ \ I I I \ I . I. '' Kl.,. \ ''-.'.;J;· '-'\ \I_' ~· I I I ' I . \-l.. , :::::-' '· I I j I \ ........ I , : I I \ , , ,I' •\, ' I ii, 1' L " ' •s. ''-/ · ', ~ I ' '. I I ' ' ' I ' d• ... , ,,,. I \.4 -!1 I ' " ', .. ,) / --" ,· I l; \ , ::'.:;f;g""'lE IOO YEAR '-. I • '. ' ' ' ,r, ' ' •, "\.... \ I ' r \ ' / -o,r ➔ I ,' ELEV-9'6 ., ::J I -- ', ' -, I I',•\•'' I ✓'· •,''cl'/,--;_'/ ,,. _;...., ,./ ~ ' -. ' ' ' ' ,..,,, ,, -· ' ' -, --.. -, • , 1 1 .. \\ '-1 , , 1 • '/ )/ ,1,i . 1 ,,-,. -_ -' "'-..J__,.r ,, '-• ' , I I \ , I \I · '-I '/ ,J, !/ / , ' I ./_ ·' .. 0 -, ·, . ..... , ., . ,.... ,,,·; . ,· : ,, u-"·"" ·. I' , , ' I I ·r.,! \ , ', , , 1·,, f 0 if i5/-, , , /J, .....,,.,._...__ • ...,._~., ,' --\_I I : ', '·' \ I 1(1\ \ \ \ 1 1'" ,'~\ '"~r:✓, ,-, ,' /r•-' /,.1 '. \// / APPRO · • I e; ·,,(''.' " ' , ·' C ~• ,,• / ', ' · D / • <) """ I , ; ·1~--, .. <:-:.":::_c,:l >...,.,,:)';),~1 , ,' 1/ ~-~---"-~r,;' I ' EDGE OF WETLAl/0 \ ·1·"?!'_,.,.---·····-J-13"· /r /· . . I :•I ".V/~---:-,·~:.:.c~;;.', l1Q00· 11' J ':J/.' -- A WETLAND 20.17 ACRES 2,88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES , ' ; / = -'" .. -.I ; , .. , / ' ' / , I·,,;, r ~•·" ,, I " / '· J \, / ,;· / / 1·. -,-.-..-,-,-,-,--•· ,-,c·, J i ri ~ r . --.• ,· L 1..vl"\' I , ,/ /1•.,',/I , a/,.,.. ' ~ ft '--+-_/ ,,_,,.-·-·· ,;,··r-c. I ~' ,...-..,.,-::...--.. , ,,.· .; I . 1/;1 > ~ .• -/ .,,., /" ">.-,. i -·--. I I ,' t/! h; ,/-'·,.,/ .,. .,, / , , .. ·, ----' ·-/ '' i_/ /,~ ----~-/ •v ,,~--..1/, ✓ ---,..,_ I ,; .I J/.?;1,-;<~-'··=-i--~., ·. ' ..,__~~, -""~-.. ,,1 ,;;,"· ././· < _,,,.. ' , .. . · :,;>;''____ ' ...• __ _, ,, .,., / , .. ,.,e,, .... ' '\, 0 , 1/'. ,<' ,/ 1/'c.AO•~~ ,;,;,,, = "'' • .,,,,_'I',"~,• ,/ -,cc< /•" / / I ' < wees ' ' ' • ' "j?// :,1, ,. ,. -, .· -''·S-~ W:V••»o2 ~ ~)-Cc-<-'<-".,.,.-,,__ . ,'/ / / I , __ , ,, ,, , .. ' .. ' ' .,~--__. , / -, f. ,~ h 1 < /,,~,,,' -' \ '; \' '-\ '--.!. .,..,..._~"".:.::..·•~· ·,-,-,-,-,,. _ ,' : I_,, I · '\. "=" II·,,·:·'·,..-.. ·,, , .. ·. ,--.. , ....... ·-· I " -·--i _ _, __ 1:rn,-· ... --\I 11 / '. ,-.. ·" ' ',' .' •." '.,en,--. " \ ~ f I ' ..... 1 --~✓-"" O •,oT DI a, 0 J: 8 UP~•.uu, TORY ~~~ElfTllDY THE CIJJ:NT . // I ' ( , / , ,,. -. ', \ \' ' \ \ i •, . ,~~''"",""'"'"' ·. ·. ' ' . . .. _::, >C' ,_,,,""' ---~· ~ --·~·. ,.._,. . . " .. . . . ,, '·. -' -,. , . ,_ ' --" •••~• :1-,~f,!::,"'J:i" \11:i.,e: r.' === i;, I· ' I ' ' ' : ' I ·. ' \ ·, \ . ' . --' ... ' ' :C-: -" ~,I' .c"·" '; ,' ' ,,,~~ ~s· ~ " .. ---~~~~~~;~~~~ NOTE: FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND lYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. .. '.,'• ' CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ .£..!..!..LlU. ORONO ~IINNf:SO'fA Mr, C. VanEeckhout J: ------· ~~?~~~~ •• f,;..;; . . .. __ I EE~==1 ,&~.~ -·-·-·---· ......... .. ------ PIU:ll!.llt,AffY ~m; Pl.,\N ,~.!Q '~ tn:02_Jt c2-;-] w e I- U1 (11 ::,,:::W we:: wO 0:: u... u ~) C1 'I;,..,·_ I ' , I ,, !t ' ~, 0 < ,.. z 0 UJ 0 :,, z 0:::: z 0 - -- 'i ' ' '/·-~--r -\ '1_,__'\, -; ' 0 l .,;; -"' .., ., w C: 0 > I (.) ' ~ ' =c:os_ aY.QcUlh\.QciS)---- ----~~o.,ti avo~_:02_ ___ _ ·1tl1·!1-,I I ljl!!j/·il!l '.1IL!!\!ij l lH,lh;,~ j !j!ij/11'.': I •·1 ·•!,1, lj•l,!l!j••ll j l ;q1, ,,11 ,;}r;H;t1;1J ! I ii,:1,!!il!H 1-1 1-u w (/) I- Q w ,;! ; w !s• I, Cl:'. 2,~ !1 1-.I:1,. (/) l~ejh !!~t~ z ~'!l'~ D -·· I- I'- _J <! u 1-1 CL >- 1- 11 JJ I' lu~ 1 1]1,;a! 11 ,,1-,"1 ~ --1 I ~II ;-fl 0 Zz I I ;i i 3 1 ; i~jl! ~9 ·" ~~ I I ~Ii ~g :__1 ~z :o i-;] 5:§ I I'; .I r :.i:::: L_L J' j ;:;.J ' ~ I __ I l~~ •obj •z1..: li~1 10::i~I 'o'~ lum, :n I Ii ii:> ~Olffll ~.rL .. J SCAlX l:,i n:i::·r CAUTION = THIS DRAWING WAS PREPARED POR REVIIY BY nut CLIENT, cm AND OTiflR RICUUTORY J.CENCIIS. nil DIUWINC SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION Oil FOR THB PREPARA.TION o, OTHER PUNS. nus DIU.flNC IS SUBJECT TO fURTJIEK REVISIONS AS R!QUIRIO BY THE CU!NT OR OTHER R!YlEWlNG AGENCIES. APPROJOUJ, TE 100 'r£AA FLOOD El£V•938 'J. --- APPROXIM~ fE EDGE OF WE TL AND .•'--': 11 I ...___ C, -CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ il!..!...Q..!.· ORONO ~IINNSSOTA Mr. C. VonEeckhout ............... _._.., ___ ,_ - -------- .::;.:!=::-::-..:::-<?"' ~'§g!'•:::~-~ ·_---.t_ ~~=1 .......... __ -r~t:t:T~-----; --;--~--- Ji!l15!f..~ ,.__ . ..._._, __ _ ---::- PR:EWIINARY UfiLllY PL.IN = Hl~ !, ____ J C4-1 I I I i~~ 'cibl 'zlc§ 1~·10:1 ozl '"'i"'I 10:~ 10:w, :n I I 1 r,J □TE: :'.,JY DI LOl!C 1>"! ✓11 I ,·, '' / /; / i 1 / 'I .' ----r~~~~~~~:::~~~~~~-,-,c,--f----- / ,' . /', , . I ! -:'.:;\-;;;!JJ-!':K~~?',~'~itt~,irii~?JA: -, : , :,, -~ NUHTII 0 50 100 I"'\ r-, I Ii. -[fjj " , , / </1 1 ',. 1 ~-" ,.! -·oe c:· _:c:c'c~<- 1 \ , , i 'I 1,'1 '11I I, ,--/ ~-----------, 11 \ I,· 1· , I / '/ , I ,' / -' ---' I ' ' I I I u , ' i ,, , ' I I I' ' -J "'"""' ia(,S ' I '· -------'· ' , I ' I I~ '\)"" ' ' I 'I I " , I ---I ' -' I ' , cs , -, I I , ' I ' ' ' ' -I -· --' ' ', I ' , \ ' ' 1 - 1 ; 1~,,: --/ , /I 1 , , ; ' I ,1 , r , , ) \ \ I SCAJ.1: --' I ,' ,~ I I I I' I: I I / I C ' ~ " ', ,, I I ,, (' I 7,-J , / I ,' I I;' I I I ' -,· 1· 1 1 _, ~••>< I ' I I ,' T''H I ' ( I / c' /-'-, ' ' I \ / ' I ·C -/ 7\ / ',, / I I I ,' I ,' ,, ' I ' --' ', -' I;,.· , \'--'~,I /, / / I 1 /•'· ,,I/: ' \ \ , £' _,,,; ~ •--,_,~ '~ '-'-, J I ' ",----~ I \_ / / / I I \ ,')(" I ', \. \ \ (_ 'f'. ' { ' ,-\-• I ,, ,, ' -, I ' • I ( / I ' ' , 1 , ', , -' , 1 ! 11 / I _,,----ce, ~---'-~" . \' '-"--,,,';, ' ' ' ' -~ ' ' '-I ' ,.~· ___....---------;;----' -~ , ,, ,._ ' --,, --' /i ,,,,,--,, ' •-•~'~ ,. I l ,'.>~ (c"'·'' ,,, -~·="'" · --~-~;,<. 'Cc--·,: rb,'-, I. i' Y ,,,,. \ ~-"-, i '-, IN t't.LT \ l ✓---.,. ' \/\ ~~• ' \ I ---~ ,c;-----__ , -• , \ ; C . ~ --';( \ -,_ ~---,I,,,, 1 .r 1 \ ~ -, :·=' _J , , \ -, _ ,"--p=___:,,,_--•"•'·:,> .. , _,1:" r -(-." "--, -. EXISTIMG TREES 7 ~-\ 1/1/ \, / ~-l 1 :: 1 ,, V U\(1-:'i\~~ )' . j' "\~ ;-'-.. _ . .-·· -----,.,__\ I'' ,',_, ! , J;,1 1 1 1'101/-,>,''"-<' >'·', I ""°''"' 11 ,I' ', , ,_,1,, ' ' ' ·"" ',wi--> ,,\ '/. "' -~ 1 "i DELIMEATED ~iffGE or ' I 1 '1 \ I'-, , 'I,',,' ,-< ,•,1•-·;>•·-':'>""-"-' ', , ,~, ""' 11, ' L_f ~ g 11 // ,r // i' / /-:::;::::.i:..-/✓111-::~::_.:;_~:'.\};f~c--:--:il;\:::,;v.~ ,)·., -r; / (APPRg;:~::~:?~0EA."t;sooo)~938'/)// ,' \ ' ,1 , I .,,,,.,,.,,.,,~ l' ,--, ,., •,·• cc~" ' . , ,., L \ / ' I I ' I I j I // "/ / ' ~'-~-"-"'" ,,~ "''•' \ •,,' I \ =" \ 'I _______ ,1,1, \ I r it' /11i/r1". I/ , ,.,,,,,"" \ V-' )'. ·,( l -, I I I ' I II "I I I 'j / ·' '\'" ;i'\O' '· "'.:, ' ' ', ' I Ii; \I I JJ'JII''• i\;" I ,111,11110 \1 \ /( ', i / I ; ' ' I I I II I I I' I" ' -~' / ,i J/ I J ',, I ' \ \ ; 1 I I I r : I I I I I\ \\I~ 11 \ r ,.,'::--,'c-\r/ ✓-~-,;/I 1; i/ ,P, l?" I' \. : ) I 1 , 1 1 , /, , 11 , \\' , ,. f 1 , 1J 1 ~!i ''("' , 2 I I ,, \ I 111\',\'i 1\,,111\\I-. ',,,, 11 -ill'13 )' I /~I : , \ \ \ , \ , \ t, \ ~ 0 ;' ~ , 1 j '/ / / /l• \ w~ --' , / / • i I , , 1 , ', , 1 , 11 \ ·, -·,,: , 'i 1 1 I 1 \ 1 'I f'lc-,.\ r I I "t ----.. . I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , ,, \ -, ' , ' , ' ', \ \ , I , \ , ' { ',,, /:/'.• \ \ 1 ! :i \ ' 1 j / r,7// 1, 1f, j ~/ :[~'tATE 100 YEAR , , , ' \ ,1• ,~. , ' , ~, , l / , r ,. ., E L£v • .,s ., -..,. ----·, ' ' ' ' '' 'i ✓ -','')· i 'ii / / / / ,r ~: . ./ XISTING TREES "" ' ' ' I ' \ \ l '; •, / / , l ~ ' / '-' <· ,, I ,, j', i 1/)C-; , I ,' I / ....,__ ___ ,J' .,,, c1<t.t.lZ -_1 11 0 \ 1 , 1 \ " ,,',, ,, 0 ,.~ , , ; / I ., , ( ' ' , \ 1 I -· \\.' .. .. ,· ,,,,1 /, / , / P.,) j ,. I' ,, ,,-n '' ,· ·, .' u·,j-' · , •"ow·' ; '). · I _,.,,. " ', ' ' ' ,,,,,;: ' ' ,, ':' ,>-l ' ,,,,,,,,,; ' ,' ,:1 ,J ' ' I l ./ ' ·,' 1,1 1 ,11\··"_~ .. ' '\,,'--·~?:1/,' , , /,' /' , ' ' ,,-/--T :,'.'°""" ---- .---....... \1/[ Ti_?;~,IDS DEL Jr :EAT ED \ \ .ui I/!/ , \,'<,,'_::--~~%_~'-... ;:='fl;,/,///;, / ', ,r• ·-c,,:;_--,i---, wCC 0C ,cc,c,c,c ,.,,,,., · -.. ,----.-///I J I' . D SV □D □DA Al·JD BY ASSOC I?; TES. / i,•:;·:''l/ -..,:,.._--->'."-:::;~;;::-::,// ,. 1 --' 11' ) 'j'' . / /{.'1/ ;,--1(.~~r--:--·...._---_<.-::_>-_,, / "\ I ,1 ./ •• ,,1 . J-__ ·-1.,././1 ; f,c'T.,,,.-.:_\°"--,,_R<ir ' ~· / ,; J . / / / -, r,. ,-,-,-,~, ,-,,., 1••i," / "",;c --_I <I' _,. / ? / ,I ..----''l- 1'c' ',•/ , I(/ _J "'!> _, /-,-v~, ,· ~ C 7 .. ,-..~,, i / / ,j l.1. 0/C; /. V = -,,,., / ' _/·(-__ ,, , / ' .J /al ,,·! ~c-, , ;,-,,"""-I v ,,,.~v , / ---, ,_ ~ ' _., _,,,-~-,,,, ' ' =-, ' ,, '/-✓ ,,....,.,, ' -I--_ '= > ~~ -~cc,,' -""'-' -.. ,__/' _,, / /, ~' --' '' , 1/ '? 0 I' ', /-~'CC-'"" lr.~ •·~ "-,,, ,,__," -c,ct< /c, / I } ><SJCC< aeee; ' ' ', , ' y /v,;"/,5C /": '•>i,,~,.•e;• ,""'-<>5= ---':':1/"-//_,.' 1 ' ' ,- f 't /' ;'~',.' . -\ '\\' ' ----="'('~' ,,,-,-,-,-.~-~/ .-/ / _) 11" , 1 ;;,.,,'1~--.. ,•,',' ,";·: ----,----\' 1 , r:-:.:_:-1 ~:-...:-:: • ;· 1 f: 1 Ii/ ', , \ \' 1 , -, , / , , • '. ,,,~,;,-0•"'' ~1/~,i-'/(" ,·", '·., \' I''•. ,_ --, ' ' . I ,-.• ._c_ -.,;I>/' --r l,,, ·.' ., •. , ' , ----.~----~ -.o:Ci !', :, :; ';,~~;,;' · ,,:.••~ ,>-~cJ;\:;;?:g{!jfff;-JsJi'#fff:;;;;;:§ft~;c· CAUTION = Tlll!f DRAW-ING W.l.9 PR£PA.RED roR uvn:w DY rn.1 CUt:NT, CITY AND OTHIR RIGUI.ATORY A.Ci!NCll!i. TIii OR.AWING SIIOUUt NOT DE R.IIUED UPON ,Oft CONSTitUCTION OM roR TIIII l'Hl:t'AR.ATION UY OTlll:N PUN:i, THIS OllJ.WINtl l!I SllUJIU..7' TO rllffflUIH Hl:VlSIONS u Ht:QUJlU:D BY nu: CU.:NT OR OTUEK ~\ll~WINC ACt.'NCll::S. c""{jjCC--__ . < ' UNE , -· ·· ,-,,, _,, ___ ,, 1 · ,, ,,,cc, I --<==~ "; ~--.?:.~~0j,~; tA:_~-~ -_ :q:~~~~~~~;~,,:::: ___ ~ ~ " CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ .5...!..LL..Q.! ORONO MINNSSOTA Mr. C. VanEeckhoull: -. -'·-·~--···-·-· .... _ -·-- ------- ;,o -•-.• ;;;_--Y7" ~-?IE~~~ --~ --···--.,, , ... ,,,. .. .:-===--~ ::tt1f[.1;;:~===\ :_·/__ J ~+-.:k -·-·-·-·"'--__ ... _ - t:.Xl::.'Tl~G CO:,,IUITIOf',jS Pl..\ti 11\IW~ l• CH i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SUBDIVISION FOF\_ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated 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 Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-18 zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRO as a conditional use. Under a PRO the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The de i,;'opment would also include three larger lots, Lots 5, 6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRO would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven·· lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area. however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 16 [ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; 8. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior'fo approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRO, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to tlie City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stoc!dard stated he would be in favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlots. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good airection to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, Continued) Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. -8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have Page 8 + ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum SO foot width to meet City roadway st3ndards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted SO feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowners Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated ~his proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a fa1al plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles. shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the Page 9 . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he 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 1 O percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRO. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRO must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road. inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berl<owski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easem·ent. Weinberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergerncy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway: Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in th.is subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, 120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. -9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1 C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1 C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salVsand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 Barrett state ublic hearing had been scheduled with the Planning Commission on January 19, 2000. Neither . Hoyt nor representatives on his behalf appeared at the January 19 th public hearing. Mr. Sheridan stated Mr. Hoyt · prepared to submit a complete application to present at the February 28, 2000 meeting of the uncil. Mayor Jabbour stated a new public hearing · th the Planning Commission may be required. Barrett stated a public hearing would be required to view the variance request. Kelley stated the earliest this item could potentially return to meeting in March. Mr. Sheridan stated he would be willing to draft a letter to extend the dead · e to permit time to proceed with the variance request. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue this item to SA. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 . . ~ 5. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South -Subdivision for Planned Residential Development :tv1r. Van Eeckhout was present ·with representative John Bergh of Loucks and Associates. 'Weinberger explained the issue facing this application \Vas that the dry buildable acreage available totaled 13.7 acres where 14 acres are required for 7 lots. As planned, the subdivision did not meet city requirements of 2 acres per lot. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application based on the total dry buildable not meeting the minimum requirement of 2 acres dry buildable per lot in the RRlB zoning district. · · Kellogg stated that no trail or sidev,alk was planned \vith the recommended 50 foot road width. Sansevere asked if the applicant had considered a reduction to 6 lots. Van Eeckhout responded that he would prefer 7 lots and felt that would be attainable once soil borings were done in the spring. 4 G ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING l\1INUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, continued) Mayor Jabbour commented that the city would not allow sewer availability to increase lot density. All Council members agreed. The applicant must demonstrate a hardship to allow more than the permitted density on the site. Mr. McCusky, the adjoining property owner, was present with legal representation arguing that the applicant had not made arrangements for proper legal access to the subdivision. He was concerned that approving the subdivision may imply some legal rights to access. Barrett confirmed the easement to the property was for driveway purposes and may not be adequate to serve as access to the subdivision. Barrett stated the application deadline is March 2, 2000. The applicant must present a letter to the City of Orono to extend the deadline. Mayor Jabbour stated the applicant should provide a letter requesting the application be tabled, giving the applicant time to resolve the issues of dry buildable acreage and access to the property through a designated outlet. Kelley moved and Peterson seconded to table the application until the applicant requests further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue -After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit Mr. Sheri ~rovided a letter requesting the application be tabled until the end ofMarch;The letter also state at the property owner, Mr. Hoyt, has granted the city an extension of the time limits for approval. Kelley moved, and Peterso econded, to table the application until the end of March. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, RESOLUTION NO. 4421 9 PARK DRIVE -V ARIA.J.~CES - Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Re ution No. 4421, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Su i:vision 1 (B) _and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C)(6). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5 ~Bonestroo • •Rosene ~Anderlik& • \J 1 Associates Engineers & Architects August 14, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckhot.it Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: Sonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates. Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity \ \ Employer and Employee Owned t1 Principals: Otto G. Bonescroo. P.E. • M<1rvin L. Sor·1-:11a. P.E. • Glenn R. Cook. P.E. ■ Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene. P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik. P.E. • Richard E. Turner. P.E .• Susan M. Eberlin. C.P.A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. • Keith A. Gordon. P.E. • Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E. • Richard W. Foster. P.E. • David 0. Loskota. P.E. • Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. P.E. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE • Ted K.Field. P.E. • Kennem P. Anderson. P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs. P.E .• David A. Bonestroo. M.s .. .;. • Sidney P. Williamson. P.E .. L.S. • Agnes M. Ring. M.B.A. • Allan Rick Schmidt. P.E. Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and Willmar. ,\lN • Milwaukee. WI Website: www.bonestroo.com We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feet. Plans should be submitted to the City of Long Lake for their review and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of paved width with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards. The street section should provide for a minimum of8-inches of Class 5 aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We recommend 1 ½ inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of Type 3 lbituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2. Grading: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion control plan may need to incorporate bale checks and fiber blanket in the ditches and along steeper slopes. A wetland mitigation plan should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City's' Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. Long Lake Creek, a Mn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP standards. All proposed ponds should specify normal water level (NWL) and high water levels (HWL). The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10: 1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides 1-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure details should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to a pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final p Ian set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer system. A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot l, Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be extended to the westerly boundary of Outlot A. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and l 0 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. --,/~ '/CTYY? 1)-1/ ·' Torn Kellocrcr 00 Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono I .,.,.,..,,,.""""·_, SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ,------,-----------:-----:------------------------ p~ovid~ng. the_ Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Co~s~lting Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner llI City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay,-MN 55323 ·.RE: SER Project Name: .SER Project No.: Dear Mr. Weinberger; Van Eeckhout -Orono Parcel Delineati_on 98-060-03 ~ ..... -. . ~· • • ! Tqe purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the above project. To briefly review its status, this parcel wa;; visited by Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) on October 14, 1998. Atthis . . .. time; two areas were determined to be jurisdictional wetland and were delineated by SER (see SER Repoi:t No. 98-060-03 for more d~tail). The edges of these wetlands were located by SER using a Trimble Ag p2 GPS e_quipped with a.Juniper Systems field data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in real-time using signals transmitted by the Coast Guard station in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter accuracy when using real-time differential correction in the field. , • I • In 2000, SER determined that the boundaries of Basin-I. needed revision due to factors that were not evident at the time of field visitation. The northern boundary was redrawn and reduced (Figure l). _This, revision was due to the presence pf sand and gravel fill found in this area, which indicated that it would not meet jurisdictional \Vetland status. In acldition, -the boundary of the northv,restem finger of this basin was redrawn a'nd reduced (Figure 1). This reed c'anary grass dominated area,recently has become drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus, the extent of the wetland b9undary as was determined in · 1 ?98 ·was decided to over-exaggerate the scop_e.of the northwestern wetland edge. Please note that the ipodified boundaries on Figure 1 are not exact an_d are subject to field verificatio~. · Should you have_any ques_tions about these revised boundarie_s, please call me. Sincerely, Svoboda Ecological Resources ~1-~ Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB, PWS _ President cc: Chuck Van Eeckhout, Van Eeckhout Engineering Services 24 77 Shadywood Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-llOo' (Office) • (612) 471-0007 (F.ax) 2C-O ·,1, ,J{ ,·.Vs ,~l?if~ ~,J.~: :-trni-' 1 ·' Svoboda Ecological Resources Aerial Photo of Site Approximate Basin Edges Van Eeckhout Pare Figure Paul Weinberger City of Orono P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, :MN 55323-0066 fls ----- C I T Y O F LONG LAKE RE: Preliminary Plan Review for 120-South Brown Road Charles Van Eeckhout -Orono Zoning Application #2550 Dear Mr. Weinberger: August 9, 2000 In response to your letter dated.August 1, 2000 requesting that the Long Lake City Council forward any concerns regarding Mr. Van Eeckhout's request prior to your August 21, 2000 planning commission meeting I would offer the following. Long Lake city staff has previously met with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss his proposal. Staff directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek final plan approval from the City of Orono prior to submitting a request to the City of Long Lake for road and/or sewer access. I have discussed this course of action with both the Long Lake Planning Commission and the Long Lake City Council and they have agreed that they prefer to review the request once the plan has received final approval by the City of Orono. Please feel free to contact me ifl can be of any additional assistance regarding this matter. nnonSw-s~ City Adminisfrr ) SJS/ss cc: Matt Goldstein, Planner Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator 1964 Park Avenue• Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fax)• http://www.ci.long-lake.mn.us November 10, 1999 City of Orone Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds, and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well, and should be clearly disclosed to future landowners. Sewer plans are a third. This plat identifies a line running from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is no request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer would be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road South being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono Orchard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for tlie horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the developer and future landowners be made aware of property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5-+8-+. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a t_~ ~!inimum of IO'c Po,t.Con,um<r Wa,te be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail. This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement. The DNR would be willing to work with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, --S~~w~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. December 6, 1999 City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. \Veinberger, This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit iri regards to the application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. · The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot# 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & \Vaterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the development plan. As it exists on the prelimin,ary plat map dated 10-14-99, the sewer runs from north to south and intersects the trail east of Brown Rd. S. Trails & Waterway's preferred route for the sewer extension would be to follow the Brown Road South right-of-way. This would minimize interference to the trail right-of-way and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. We also support the City of Orono's position that Lot # 7 be set aside as a conservation outlot. This would benefit both the landowners and the trail users by providing a screening of vegetation between the housing development and the trail. Please note the above concerns in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, S~~ w~ Suzann Willhite Merro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger Dl\"R Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5-+8-t l-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Di,·ersity #I, Print~d on Ri:cyd~J P;.1pt:r Cnntaining: a ~., \linimum of!()<"( Po,t-Cnn,um~r \Va,tt: L VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES fY\ Site Design • Structural Design • Utilities Design 1935 West Wayzata Blud., Long Lake. MN 55356, 612-473-1578 ..... "'cS~~~~~~~~£-=:-... __ :!_-:··~==--=:~:=---~:~,:~: --. .:..~ Glen RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TA-XPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38. 03-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL L tJllGRIDGE ASSOCIATES I' 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN STATE OF HINN IDNR) !LUCE LINE TRAILi 38 03-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20.S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOIIN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RDS W F FARLEY & KG FARLEY WILLIAN & KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON & H DAYTON TOBIN J & HAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF HINN <DNRl (LUCE LINE TRAILi 38 03-117-23 12 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN . 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RDS WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST H2100 ST PAUL MN 55101 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R & B HACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 BROWN RDS S BITTMAN & L BITTMAN SCOTT & LISA BITTMAN 25 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 MPLS MN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 BROWN RDS CHARLES EVAN EECKHOUT CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 BROWN RDS JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0011 00140 BROWN RDS D & L COLEMAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEMAN JR 140 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD ETAL DE KIRKMAN & J M KIRKMAN DAVIDE & JOANNE M KIRKMAN 1945 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 .03-117-23 21 0007 00145 BROWN RDS JOHN H WINTON JOHN M WINTON 1314 MARQUETTE AVE tt903 MPLS MN 55403 ,...,_,,--r.-?) ,,,;. ., ...... :,..:t.• s_. .• ,'/. '\ f\ /. \:.·~-~i··:.:.·:~:~:.;,:· ~\\ ,···~ \::. ( ' ; ••y\. .l''/ \:. :, •r.,•~· ,~, (::: .:1 ~ .. ,; ·~ ..•. , .. , '.·\ "' .•.'1'. l I.•• t •' :: .. j .:~~ .. ~ ·:, ',\ . ' J.-r ·,, .... ' .;.C.,:•., .... ;• l.,);.P (.:?~~. ,:~; u n._ ;,,, l'.7l .. "' ~ ,, xJ') ··:,./ '-.;.,.J-~it ... ~ -~ ~ ·-~\-~ ... ,,. n,,..,,_,il . '.,l;'I':,.,._ ~ .. "\ ~ ......... -:~ . ,'I!' ~i~ ·,.,;;~~ • .. \~ RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR · OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PllOP 0 ADDR OWtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADD~ 38 03-117-23 21 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN (DNRJ (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 21 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN PEARLING JOHN PEARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD KV BIGELOW & J T BIGELOW KENNETH & JUDY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0060 00046 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER & AL PASTER JAMES T PASTER '46 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0063 00064 CREEKSIDE DR MARY ANN HANSEN MARY ANN HANSEN 64 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0072 00041 APPLE GLEN RD DJ DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 41 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 21 0014 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 44 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0021 00026 APPLE GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR J LOHMAN & RA OHMAN JOHN LOHMAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0064 00043 CREEKSIDE DR R G ROACH & KA ROACH ROBERT G & KIMBERLY A ROACH 43 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD NE & HJ STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE.GLEN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYDS KELLEY LESTER SKELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD HE & H B GUTHRIE HARV & MITCHELL GUTHRIE 38 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118~23 43 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN & HR WILLIN THOMAS & MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0062 00058 CREEKSIDE DR H & J BERNS MICHAELE & JOLYNN H BERNS 58 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD SC FEDIE & W L FEDIE STEVEN C & WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0074 01980 KENNEDY LA LR DANIELSON/NH DANIELSON LEER & NANCY H DANIELSON 1980 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 t'i ', ~-·,,~ '.:~'_"; }, '> '\ 1', ·,1 , ,, 'J I . ,,, it .... ... \~. / \\ /:,,, }-.... ;,\ ''i :1 . :,!/ ,(->r:). {/" ;:. ~I 11 i •:::.'> . .':~) • ,'(, ~ . It';.,--; ... \.:\ •• -~ f':t;:_,;~{~· :~l/~t~ .f➔ '· ~;-~ ;i:r:r~ RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 72 34-118-23 43 0075 01985 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 ' . 72 34-118-23 43 0083 00010 BROWN RDS DP & LA ERICKSON DAVID P & LISA ANN ERICKSON 10 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 . ' HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI43540l PAGE 31 72 34-118-23 43 0081 00055 VALLEY VIEW RD G W ANDERSON & SJ ANDERSON GREGORY W & SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD· LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 00040 72 34-118-23 43 0082 00018 BROWN RDS JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE. ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. . ~ ~ . , • DATE tJ-9-19 BY , , '71/Ji ..,_SaAd-j,.j t/ "'·· .· •. ·' [ .. ,, I I i. i { .. / I• ,·1.~ . ··!•.:..:. •. ! ,~.;:; r-:-.•.rt; ··) .:·,.• .) ... ·.•' -·,;) ·1 ·: -~f ~:) '· J :.( ·U ·, ,•,; •;~ }'l;:", To: From: Date: Re: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner August 14, 2000 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road 3 --- Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area: 20 acres (14.1 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. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Site Plan Grading Plan Sewer Plan Site Survey Planning Commission Minutes (11/15/99) Planning Commission Minutes (1/19/00) City Council Minutes (2/14/00) Engineer Comments (8/14/00) Wetland Determination Comments From City of Long Lake (8/9/00) DNR Comments (11/10/99) DNR Comments (12/6/99) Photo of Apple Glen Road Property Owners Notification List #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout I 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--! - - Application Background: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review two primary issues . .L To complete additional soil borings to determine total dry buildable area of the propertv. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13. 7 acres of dry buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density in the RR-lB district. Wetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. It has been determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. 2. To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a "driveway easement" across an adjacent property. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a "roadway easement" to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Outlot A would provide driveway access to at least one property. 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 of lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots loc;ated north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--2 plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10' 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. 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. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. 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 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. 4. Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections (curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 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. Planned Residential Development The RR-lB zoning district allows, by conditional use permit, the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract. the #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--3 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 I 0. 3 2, Subdivision I. Conservation easements would protect all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek and all the property south of the creek. Open space would be preserved south of the creek. The DNR had concerns with the development of the land south of the creek. A permanent crossing of the creek would have been required. The developer has agreed to place the conservation and open space easement to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and developed land north of the creek. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Storm water 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. (City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H) Sanitary Sewer The City of Long Lake must approve sewer connection to the property. Due to the existing water table and the location of the DNR waterway, Long Lake Creek, this site is environmentally sensitive area. Without sewer it would be difficult to develop this site. 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. 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 tµe 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--4 3. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 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 $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 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 water mark of the 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. Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat the applicant shall secure access from the City.of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion. 2. Road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 4. Granting of 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--5 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas.= 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000 by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 4. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 5. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 6. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 7. The applicant provides final lot area determinations for all proposed lots(dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage). #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121/00 page--6 NORTH 0 50 100 rvi....J I 1 (0 • --ro1 ,~:1 I I~ (3 <t'.Cl:'. Oz 10:: 3:: I .0 0 Cl:'. 1um1 : I I SCALE IN GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: FEET LOT 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DRAWING lrAS PREPARED FOR REVlE1r BY THE Cl.JENT, cm AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. THE DRAlr!NG SHOULD NOT BE REIJED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PLANS. THIS DRAlr!NG IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS REQUffiED BY THE CLIENT OR OTHER REVIElrlNG AGENCIES. APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV=938 •;. TREES -· - APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND CREEKSIDE FOREST CITY Of ORONO M I N N E S O T A O!MtR/PXYtJDPF:B Mr. C. YanEeckhout fal:612/ J'u.: 612/ 1 ........ .,, ............... , •••• ,, ... ., .. .,.,_, .. , .......... -........ ,., .. ,_, -~..-., ........... , ................ ~ ........... £.i,_,,,,., ... ,_ ., ......... '"'--··· ·----···-- CtOCl!'lU:Q~TION· C>00 !\Im P"'l"'"'d by I"" Ulgira,J'S<,,,,"l"' fw thb pn:,jed a•e[r,a,,,,,_,tsofll'leEl'lg!r,ee,'•/~•~"'f""""""""'_,,.,,,,• !ct u• •<>'°)I •Ith ,-to U,19' p,,:,)o<:t,. Th.,., C,llX) Illa ....,n net~•~-on ou,.,, P"')eclll, fo• aoom""• 10 U,!11 P"')<CI or ror """'~•t;on 4f l:llls prolnt i,,, oi:r,~ •!\ll<>llt .nn.-1 ~c~,.,"'1 .,.. tnl• Eng..-~ "'""t"" Eriq.-,·.1s......,,..,c·• oppn:rw,:,1 "''-"''"'l'M _.,,.,ltlo,d !oobi:<>ln cc,:, .. o#tt.C>DD d""'IJ>\I !t~1"':, ~=:'.,;'~~Zn'!":';::,.;. ~''";:':n:£ ~~rd at tt,., t..~ """ at tt,at l)C1t)-mal,lr,q 7i,,:h ,~,l<r>3, o<l<llt:h:,,, o, ~;:.:1~ :::::: a~CJT .. ":~~ ,:,.~:m::. :zt~- I Q,1,1£ I RE'VISION I \-4-00 CITY SUBMITTAL 7-21-0U CITY SUBMITTAL :i4,ue1s ~&~.~ l'laia.:u,n. kpftn -~•Daip,,n•~ 1ail5-ldi.a.:tu.m. .... 1:r-. ..... ----,...,....(ffl)CU-lllll l'U:.(~ PRELIMINARY S[TE PLAN J. nT.-ain<l'11.T01r•aic 1'lJM':VIJCroa:- ~rrlN'!'0MtnlOQI. CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM I, ~~s:~~~~,u..~~~~ ~ ~j~~~~IUllD~g""~.llll.UM'llSaOIIIEl::l'.K:S J. =tl'O/flllJCVll(.•=-tel'OSITT:$>0.Ul[IID"ll',QIIFTOl;ENJl:PUl!Pl(VOl1 ~:r~~VIO<llO'O:l:lnlOCII-TO..lD<...w.Tn<,c:;w.,tr SILT FENCE DETAIL J I \ \ i I I -NORTH 0 50 100 ~!1...J SCALE IN FEET i I l //;· ; / /--- / \ p------- \ \ \ \ , __ II //,1 ,/; /1/ , / / / / / \ /I I ' _____ _,!/ ----' I l \ i I 25' 25' i.;. \ 13' l2' 12' 13' I i SUP£ O.M FT/ n. O.o3f'T./TT,-- -◄1 'w'EAR) 2331-31 BASE> GRAVEL BASE ~si~Jg, ~ii.~.~~ ~ -._ --. SIIG,.£ FAMD...Y RI.RAL ' --. TYPICAL 7 TON STREET GRADING/EROSION CONTROL NOTES, l. IJ!-OE SOIL a:RRECT[ONS AND/OR F'ILLING Oco.R 'w'ITHIN THE STREET R[CiHT-OF"-\JAY, TI-£ BACl<FILL HATCRIAL SHALL BE CO,-PACTED TO 95'/. CF Tl-£ STANDARD K!ISTURE DENSITY RUATIONSHIP CF SOILS (ASTN D-698-70> EXCEPT 1l£ TIP Tl-REE: F'ECT CJ? CF 1l£ BACK- F"tLL VMlCH SHALL BE COMPACTED TC LOO"/. IENSITY Ni INDEPENDENT TEST!Ni Fl~ SHALL TES:T r~ STREET SECTION IN Fll.L AREAS AND PROVIIE Tl-£ RES:UL TS CF Tl£SE TESTS TO THE CITY, DGINEER AND TH( CLIENT, 2. TI-£ CCNTRACTOR SHALL. INST ALL SILT FENCE PRIDR TO cct4HEN:1NG ~ADING ACTIVITIES AND SHH...L HA.INTAIN SAID F'EM::E FtR TI£ Il.RATION Of' CONSTRUCTlON ACTIVITIES. 3. TI-£ CDflRACTCR SHALL LIMIT HIS ACTIVffiES TC THE GRADIN:3 LIMITS SHOVN ON THE GRADING PLAN, ALL C~TRU:TION ACTIVITIES StW...L COHPI.. Y WITH THE LOCAL ORDINANCE. 4, Tl-£ CCNTRACTOR SHAl.l.. INST ALL SIO\J FENCE, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGn-£:E:R, TO PROTECT T~ li!tlJTS. S. TI-E COflRACTOR SMALL SCHEDULE HIS CF'ERATIONS TC MINIMIZE Tl-IE DISTURllED AREA AT ANY GlVEN TIME. 6. AU. DISTI.R:BED Ntli-STREET AREAS SK<\U.. BE RESTORED 'w1TH A MINIHLH or ◄1 TCP smL AND SEED OR SOD AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, \IITHJN 72 HOURS OF COHPLETICN CF Tri£ GRADING ACTIVITY IN THAT PERTICULAR AREA. --.. ) \ \ \ \ \ \ ' "'• • \ I \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ . I \ \ \ / I I I I l I \ \ r /1 / I / ~ I i ; i j I I \ \ \ \ \ \ l _,/ \ I / / / / C11Y OF LONG LAKf / ' , \ o.i.__ In< ' -1-r \ \ ) \ ,./ \ j .2 \ \ 1 ----- I ---------- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND '-.._':,.(APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD -!;l PPROXIMATE N.H.W. 936.51/-) 3 T--------- I -OPEN SPACE-EASEMENT TO DNR APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV=938 1/- TR EE S 26 26 26 --- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND I \ I I I t - i ! CREEKSIDE FOREST CITY OF ORONO MINNESOTA' O!Jf£R/DevtL,OP!;R Mr. C. VanEeckhout re1:s12/ Fax:612/ , ...... ,, .. 1,.,, .. t ........................ ,_, .. , ......... _.,_ ... ..,. .. , ..... _ ... , ......... ' __ ... ,, ............. ,_,,,...,E,.i,-• .... , ... , ... ........ ••••·M1=-••• 1--4-00 CITY :S:UBM[TT""- 7-21-00 C[rY SU8M[TTAL ~~'~ flawn • ~ • s..r..,,.,., •Dcq;,cn • ~ 1'1:11115-ld:-..-• .... ;mo.-~ w.,i,-{~Pa:(~ o,_ PRELlMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C3-1 I NORTH 0 50 100 ~~ SCALE D. FEET " J \ _/ c· I I I t: ) -/ ,,/ \ / CAUTION THIS DRAWING WAS PREPARRD FOR REVIEW BY THE CLIENT, CITY AND OTHER REGUUTORY A.GENCIES. THE DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PLANS. THIS DRAWING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS REQUlRED BY THE CUENT OR OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES. / /, / I /. I , I APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DELINEATED WET~AND I 3 -OPEN SPACE.EASEMENT TO DNR 26 APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV=938 •t- TR EE S -------APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND ' "' '-.., ,,,...---··-.. --::::;;.~)... -----':'>--,_ ...__ I ! C -CREEKSIDE FOREST CITY Of. ORONO MINNESOTA OWlfER/DEYEJDPRR Mr. C. VanEeckhout f11J: 612/ ru: st2/ ,,_ .. ,,.,.,,.o ... • ............ .,. •• ,, .. .,.,_,_, ......... -., ........... , ............ ,.,. ....... ,' -... ,, ..... ,v ... ·--·-··--·· ,:,,,,_, ........ ,_ ........... -· ~, ........ . CO£lO nu: !J!.IAUfl::t,flO"'· C..00 rue. p,-pc:,ri,d by !Im Eng.,_,~ f« ti'<!• P"')<'C! ore ll>•trtlnOnts <>f I/lo &,gr,,-•,/~• P"''"""'"'""' _......,, I,:,, ~-•o.Y w!lt, ,_1 to \tlls p,o)oct. Tu.,., CAOCI Ill.,. """" net o, ~-an o_. pn:,Jecl:O. r,., adoltl""'• 10 !l'IIO ~"')«:I orforc..,,~n<>fl!'llopn,/ttlt,Jol!'l.,.."1tllo!lt-..'!t!onappn,..,I t>)'l1i!st,,~~--1ft•t,,g.-is/S"""')'C<·••_.,,..,1 "'"""' mar N p.-mltl-1 to obtcln .,.,pr.., ol IN CAOO 4,_~ tlle$ft:l'~rmatf""""'1f'Of.,..,c...-.ty . .tJ1r,,te,ilon:,lar""'"...tla,... rl'V!11o.., 4441!10<11 « ~,uon, u, tJ'>IIN e>ro I'll• •Mn :i.i -at It.. full rl,tk at !!'tat ?Cit), mcolrtg ~.,,:n ,...r,r,,,,.., adcdlll""2 er .... 11o ... ~ -p>tty -~o! "old ......... CM """"'""':t'Jt ,.,. t,,~u, .... ;~ tn,m ""1 & on ,..,.J>Ol'I_, c0mns a,d 1\ablll\le,i I OA1E I RE\llSION 1-4-'J<;i CITY SU9MtTTAL 7-21-00 ctn SUBM{TTAL ~===t===============:, ' t====t==============='. i l'lm,i ...... 1apu.va.s.a-..,,,n.llaip,n.!r-~ --lot.~-.... ~-..-,.,._ ('1J)GMlm he (IU)l;:l,I-CI PRELlMINARY UTILl':"Y PLAN ·C4-1 I I I 1 (0 • -.:t-01 ,~:1 lz~ l~g ozl 1a:::3 I 'd~ o rn1 : I I -~□TE: NORTH 0 50 100 ~ SCALE IN FEET ANDS DELINEATED BY ASSOCIATES, SVOBODA AND CAUTION THIS DRAWING WAS PREPARED FOR REVIEW BY THE CLIENT, CITY AND OTHER REGUIATORY AGENCIES. THE DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PLANS. THIS DRAWING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CUENT OR OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES. Cl1Y OF LONG LAK APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOO ELEV=938 1/- --. -- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND D .--....... CREEKSIDE FOREST CITY OF ORONO M I N N E S O T A OJHCR/PEYEJOPER Mr. C. VanEeckhout TOU:51.2/ fu::: 612/ 1 ...... , ... ,, •• ,, .. , .... ., .................. ,_, .. . ...... « .... -................................... , .... ,, ...................... ~,--.... , ... , ... . , "'' ....... , ~, ......... . I DATE I RE',IISION 1 -4-00 cm· SU6UITTAL 7-21-00 Cffl' SUBMITTAi.. Qt.1.u.rrr JUN.A.CCMEHT REVEY: Plmm::nc • ~ • ~ • Dcmp,n • ~ '11:1115iclld:-.-.-. ..,..::.-.---i.......,{~ ~{CU)a+-ICI; EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 1~11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays O. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SUBDIVISION FOR._ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated 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 Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-18 zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRO as a conditional use. Under a PRO the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots, Lots 5, 6..-and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRO would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the severi lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 16 [ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; 8. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the ONR issues resolved as well prior'fo approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRO, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRO the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to ttie City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stoc!dard stated he would be in favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlots. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good airection to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 ,.,f ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, Continued) Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.rn. -8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborlhood, the best option would be to have Page 8 + ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway st3ndards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be re platted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowners Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated 'his proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a fi;ial plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles. shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the Page 9 . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he 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 1 O percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. · Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRO. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRO must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address.any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergemcy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, 120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. -9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salUsand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 (#25-• Bradley Hoyt, continued) Barrett state ublic hearing had been scheduled with the Planning Commission on January 19, 2000. Neither . Hoyt nor representatives on his behalf appeared at the January 19 th public hearing. Mr. Sheridan stated Mr. Hoyt · prepared to submit a complete application to present at the February 28, 2000 meeting of the uncil. 1-fayor Jabbour stated a new public hearing ·m the Planning Commission may be required. Barrett stated a public hearing would be required to :view the variance request. Kelley stated the earliest this item could potentially return to meeting in March. City Council would be the last Mr. Sheridan stated he would be willing to draft a letter to extend the dead · e to permit time to proceed with the variance request. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue this item to SA. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 . . ~ 5. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South -. Subdivision for Planned Residential Development Mr. Van Eeckhout was present with representative John Bergh of Loucks and Associates. ·weinberger explained the issue facing this application was that the dry buildable acreage available totaled 13.7 acres where 14 acres are required for 7 lots. As planned, the subdivision did not meet city requirements of 2 acres per lot. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application based on the total dry buildable not meeting the minimum requirement of 2 acres dry buildable per lot in the RRlB zoning district. Kellogg stated that no trail or sidewalk was planned v,ith the recommended 50 foot road width. Sansevere asked if the applicant had considered a reduction to 6 lots. Van Eeckhout responded that he would prefer 7 lots and felt that would be attainable once soil borings ·were done in the spring. 4 G ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, continued) Mayor Jabbour commented that the city would not allow sewer availability to increase lot density. All Council members agreed. The applicant must demonstrate a hardship to allow more than the permitted density on the site. Mr. McCusky, the adjoining property owner, was present with legal representation arguing that the applicant had not made arrangements for proper legal access to the subdivision. He was concerned that approving the subdivision may imply some legal rights to access. Barrett confirmed the easement to the property was for driveway purposes and may not be adequate to serve as access to the subdivision. Barrett stated the application deadline is March 2, 2000. The applicant must present a letter to the City of Orono to extend the deadline. Mayor Jabbour stated the applicant should provide a letter requesting the application be tabled, giving the applicant time to resolve the issues of dry buildable acreage and access to the property through a designated outlet. Kelley moved and Peterson seconded to table the application until the applicant requests further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #2540 Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue -After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit Mr. Sheri ~provided a letter requesting the application be tabled until the end of March. The letter also state at the property owner, Mr. Hoyt, has granted the city an extension of the time limits for approval. Kelley moved, and Peterso econded, to table the application until the end of March. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, RESOLUTION NO. 4421 9 PARK DRIVE-VARIANCES- Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Re ution No. 4421, a Resolution Granting Variances to l\'Iunicipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Su ivision 1 (B) _and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C)(6). · VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5 • 11 • Bonestroo IJRosene ~Anderlik& l \j l Associates Engineers & Architects August 14, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckhout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity \ \ Employer and Employee Owned t"1 Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. • Marvin L. Sorvala. P.E. • Glenn R. Cook. P.E. • Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. • Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. • Keith A. Gordon, P.E. • Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. • Richard w. Foster. P.E. • David 0. Loskota. P.E. • Robert C. Russek, A.LA. • Mark A. Hanson. P.E .• Michael T. Rautmann. P.E. • Ted K.Field. P.E. • Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs. P.E. • David A. Bonestroo. MB.A. • Sidney P. Williamson. P.E., LS. • Agnes M. Ring, M.8.A. • Allan Rick Schmidt. P.E. Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar. MN • Milwaukee. WI Website: www.bonestroo.com We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feet. Plans should be submitted to the City of Long Lake for their review and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of paved width with no shoulders. We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards. The street section should provide for a minimum of 8-inches of Class 5 aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary. We recommend 1 ½ inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of Type 3 lbituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2. Grading: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion control plan may need to incorporate bale checks and fiber blanket in the ditches and along steeper slopes. A wetland mitigation plan should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City's' Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. Long Lake Creek, a Mn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP standards. All proposed ponds should specify normal water level (NWL) and high water levels (HWL). The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10: I aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides I-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure details should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to a pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer system. A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will be required. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot I, Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be extended to the westerly boundary of Outlot A. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and l 0 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & AS SOCIA TES, INC. ·~1~ ;om Kellogg .• Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono \ \ , , - ') ,:~-~ . 'SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES I ., _______________________________________ _ f~ouiding-the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Consult~ng Mr. Paul E. Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner llI City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay,-MN 55323 ·.RE: SER Project Name: .SER Project No.: Dear Mr. Weinberger,- Van Eeckhout-Orono Parcel Delineati_on 98-060-03 ·-~ ~,._~;, i i •.,...,, -·-t• t ~:.·.:·~·:, Tqe purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the above project. To briefly review its status, this parcel wa~ visited by Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) on October 14, 1998. At this . , . , time; two areas were determined to be jurisdictional wetland and were delineated by SER (see SER Report No. 98-060-03 for more detail). The edges of these wetlands were located by SER using a Trimble Ag p2 GPS equipped with a)uniper Systems field data collector. Positions were differentially corrected in real-time using signals transmitted by the Coast Guard station in Alma, Wisconsin. This system is capable of sub-meter accuracy when using real-time differential correction in the field. , , ' In 2000, SER determined that the boundaries of Basin, I needed revision due to factors that were not evident at the time of field visitation. The northern boundary was redrawn and reduced (Figure l). _This , revis1on was due to the presence pf sand and gravel fill found in this area, which indicated that it would not meet jurisdictional wetland status. In addition, -the boundary of the northwestern finger of this basin was redrawn a·nd reduced (Figure 1). This reed c'anary grass dominated area_recently has become drier due to the presence of a drainage ditch. Thus, the extent of the wetland bsmndary as was determined in 1998 'was decided to over-exaggerate the scope-of the northwestern wetland edge. Please note that the iodified boundaries on Figure 1 are not exact an_d are subject to field verification. - Should you have_any questions about these revised boundaries, please call me. Sincerely, Svoboda Ecological Resources ~i-~ Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB, PWS _ President cc: Chuck Van Eeckhout, Van Eeckhout Engineering Services 24 77 S~adywood_ Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1100 (Office) • (612) 471-0007 (F°ax) Aerial Photo of Site Approximate Basin Edges Van Eeckhout Parcel Figure 1 Paul Weinberger City of Orono P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, 1',1N 55323-0066 ------CITY OF LONG LAKE RE: Preliminary Plan Review for 120-South Brown Road Charles Van Eeckhout -Orono Zoning Application #2550 Dear Mr. Weinberger: August 9, 2000 In response to your letter dated· August 1, 2000 requesting that the Long Lake City Council forward any concerns regarding Mr. Van Eeckhout's request prior to your August 21, 2000 planning commission meeting I would offer the following. Long Lake city staff has previously met with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss his proposal. Staff directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek final plan approval from the City of Orono prior to submitting a request to the City of Long Lake for road and/or sewer access. I have discussed this course of action with both the Long Lake Planning Commission and the Long Lake City Council and they have agreed that they prefer to review the request once the plan has received final approval by the City of Orono. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any additional assistance regarding this matter. cvr:ly,£ ~e~ City Administ ~r ) SJS/ss cc: Matt Goldstein, Planner Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator 1964 Park Avenue• Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fax)• http://www.ci.long-lake.mn.us J November 10, 1999 Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. . i-•9r• ,\f)\i O 2 ,.;· ·J ,.,, " ,i • I ~-:,, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds, and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well, and should be clearly disclosed to future landowners. Sewer plans are a third. This plat identifies a line running from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is no request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer would be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road So_uth being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono Orchard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for tlie horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the developer and future landowners be made aware of property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5-18-1. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft Printed on Recycled Paper Conraining a f'.~ ~linimum of 10<-c Po'>t~Consumer \\\1ste K be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail. This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement. The DNR would be willing to work with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, --S~~w~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. December 6, 1999 City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit in regards to the application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. · The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot # 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the development plan. As it exists on the prelimin.ary plat map dated 10-14-99, the sewer runs from north to south and intersects the trail east of Brown Rd. S. Trails & Waterway's preferred route for the sewer extension would be to follow the Brown Road South right-of-way. This would minimize interference to the trail right-of-way and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. We also support the City of Orono's position that Lot# 7 be set aside as a conservation outlet. This would benefit both the landowners and the trail users by providing a screening of vegetation between the housing development and the trail. Please note the above concerns in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, .s~~ w~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger DNR Information: 6 l 2-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 6 l 2-296-5-+8-+. l-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer \Vho Values Diversity ft Printc:d nn Ri:cyL"kJ Papt:r Containing a f..~ \tinimum of Joe:;. Plht~Con,um~r \V;.i,tc: L VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES M Site Design • Structural Design • Utilities Design 1935 West Wayzata Blud., Long Lake, MN 55356, 612-473-1578 Apple RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC MILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN STATE OF HINN IDNR) !LUCE LINE TRAIL! 38 03-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20.S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RDS W F FARLEY & KG FARLEY WILLIAM & KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON & H DAYTON TOBIN J & HAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF HINN IDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 12 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RDS WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST ff2100 ST PAUL HN 55101 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R & B HACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 BROWN RDS S BITTMAN & L BITTMAN SCOTT & LISA BITTMAN 25 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-lli-23 12 0005 00120 BROWN RDS CHARLES EVAN EECKHOUT CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN .55356 38 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 BROWN RDS JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0011 00140 BROWN RDS D & L COLEMAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEMAN JR 140 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD ETAL DE KIRKMAN & J H KIRKMAN DAVIDE & JOANNE M KIRKMAN 1945 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 .03-117-23 21 0007 00145 BROWN RDS JOHN H WINTON JOHN H WINTON 1314 MARQUETTE AVE ff903 MPLS MN 55403 ,.'.1~::z~;i,~:\ ,'.·' \ \\ --~ \:. :.~.t· :,~·~: :~: -~~~ ','\) .,·····"' ~-\ / ' ',\ /J 'i J .. i,_... .. .\ ,..,. ,l ....... J.n; \i.~:/ f..l t ' i;'\ ,t".\J:. ~ •;, 1i11 \ /.:._('\:· .•. \, (\:,J.~ /""":'·?,.., l.';f-..._ r)·'. 'i\ ;·:1 '·l :\·\ "v ~ " .._ ... rJ•· ·•;.,JI '\;.,.,.!-~t.if.,,.~ lt;:,~-~ ij'j • 1-:-:r.~}1 ~-.l yi:·,."' '-'\;·,~~1:,~{~1,-:· r! !l . •• \~ RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR · OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NIIME/ADDR PROP.ADDR OWNER NAME TIIXP/\YER N/\ME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 21 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN CDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 21 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN PEARLING JOHN PEARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD KV BIGELOW & J T BIGELOW KENNETH & JUDY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0060 00046 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER & AL PASTER JAMES T PASTER '46 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0063 00064 CREEKSIDE DR HARV ANN HANSEN MARY ANN HANSEN 64 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118~23 43 0072 00041 APPLE GLEN RD DJ DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 41 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 21 0014 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 44 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0021 00026 APPLE GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR J LOHMAN & RA OHMAN JOHN LOHMAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0064 00043 CREEKSIDE DR R G ROACH & KA ROACH ROBERT G & KIMBERLY A ROACH 43 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD NE & M J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE.GLEN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYDS KELLEY LESTER SKELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD ME & MB GUTHRIE MARY & MITCHELL GUTHRIE 38 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118~23 43 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN & MR WILLIN THOMAS & MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0062 00058 CREEKSIDE DR M & J BERNS MICHAEL E & JOLYNN M BER.NS 58 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23.43 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD SC FEDIE & W L FEDIE STEVEN C & WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0074 01980 KENNEDY LA LR DANIELSON/NM DANIELSON LEER & NANCY M DANIELSON 1980 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 /· ·'\ ~.:::<. ),1 )\ ",S) \\ ;·: (:', j.,_ ;.\ :·, u /J ·:, :{:.--.. ")} .::-::: '\"' ,, -, • ~t-~ ;;,~-:.~, . . '\I • RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 72 34-118-23 43 0075 01985 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 ' . 72 34-118-23 43 0083 00010 BROWN RDS DP & LA ERICKSON DAVID P & LISA ANN ERICKSON 10 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 72 34-118-23 43 0081 00055 VALLEY VIEW RD G W ANDERSON & SJ ANDERSON GREGORY W & SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD· LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 00040 REPORT NO. PI43540l PAGE 31 72 34-118-23 43 0082 00018 BROWN RDS JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 t~< ... .. •, ' !' ,. ,·, I I I I. i / 1; \•, •,;! (,•., :-,~, -'! ) "~) 'J / ~) J > '• ~·1 !' •l;J ;:':,'!>. •\i ~:"., I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST /JI a aa ..1 c . . A 1 OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Mt-. DATE 7-1/-I/ BY _. ?1fJL, ..,_.=)adZ1/ll-// t/"-- ;t;:)t,4, Sent By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES , INC.; 612 424 5822; Aug-24-00 7:25; Page 1/2 PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGY 7200 HEMLOCK LANE, SlJITE 300, MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369--5592 TELEPllONE: (612) 424-5505 FAX: (612) 424-5822 .FAX T~ANSMISSION DATB; Mr. Paul Weinberger FROM: John S. Bergh 8/24/00 COMPANY City of Orono EAX...t (612)249-4616 NUMBER OF PAGES (lNCLl/DlNG THIS SHEif!'): 2 Pages SUD.IECT: Van El.lck.hout -Lot Areas and Lot Tabulation-Revised LOUCKS PRO.IEC'J' # TRANSMITTEV: 0 AS Wh DISCUSSED 0 AS REQl./i::STED MESSAGE: U FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT □ HARD COPY TO FOLLOW BY MAIL The attached sheet is the revised list with Outlot A and Street R/W areas. Thank You John S. Bergh PrincipalfTreasurer Sr. Designer □ filUME...t (612)249-4600 Sent By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES , INC.; CREEKSIDE FOREST Orono, MN Owner: Chuck Van Eeckhout Lot Areas: Lot Num:.bc.....;;e_.r ___ .-__ S___.q_. F_t_. _ #1 32,657.4 #2 49,520.6 #3 217,021.6 #4 118,456.7 #5 213,731.6 #6 133,816.6 #7 63,105.3 Oullot A 7,430.7 R/W Area 42,941.9 Lot Tabulation: 612 424 5822; Acres 0.75 1.14 5.00 2.72 4.90 3.07 1.44 0.17 0.99 Lot Number Upland Wetland #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 ___ ___,_(S ....... q_. fi..:.=t."-) --------1:~=Sqr.:... :;..;;Ft:l. 32,657.4 0 43,210.6 6,310.0 68,718.9 148,302.7 75,472.2 42,984.5 151,879.3 61,852.3 126,418.6 7,398.0 63,105.3 0 Aug-24-00 7:25; Page 2/2 August 21, 2000 , City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Creekside Eorest development by Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout. We are against the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: • In 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft. width that was originally proposed as part of Lon·g Lake's plan to · have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree along the right of way and approximately only 14 residences located on Apple Glen Road a narrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which is clearly not what the road was designed for. • Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessive wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. • We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road. It appears he may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the· street to go by his front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic created by the new homeowners.driving by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen). • Apple Glen Road Is having a sort of turnover of young families living on it. These families have young children and any increase in the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing In the neighborhood. • It Is our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed in 1997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono .about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake 1s request. It is ironic that this roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposed to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger, many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other issues involving the City of Orono in which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would greatly increase the anti-Orono sentiment. (over) 8 'd 80LO'ON v890 9Lv Zl9 3183A 30NVA ~dZ0:8 OOOZ · lz·2nv Page2 It is clear that the best way to allow for the development of the Creekside Forest for all : involved Is for Mr. Van Eeckhout to pursue acquiring property from his neighbor to the north so that access to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. ··1t is our understanding that the property owner is willing to entertain legitimate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a portion of the property. This scenario affects by far the least amount of property owners (2 versus 14). · .. •· ·,:., Thank you for reading our concerns! Sincerely, ~9-.~rrt~ Charles & Andrea Miner · , · , . 59 Apple Glen Road, Long Lake (952) 473-6049 · : :. '• cc: Matt Goldstein, .Long Lake City Planner Fax: (952) 476•9622 ',' I 1,, '(· ',. ,, /' I ; -. ' : , I .... ·· • i' •• ! . ( ' . ., ' v 'd 80LQ·0N v890 9Lv Zl9 3183A 3ONVA ~d80:8 OOOZ · tz·~nv Arlo H. Vande Vegte Pamela S. V ande Vegte 50 Valley View Road Long Lake, MN 55356 August 21, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO the City of Long Lake & the City of Orono Our homestead adjoins Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. We see no benefit and only burden to the citizens of Long Lake and the property owners along Apple Glen Road to the extension of the road into any part of Orono. Z 'd 80LQ·ON t890 9Lt Zl9 3183A 30NVA ~dZ0:8 OOOZ · l0·2nv MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 (Ace Properties, Continued) Stoddard stated he would like to review the height ordinance in a workshop setting . Stoddard stated the Planning Commission needs to review the applications in relation to the City 's ordinances and needs to act on the application that is currently before the Planning Commission tonight. · Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2593, Ace Properties, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, granting of the variances outlined in the August 16, 2000 Planner's Report, with the condition that the pitch of the roof will be reduced to 10/12 prior to City Council review. Gaffron noted no variance is needed for lot coverage if the structure is to consist of 1,082 square feet, but recommended the Planning Commission make a :finding that that variance is not needed. Hawn noted no variance is needed if the structure is under 1,500 square feet or 15 percent, whichever is greater. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to amend his motion to include the finding that no variance is needed for lot coverage since the proposed structure is under the 1,500 square feet allowed by ordinance. VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PROPOSED SEVEN LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:15 p.m. -7:46 p.m. John Bergh, Louck's & Associates, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted . Weinberger stated this application was tabled by the City Council at its February 14 , 2000 meeting to allow the Applicant time to review two primary issues that w ere being discussed in relation to this development. Weinberger stated this development is located on South Brown Road and consists of approximately 20 acres, 14.1 acres of which are dry buildable . Weinberger stated the last plan by the Applicant was proposing to gain access to this development through a tract of land owned by John Dunn . The Applicant has indicated he is unable at this time to obtain a roadway easement to access Brown Road and has submitted a new plan that requests access to the lots from Apple Glen Road, \vhich is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake . Weinberger noted the Applicant has requested Long Lake grant road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. The City of Long Lake is requesting the City of Orono review this plan prior to their review . Weinberger stated the revised plan shows Apple Glen Road being extended, with another road PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) with two cul-de-sacs on the north side to serve those four lots. Weinberger indicated the Applicant has completed the additional soil borings necessary to determine the total dry buildable area of the property. The wetlands in this area have been re-evaluated and it has been determined that two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been, with the total land designated as wetland on this property consisting of 6.05 acres. This results in a total dry buildable area of 14.1 acres. Weinberger noted the two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of seven lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. Weinberger stated the second issue was to secure access to this property, which is not currently resolved. Weinberger stated in order for this subdivision to be approved, a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development needs to be approved, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. Weinberger noted a road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements is requested, with the Applicant requesting to construct a 24 foot roadway. Weinberger noted City Code requires a minimum paved width for roadways serving seven or more sites to be constructed at a 28 foot width, with Apple Glen Road being 26 feet wide. Weinberger stated since this property is outside the MUSA area, it would require an amendment to be approved by the City Council and the Metropolitan Council to provide sewer to the site, with approval by the City of Long Lake also being necessary. Weinberger stated access to sewer is available along Apple Glen Road. Weinberger stated this area lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The DNR has requested that the wetland area on this property be protected by the granting of conservation easements on all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek, and all the property south of the creek, with open space being preserved south of the creek. The Applicant has agreed to place conservation and open space easements to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and the developed land north of the creek. Weinberger stated City Staff feels the proposed preliminary plat is in a format that could be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat, the Applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection, and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA extension. 2. The road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for final plat. PAGE6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued 4. Granting of 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. 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas. 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000, by the City Engineer. Bergh commented the first concern expressed by the Planning Commission at the last meeting was the small lot size on the north, noting the consensus was to either eliminate a lot or to achieve bigger lot spacing. Bergh stated by having the roadway as proposed, it will create a better roadway system and affords the developer the ability to spread the lots out more. Hawn inquired what the size of the lots on the north side is. Lindquist stated he would like to know the dry buildable area on each lot. Bergh indicated he does not have the numbers with him tonight, but to his recollection Lot 1 is just over three-quarters of an acre, all dry buildable; Lot 2 is approximately eight-tenths of an acre, with approximately 80 to 90 percent dry buildable; Lot 7 is all dry buildable, and Lot 3 is approximately 30 percent dry buildable but still contains a large dry buildable area consisting of approximately three-quarters to one acre. Hawn noted the City of Orono has received two letters from residents of Long Lake opposing the extension of Apple Glen Road. Hawn noted when the wetlands were remeasured, there was mention made to a ditch that apparently was not there in 1996 and also to some fill that hadn't been there in 1996. Hawn inquired where the ditch and fill came from. Bergh stated he is uncertain of the exact history of the ditch and fill, but a wooden ditch exists in the area, with the creekway having been re-dug, which reduced the water level in this area. and resulted in the area becoming dry buildable. Bergh stated the only fill he is aware of is in the area of Lot 7. Tom Woolin, 20 Apple Glen Road, stated Apple Glen Road currently has a cul-de-sac, which he would like to see remain. Woolin stated he is opposed to the eA1ension of the road due to the extra traffic that it would bring and the additional safety concerns for the young children in the area that would result from the added traffic. Melanie Wollin stated she is in agreement with her husband. PAGE7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) April Bresner, 50 Apple Glen Road, expressed concerns with extension of the street since Apple Glen Road is a narrower road and the added traffic. Mary Ann Hansen, 64 Creekside Drive, Long Lake, stated it was her understanding this area was part of a state refuge when she purchased her property three years ago. Hansen stated there currently are signs denoting the area as a state refuge, with a large number of wildlife living in the area. Ken and Judy Bigelow, 32 Apple Glen Road, stated they were opposed to the extension of the road. John Dunn, 20 South Brown Road, stated he owns the adjoining property to this development, and it is his impression the Applicant has done quite a bit of ditching on the property. Dunn also expressed concern regarding the small size of the lots. April Bresner questioned whether once an area is designated as a wetland, regardless if a ditch is constructed and the area is now deemed dry buildable, if that area is still considered to be a wetland. Stoddard stated there are many standards that go into designating an area as wetland, with the presence of water and flora being the two primary criteria used in determining whether the area should be considered a wetland. Stoddard stated the characteristics of the land can change. Stoddard stated the DNR can designate certain areas as wetlands, with the City of Orono protecting additional wetland area beyond the DNR designations. Bergh noted this area has never been delineated as a wetland. Weinberger stated the original delineation for this area was revised, with the area in question not being designated as a wetland. Hawn commented she has some concerns regarding the sand and fill having been found. Hawn inquired if City Staff has any information concerning where that fill may have come from. Weinberger stated the only information the City has is that it may have come from the excavation of the creekbed area. Weinberger stated he is not avvare of when the area may have been filled or where the area was filled. Hawn commented it is her understanding this area was wetland in 1998. Dunn stated he has seen backhoes and tractors at various times in that area, which in his opinion was done in an attempt to lower the water table in that area and to create a buildable area. Hawn stated she does not know whether that is in fact the case. Dunn stated from a lay person's perspective, something has occurred in the area to have lowered the water table from what it was in 1998. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Bergh stated if this area was truly a wetland area, excavation of the creek area would not result in a lower water table. Bergh stated it is his understanding from Mr. Sobotta and Mr. Van Eeckhout is that the watershed going away from this property was lowered at some time and lowered the water table in this whole area. Bergh stated by digging the creekbed out would result in the creek being filled with water if this was a true wetland, which has not occurred. Bergh stated the outlet was changed to the east of this property somewhere, which resulted in the lower water table, and he is not aware of where that change occurred. Hawn commented the Planning Commission will probably not be able to gain a clear understanding of the ditch and fill at tonight's meeting. Hawn expressed a concern regarding the small lot size. Lindquist commented the Planning Commission is looking at some very small lot sizes, noting he cannot support a project with those lot sizes. Lindquist noted there is a fair amount of opposition from the residents of Long Lake to the extension of Apple Glen Road. Hawn concurred that there is not a lot of support for the extension of Apple Glen Road among the residents of Long Lake. Kluth commented the minutes reflect that the Planning Commission has expressed concerns on a number of occasions regarding the small lot size, with a recommendation being given to lower the number oflots in this development. Hawn commented the amount of dry buildable was increased slightly. Lindquist indicated the size of the lots still remain relatively small, and reiterated he would not be in support of the development as proposed. Stoddard noted he was in agreement with Lindquist. Kluth noted the City Council minutes reflect that hookup to sewer would not be allowed if it increased lot density, noting the City Council would prefer to see a two acre minimum. Kluth pointed out the Applicant was requested to address the issues relating to dry buildable and access. Bergh stated the overall average for the lots in this development are a little over two acres with respect to the PRD. Ha\vn commented that there are some minimum sizes that people tend to be interested in regardless if the overall lot size is above the two acre minimum. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission can either act on this application tonight, which in his view it will be denied, or the Applicant can request the matter be tabled. Bergh requested the Planning Commission act on the revised plan. PAGE9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 South Brown Road, due to the concerns expressed regarding access and small lot size. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hawn stated the Applicant should obtain additional information regarding the ditch and fill in this area prior to appearing before the City Council. Bergh indicated tonight was the first time he became aware of it. Weinberger noted the City has requested an updated wetland delineation report and explanation regarding the fill. Hawn pointed out a hearing will also be held before the Long Lake Planning Commission and City Council regarding extension of Apple Glen Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2603 JAMES RENCKENS, 3020 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 7:47 p.m. -7:52 p.m. Todd Irvine appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance and conditional use permit to permit the removal of approximately 1,600 yards of fill out of a City of Orono protected wetland. The pond would consist of approximately 16,000 square feet of surface area, with the maximum depth being proposed at five feet. The proposed slope would be a 10: 1 ratio. The wetland would become a wildlife habitat pond with water and a nesting island in the middle. The fill will be used to form berms on the left and right sides of the driveway along Watertown Road and a berm south of the pond. City Staff feels the excavation of the wetland will make it a Type 4 wetland, with the proposed land alterations resulting in a positive improvement and provide a higher quality wetland for wildlife and stormwater management functions. Bottenberg stated the proposal has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, with the Applicant being granted approval with conditions, including a requirement for security to ensure completion of requirements. The conditions have been met and the permit has been issued. The City Engineer has also reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval. City Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the August 21, 2000 Planner's Report. Todd Irvine, Landscape Architect, stated he has no additional comments. Hawn indicated she has no problem with this application. PAGE 10 August 19, 2000 1:32PM To the city plaaners of Orono & Long Lake. Mr. Paul Weinberger & Matt Goldstein. The Belanger-s Ramon & Geraldine are opposed to the extension of Apple Glen fur· the purpose of MP: Eeckhouts-bwlomg ~. · 1 ~~-yL ~~n ~~ 9 'd 80LQ·ON v890 9Lv Zl9 3183A 30NVA ~d80:8 OOOZ · tz•inV To: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date: August 14, 2000 Re: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area: Proposal: List of Exhibits: A Site Plan B Grading Plan C Sewer Plan D Site Survey 20 acres (14.1 acres dry buildable) Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. E Planning Commission Minutes (11/15/99) F Planning Commission Minutes (1/19/00) G City Council Minutes (2/14/00) H Engineer Comments (8/14/00) I Wetland Determination J Comments From City of Long Lake (8/9/00) K DNR Comments (11/10/99) L DNR Comments (12/6/99) M Photo of Apple Glen Road N Property Owners Notification List #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8/21100 page--] Application Background: The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review two . . pnmary issues. 1. To complete additional soil borings to determine total dry buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13. 7 acres of dry buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density in the RR-lB district. Wetlands have been reevaluated by Svoboda Ecological Resources. It has been determined two wetland areas originally identified as wetland should not have been. The total land designated as wetland on the property is 6.05 acres. The total area is 20.17 acres resulting in an upland area of 14.1 acres. The two acre zoning of the property would allow a maximum of 7 lots based on one residential unit per two acres should the PRD be approved. 2. To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a "driveway easement" across an adjacent property. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he has been unable to obtain a "roadway easement" to access Brown Road. A new plan has been proposed that would request access to the lots from Apple Glen Road. Apple Glen Road is a public road owned and controlled by the City of Long Lake. Mr. Van Eeckhout has made a request to Long Lake for road access from Apple Glen as well as connection to sewer. Long Lake has directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek plan approval from the City of Orono before they will review the request for road access and sewer connection. Shannon Sweeney, City Administrator for Long Lake, has submitted a letter regarding this issue attached as Exhibit J. Revised Plan: This is the first proposal that would request access from Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Apple Glen Road serves about 14 residences. The added length of the street would add as many as 7 additional lots to Apple Glen. The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1,600 feet where Orono City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Outlot A would provide driveway access to at least one property. 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 7 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--2 plan indicate a 35' 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. 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. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. 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 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. 4. Public vs. Private Road: Apple Glen Road is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan suggests roads in the rural portion of Orono be developed as private roads. However, the road would be an extension of a public road, for maintenance purposes it may be appropriate to continue the entire road as public. The primary difference is the way the road has been proposed to be constructed. Apple Glen Road is a City Street with urban sections ( curbing). The proposed road would be developed with rural sections. A private road would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 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. Planned Residential Development The RR-lB zoning district allows, by conditional use permit, the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--3 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 10.32, Subdivision 1. Conservation easements would protect all wetland areas, the Long Lake Creek and all the property south of the creek. Open space would be preserved south of the creek. The DNR had concerns with the development of the land south of the creek. A permanent crossing of the creek would have been required. The developer has agreed to place the conservation and open space easement to protect the creek and to maintain the natural buffer between the trail and developed land north of the creek. 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. (City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H) Sanitary Sewer The City of Long Lake must approve sewer connection to the property. Due to the existing water table and the location of the DNR waterway, Long Lake Creek, this site is environmentally sensitive area. Without sewer it would be difficult to develop this site. 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. 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 Flo wage 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8121100 page--4 3. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 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 $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 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 water mark of the 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. Prior to City Council approving the Preliminary Plat the applicant shall secure access from the City of Long Lake to Apple Glen Road, be approved for sanitary sewer connection and the Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion. 2. Road shall be constructed to a width consistent with road dimensions of Apple Glen Road. The City of Long Lake shall be requested for comments regarding construction and maintenance of the road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 4. Granting of 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. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8/21/00 page--5 5. Conservation easements shall be granted over the conservation areas on proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. 6. Drainage easements shall be dedicated on the plat across drainageways and pond areas.= 7. Utility and Roadway easements shall be granted over Outlot A. 8. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 14, 2000 by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 4. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 5. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 6. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 7. The applicant provides final lot area determinations for all proposed lots( dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage). #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 8/21100 page--6 CITY of ORONO City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices REQUEST TO EXTEND LAND USE APPLICATION #2550 Crystal Bay , MN 55323-0066 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 J hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting variances and a conditional use permit for a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brown Road. The term of this extension shall be to October 31, 2000. I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. T his extended deadline is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to permit additional time for review of the Road access issue and to allow additional time to review certain wet land determinations. Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us VAN EECKHOUT HOMES, INC. 1935 WM'ZATA 8/.,'VD. WNG LAKE, MN. 553S6 City of Orono Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 March 1 . 2000 F'Al:3E CH Q (612) .J'i'3-J.'i78 It is my understanding that certain statutes exist that require Cities to handle certain tand applications wiU1in certain time guidelines. It is further undwstood that my application for a subdivision at 120 South Brown Road is nearing the lin t of these time guidelines. In order to allcVv' the city additional time to review the Road access that had been approved by previous City actions and allow the applicant additional time to review certain wetland determinations and interpretations, it js requested the this application be tabled and continued unrn these matters have been resolved. Sincerely; Chuck Van Eeckhout RESIDENT/A.I., A.NO COMMERCIAL CONSTRVCTION MN. L/C, 2444 Jllj eonestroo • •Rosene '"11 Anderlik & 1 \j 1 Associates Engineers & Architects August 14, 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckhout Subdivision File No . 139-2550 Dear Paul: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E . • Marvi n L. Sorva l a, P.E. • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. • Robert G. Schun ich t. f'E . • Jerry A . Bourdon, f'E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, f'E . • J oseph C. Anderlik. f'E . • Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Susan M. Eberlin, C.f'A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, f'E. • Ke ith A. Gordon, P.E. • Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E. • Richard W. Foster, f'E. • David 0. Loskota, P.E. • Robert C. Russek, A .I.A. • Mark A. Ha n son. P.E . • Michael T. Rautmann, f'E. • Ted K.Field , P.E. • Kenneth f' Anderson, P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs, f'E. • David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. • Sidn ey f' Williamson. f'E .. L.S. • Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. • A ll an Rick Schmidt. f'E . Off i ces: St . Paul, St. Cloud, Roc h ester and Wi llmar, MN • Mi l waukee, WI Website: www.bonestroo.com We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckhout subdivision . The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters . 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is via Apple Glen Road in the City of Long Lake. Apple Glen Road is accessed off of Watertown Road . The total length of the cul-de-sac from Watertown Road is approximately 1600 feet where City code allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1000 feet. Plans should be submitted to the City of Long Lake for their review and comment. The proposed typical street section shows 24 feet of paved width with no shoulders . We recommend that the street section be revised to include 3-foot gravel shoulders as required by City standards . The street section should provide for a minimum of 8-inches of Class 5 aggregate base and geotextile stabilization fabric if necessary . We recommend 1 ½ inches of Type 41 bituminous wear course and 2 inches of Type 31 bituminous base course. A geotechnical evaluation and R- value recommendation should be provided to verify the street design. 2. Grading: The grading and erosion control plan should include erosion control measures to protect the existing wetland. The erosion control plan may need to incorporate bale checks and fiber blanket in the ditches and along steeper slopes . A wetland mitigation plan should be implemented for any wetland filling. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the hou.ses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City 's ' Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. Long Lake Creek, a Mn DNR protected waterway, flows through the site. Plans should be submitted to the Mn DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for review and approval. Proposed ponds should meet NURP standards. All proposed ponds should specify normal water level (NWL) and high water levels (HWL). The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10: 1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond NWL. The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides 1-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Skimming should be provided to the pond HWL. Storm sewer design including outlet structure details should be provided for review. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to a pond . A drainage area map , storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary · sewer system . A written sewer agreement between the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will be required . The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road (existing home west of Lot 1, Block 2) and determine whether the sewer should be extended to the westerly boundary of Outlot A . 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways . Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651 -636 -1311 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES , INC. ·--2,,/~ '07'>1 T )-.,·w· Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Mary Ann Johnson, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2550, as mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of AUGUST, 2000. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-46 16 The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Cham bers at 2780 Kelley Parkway o n Mo nday, August_ 21 , 2000 beg inn ing at 7 :15 p.m . to cons id er application #2550 , 120 Brown Road So uth , fo r Charles Van Eeckhout for a 7 lot Pla nned Residential Development of a 20 acre parcel with acce ss to Apple Glen Ro ad in Lo ng Lake . All pe rsons wishing to be heard should be present. Written comments can be subm itted to City Hall. Comments sh ou ld be rec eived by August 17 , 2000. The plans may be reviewed at City offices by app ointment. For further information call City Hall at (952) 249-4600 . City of Orono By : Planning Commission Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner ( Publi shed in The Laker and Pioneer Aug. 5 and 12, 2000) Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm , being duly sworn on oa th, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publ ishe r of t he newspaper known as THE LAKER , Mound , Minnesota , and has full knowledge of the facts wh ich are stated be low: A .) The newspaper has complied with a ll t he requiremen t s constituting qual if icat ions as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Stat ute 331A.02, 331A.07 , and othe r applicab le laws, as amended. B.) The printed Application #2550 which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspape r, and was prin ted and published once each week for 2 successive weeks . It was f irst publ ished Saturday the 5th day of __ A_u-=-g_u_s_t ___ 2000 , and was t hereafte r printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the 12th day of August 2000 ; ~ ' Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on th is KRISTI HOLM NOTA RY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA My Comm ission Expires Jijll. 31 , 20 0S ~·- Rate Info rma tion (1) Lowest classified rate pa id by commercial users for compa rable space : $13 .4 5 per inch. (2) Max imum rate allowed by law for above matter: $13.45. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter : $7.49 pe r inch. Each additional successive week : $5.44. Paul Weinberger City of Orono P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 CITY OF LONG LAKE RE: Preliminary Plan Review for 120-South Brown Road Charles Van Eeckhout-Orono Zoning Application #2550 Dear Mr. Weinberger: August 9, 2000 In response to your letter dated August 1, 2000 requesting that the Long Lake City Council forward any concerns regarding Mr. Van Eeckhout's request prior to your August 21, 2000 planning commission meeting I would offer the following . Long Lake city staff has previously met with Mr. Van Eeckhout to discuss his proposal. Staff directed Mr. Van Eeckhout to seek final plan approval from the City of Orono prior to submitting a request to the City of Long Lake for road and/or sewer access. I have discussed this course of action with both the Long Lake Planning Commission and the Long Lake City Council and they have agreed that they prefer to review the request once the plan has received final approval by the City of Orono. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any additional assistance regarding this matter. SJS/ss cc: Matt Goldstein, Planner Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator 1964 Park Avenue• Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fax)• http://www.ci.long-lake .mn.us CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 249-4600 TO: Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: July 10, 2000 COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: APPLICATION NO. 2550 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: July 11, 2000 COPIES: VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST To refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plan to access via Apple Glen Road. The application deadline has been extended to August 31, 2000. We request the revised plans to be delivered to our office by July 24, 2000 for the August 21, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Subdivision for Planned Residential Development-Referral Back to Planning Commission Weinberger stated that he had received a written extension to August 31, 2000 from the applicant. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plan with alternative access via Apple Glen Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 6. #2574 Tom Micheletti, 519 Ferndale Road North-Variance Moorse stated that the applicant had waived his 120-day statutory review period and asked that the application be continued. Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to table item 6. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #2588 Robert Pieper, 3995 North Shore Drive-Preliminary Plat-Resolution No. 4495 Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4495 granting preliminary approval of a plat at 3995 North Shore Drive, owner Robert Pieper. 8. #2589 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road-Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 4496 Weinberger explained that the applicant wants to amend a conditional use permit from 1968 to permit a 19-foot by 52-foot addition to an existing barn structure on the property. The structure has been used primarily for parties in the winter. The proposed expansion would increase the structure size by 988 s.f. and would improve the kitchen and restroom facilities, as well as provide more usable space . They also want to connect the barn and potentially the maintenance building to sewer on a property outside of the MUSA. In 1996 the City was granted the ability to connect up 4 Application Date: 11/1/99 Completion Date: 11/1/99 Application Deadline: Has been postponed to permit resolution of issues to access. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-lB One Family Rural Residential DATE: July 6, 2000 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Application: Seven lot Planned Residential Development of land located at 120 South Brown Road. The City Council tabled this item on February 14, 2000 to permit the applicant to review two . . pnmary issues. 1. To complete additional soil borings to determine total dry buildable area of the property. The wetland delineation report indicated only 13. 7 acres of dry buildable area which would allow only 6 lots based on the two acre per dwelling unit permitted density in the RR-lB district. 2. To secure legal access to the property. Access to the properties would require the applicant to obtain an easement or additional land from an adjacent property owner since this property does not have immediate access to a public or private road. The only access to the parcel is via a "driveway easement" across an adjacent property. The additional soil testing has been completed, however the issue of access has not been resolved. Mr. Van Eeckhout has requested the application be returned to the Planning Commission to review possible access to the property through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. Long is aware he is considering the Apple Glen Road access but has not taken an official position. The revised plan would be heard by the Planning Commission at their August 21, 2000 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plan with alternative access via Apple Glen Road subject to receiving a letter from Mr. VanEeckhout agreeing an additional 60 day extension for City action. CITY of ORONO City of Orono P .O. Box 66 Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices REQUEST TO EXTEND LAND USE APPLICATION #2550 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I hereby agree to extend Zoning Application #2550 for subdivision requesting variances and a conditional use permit for a seven lot Planned Residential Development located at 120 South Brown Road. The term ofthis extension shall be to August 31, 2000. I understand my Statutory obligation to receive action by the Orono City Council within a timely manner. This extended deadline is in addition to the extension previously granted to the City of Orono to permit additional time for review of the Road access issue and to allow additional time to review certain wetland determinations . .-<'~ 7-JO-;;iooo Property Owner/ Applicant Date Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following page(s) to: (612) 334-8888 Name: Tom Barrett, City Attorney From: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Total number of pages including this cover letter: 12 Date: April 19, 2000 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (612) 249-4600 and ask for: Paul Our fax number is: (612) 249-4616 Additional Message: I have attached the following documents you requested regarding the subdivision for Chuck Van Eeckhout: 1. Plat Map 2. Copy of Plat of Kallestad Acres (Road and Utilities easement was dedicated on plat) 3. Design Standards for Roads (Section 11.33 -Subdivision Ordinance) 4. Standard Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Private Roadway Easement document. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. 22 ~ ., ('l (34);;: ~ ;::J 104 21 - -cc ii (33);!; ~o 2 (24) 192 27.2 r./ I . I I .' /!' ~- I 1 (22) (8) JI f ,, fl (76) (9) 313.5 { 10) (7) 544 .i. @) IS,, 1 (9) N89"5.9' 16'E 475 (3) t: II (33) IO (32) 9 (31) :;,: § if:(l] ~ "' ~ g: (5) ,,,,, 165 g: g: el ' ': (37) 360.6 de-Si~ 315 9 (38) 7 (II) 1'3. 66 -4◄3 - 5 (9) 158.53 550 (1) (2) t;3-l/1-;J.3-I~ "'·i'a 15 (68) • (II) ~ \ ~ Wi ef' :,, I <fl (Z~ ") \ ~ ~ II ~Q,JIBllDJn'I~ ~Q,JIBJIDlnrnx G!OOIDJ ~Q,J~IDJI ~IE~'ii'RII!OO ~ ..... .,-r.----.. \~\ t.· .::,~ \ f \ •.· »·· !-'~ { ' p , ...... J. ~ • ...-:~<:..,' :•.~·· KALLESTAD AC.RES Norlhivtsl corner of ·l-lte 1 Norfl,w~,f ~ of-J.he. Nor/I,-,1 , ea,I 7• of" .5~cl-t'on 3, -1 Tow-1u.h,p //7 Norlh, Ran9, 1 i'.3 1v,,I or fh, .Sfh RM. (llenn~p✓-n {ovnfr P,011vmenf) I JJ I JJ I~, I . I --J, (.() ~ ...... ., "' "' ., lo C) <: 33 c::i "'{ C) Q:: i': ~ -- I ,,, ..... E ,_ <.,I ., ____ __. ., "! ,, ., "' SCALE IN FEET 0 /00 -----i- EAST 112.00 2 "' I I I ~ ~ i-roi 1.1 / vne. 11 .Ji.CTI wa~ , , ~Vo/er I ,'{ '"" , ,_ ' ' --· 200 --- GORDON R. COi LAND SURVEYOR 8 I LONG LAKE , MINNES 10\ R cc>..d ~ '> d..t cl i (' __, ... ........, o--b KoJ\es.\- o DENOTES IRON MONl BEARINGS SHOWN ARE A § 11.32 f ac ili ties, pedestrian traffic, or utilities. A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the end of a permanent dead-end street in accordance with the City's construction standards and specifications. For greater convenience to traffic and more effective police and fire protection, permanent dead-end streets shall, in general, be discouraged and where allowed be limited in length in accordance with the design standards of this Chapter. ---~ * SEC. 11.33. DESIGN STANDARDS. Subd. 1. General. In order to provide for roads of suitable location, width, and improvement to accommodate prospective traffic and afford satisfactory access to police, firefighting, snow removal, sanitation, and road maintenance equipment, and to coordinate roads so as to compose a convenient system and avoid undue hardships to adjoining properties, the following design standards for roads are hereby required: A. Road Surfacing and Improvements. After the sewer and water utilities have been installed by the subdivider, the subdivider shall construct all road pavement, shoulders, drainage improvements and structures, curbs, cul-de-sacs, and sidewalks in conformance with all construction standards and specifications adopted by the City and shall be incorporated into the construction plans required to be submitted to the subdivider for final subdivision approval. B. Right-of-Way .. Rights-of-way shall be in accordance with the following performance standard: 1. Minimum Right-of-Way Widths. Principal Arterial Intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Parkway ¾-c;c:ul-de-sacs As recommended by the State Department of Transportation 80 feet 70 feet 50 feet 100 feet 50 feet radiv 2. Rights-of-way are needed for future roadways in the opinion of the City. 3. Rights-of-way widths or additional widths in existing rights-of-way in excess of the standards designated in this Chapter when, due to topography, additional width is necessary to provide adequate earth slopes. Such slopes shall not be in excess of three to one. ORONO CC 460 (4-1-84) § 11. 3 3 Subd. 2. Railroads and Limited Access Roadways. Railroad rights-of-way and limited access roadways where so located as to affect the subdivision of adjoining lands shall be treated as follows: A. In residential districts a buffer strip at least 25 feet in depth in addition to the normal depth of the lot required in the district shall be provided adjacent to the railroad right-of-way or limited access roadway. B. In districts zoned for business, commercial, or industrial uses the nearest street extending parallel or approximately parallel to the railroad shall be at a sufficient distance therefrom to ensure suitable depth for commercial or industrial sites. C. Streets parallel to the railroad when intersecting a street which crosses the railroad at grade shall be at a distance of at least 150 feet from the railroad right-of-way. Such distance shall be determined with due consideration of the minimum distance required for future separation of grades by means of appropriate approach gradients. D. Streets crossing the railroads shall be avoided. Subd. 3. Intersections. A. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two (2) new streets at an angle or less than seventy-five (75) degrees shall not be acceptable. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should oe approximately at right angles for at least one hundred (100) feet therefrom. Not more than two (2) streets shall intersect at any one point unless specifically approved by the City. B. Proposed new intersections along one side of an existing street shall coincide with any existing intersections on the opposite side of such street. Intersection jogs with center- line offsets of less than 150 feet shall not be permitted, except where the intersected street has separated dual drives without median breaks at either intersection. Where streets intersect major streets, their alignment shall be continuous. Intersection of arterial roadways shall be at least eight hundred (800) feet apart. C. Minimum curb radius at the intersection of two ( 2) local streets shall be at least fifteen ( 15) feet; and minimum curb radius at an intersection involving a collector street or local streets in a commercial or industrial area shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet. Alley intersections and abrupt changes in alignment within a block shall have the corners cut off in accordance with standard engineering practice to permit safe vehicular movement. ORONO CC 461 (4-1-84) § 11.33 D. Intersections shall be designed with a flat stopping area of at least thirty (30) feet in a residential area and sixty (60) feet in a commercial or industrial area. The stopping area shall be designed to provide a maximum grade of two (2) percent. E. Where any street intersection will involve earth banks or existing vegetation inside any lot corner that would create a traffic hazard by limiting visibility, the subdivider shall cut such ground and/or vegetation (including trees) in connection with the grading of the right-of-way to the extent deemed necessary by the City to provide an adequate sight distance. F. The crown of all streets, including intersections, shall be three percent (3%) or less. Subd. 4. Typical Section. herein is as determined for a Clay tion) and may be subject to change. to be determined by the City. Private Street -Residential Units R.O.W.* M.P.W.** 3-6 50' 24' Over 7 50' 28' Public Street -Residential Units R.O.W.* M.P.W.** 3-10 50' 28' Over 10 50' 32' Maximum cul-de-sac length -1,000' The typical section indicated Subgrade (A-6 Soil Classifica- Soil borings may be required . Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surfacl 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface Maximum number of units on cul-de-sac -10 Public Street -Commercial or Industrial Units l+ R.O.W.* 70' * Right-of-Way Width ** Minimum Paved Width ORONO CC M.P.W.** 32' 462 Section 8" Class 4 8" Class 5 100% crushed 4" 2341 Bituminous surface (4-1-84) § 11. 33 Subd. 5. Horizontal and Vertical Control. Functional Class Private Street- (residential) Public Street- ( residential) Public Street- (com. & ind.) Design Speed 30 MPH 30 MPH 40 MPH Vertical Control Horizontal Control Maximum Gradient Minimum Radius 12% 275' 10% 275' 8% 400' Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sect ions 11. 34 through 11.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 463 (4-1-84) § 11. 40 SEC. 11.40. ROAD DEDICATION AND RESERVATIONS. Subd. 1. New Perimeter Streets. Street systems in new subdivisions shall be laid out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half-streets. Where an existing half-street is adjacent to a new subdivision, the other half of the street shall be improved and dedicated by the subdivider. The City may authorize a new perimeter street where the subdivider improves and dedicates the entire required street right-of-way width within his own subdivision boundaries. Subd. 2. Widening and Realignment of Existing Roads. Where a subdivision borders an existing narrow road or when the Comprehensive Municipal Plan or some other agency indicates plans for realignment or widening a road that would require use of some of the land in the subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to improve and dedicate at his expense such areas for widening or realignment of such roads. Such frontage roads and streets shall be improved and dedicated by the subdivider at his own expense to the full width as required by this Chapter. Subd. 3. Land reserved for any road purposes may not be counted in satisfying yard or area requirements of the Zoning Chapter whether the land is to be dedicated to the City in fee simple or an easement is granted to the City. SEC. 11.41. DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWERS. Subd. 1. General Requirements. The City shall not approve any subdivision which does not make adequate provision for storm or flood water runoff. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown for each and every lot and block. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewer system. Storm sewers, where required, shall be designed by the method as approved by the City, and a copy of design compu ta- t ions shall be submitted along with plans. Inlets shall be provided so that surface water is not carried across or around any intersection, nor for a distance of more than 600 feet in the gutter in urban areas. When calculations indicate that curb capacities are exceeded at a point, no further allowance shall be made for flow beyond that point, and basins shall be used to intercept flow at that point. Subd. 2. Nature of Storm Water Facilities. A. Location. The subdivision shall be required by the City to carry away by pipe or open ditch any spring or surface water that may exist either previously to, or as a result of the subdivision. Such drainage facilities shall be located in the road right-of-way where feasible, or in perpetual unobstructed easements of appropriate width, and shall be constructed in accordance wit· the City's construction standards and specifications. ORONO CC 464 (4-1-84) • • • • • • II • II II II II I IJ ' ' JI-c DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND PRNATE ROAD\VAY EASEl\'IENT THIS DECLARATION OF COVENAl,1S, CO:L'H)ITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND PRN ATE ROADWAY EASEl\'IENT ("Declaration") is made effective as of _____________ , 19 , by ________________ _ ___________________________ ("Declarant") . A. B. RECITALS: Declarant is fee owner of that cenain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"). Declarant desires to provide, for the benefit of ------------(the "Lots") an easement for roadway purposes (the "Roadway") over, across, and upon Outlot _, ________ (the "Outlot"), and to further provide for the maintenance, ownership, and restrictions relating to the Roadway and the easement herein granted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Declarant hereby declares that the Lots and the Outlot are and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements hereafter set forth, which shall run with the Property and be binding on all parties, now or hereafter having any right, title, or interest in the Property and any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns (each of whom are hereafter referred to individually as an "Owner" or collectively as "Owners"), and shall inure t'J the benefit of each Owner. 1. 2. Roadway Easement. Declarant hereby declares and creates a perpetual, non- exclusive private road easement over the Outlot for the benefit of the Lots and use by the Owners and their invitees and other public service providers, such as police, fire, bus and ambulance services. Maintenance of Roadway. 2.1) Each Owner shall pay an equal, proportionate share for any costs for construction, maintenance or repair of the Roadway. Maintenance shall include construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, snow removal, sanding and salting, as necessary, lighting, striping, and curbing as the Owners shall determine necessary; provided, however, that all Maintenance shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Orono Municipal Code (the "Code"). Declarant shall be responsible, at his/her expense, for initial construction of the Roadway, which shall in all respects conform to the requirements of the City of Orono ("City"). All future Maintenance shi:1.ll be conducted by the Owners or their contractors, at Owners' expense. 1 II • II Iii " • II ~ ' ' ,'~ 1 •' 3. 4. 5. 2.2) Each Owner's share of costs for Maintenance shall be due and payable on the date such costs for Maintenance are due and payable to the person or entity rendering an account therefor. Each Owner's share of such costs shall bear interest at a rate of eight percent (8 % ) per annum from such due date to the date of payment. Any Owner may bring action, on behalf of the non-defaulting Owners, to collect a defaulting Owner's share of such costs which are not paid when due, and shall be entitled to recover such reasonable attorney's fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. 2.3) The plans, specifications and the awarding of contracts for Maintenance shall be approved in writing by the Owners of twenty-five percent (25%) of the Lots. 2.4) No Owner may exempt himself from the liability for assessments by waiver of the use or enjoyment of the Roadway or by the abandonment of his Lot. Ownership of the Outlot. Each Lot shall be sold, transferred and conveyed together with an undivided one-____ ( __ ) interest in the Outlet. In the event City shall determine it to be in the public interest to utilize the Roadway as a public street, each Owner shall, after notice in accordance with applicable provisions of Code and Minnesota law, convey its undivided interest in the Outlot to City for no additional consideration therefor. Prohibitions of Use of Roadway. 4.1) No Owner shall obstruct or interfere whatever with the rights and privileges of other Owners in the Roadway and except for Maintenance of the Roadway, nothing shall be planted, altered, constructed upon or removed from the Roadway. 4.2) No Owner shall obstruct or interfere with the passage of any school bus or emergency vehicle over or across the Roadway. 4.3) No vehicles shall be parked in the Roadway for a continuous period of time greater than twenty-four hours. 4.4) No vehicular repair or maintenance may be conducted in the Roadway. Violation and Enforcement. 5.1) In the event the Owners fail to conduct Maintenance, it is agreed by all Owners that City, may undertake such Maintenance and assess each Lot an equal, proportionate share of the Maintenance conducted by the City. Any such Maintenance conducted by the City will not result in the Roadway becoming a 2 ' ' ' 1 l I 1 6. 7. 8. 9. public roadway. Each Owner will pay to the City its equal, proportionate cost incurred by the City within thirty (30) days after Owner's receipt of such charges, or else such charge, including attorneys' fees and costs in collection thereof, shall become a lien upon the Lot for which payment has not been made. 5.2) If an Owner shall violate any of the obligations, covenants, conditions or restrictions contained in this Declaration, the remaining Owners shall have the right to enforce this Declaration, and in the event an Owner's violation results in damage to the Roadway, Owners may restore the Roadway to its prior condition and assess the cost of such restoration against the violating Owner. Any such assessment shall become due and payable upon the demand of any of said remaining Owners. All of the remaining Owners, or any of them, shall have the right and power to enforce this Declaration and to collect the cost of any Maintenance required as a result of an Owners violation, in a legal proceeding for that purpose. The prevailing party in any such legal proceedings shall further be entitled to recover such reasonable attorney's fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. Nothing contained in this Section 5.2 is intended to alleviate any obligation of an Owner to pay assessments to City in accordance with Section 5 .1 above. In the event any assessments are levied by City as a result of violations of an individual Owner or Owners, then such non-violating Owners may collect such sums paid to City from any violating Owner, in accordance with this Section. Binding Effect. This covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. No Amendment. This Declaration may be modified or amended only upon the recording of a document setting forth such amendment executed by all of the Owners, their mortgage lenders, City and any other party having a record interest in the Lots. Severability. Invalidation of any covenant, condition, or restriction set forth herein by judgement or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof, which shall all remain in full force and effect. Warranties of Title. Declarant represents and warrants that ________ _ is/are the lawful owner(s) of the Roadway and the Lots and have full right, title and authority to enter into this Declaration. Any mortgage lender, or other party in interest of the Lots of the Outlot, if any, shall consent to this Declaration, which consent shall be attached and made a part of this Declaration. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto executed this Declaration and covenant the day and year first above written. STATE OF 11INNESOTA COUNTY OF _____ _ ) ) ss. ) Tbis instrument was acknowledged before me on this ___ day of _____ _ 19 __ , by ________________________ _ THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: HINSHA\-V & CULBERTSON 3200 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, l\1N 55402 (612) 333-3434 Notary Public 4 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON APPLETON, WISCONSIN BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS BROOKFIELD, WISCONSIN CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS CRYSTAL LAKE, ILLINOIS IT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA JOLIET, ILLINOIS LISLE, ILLINOIS MIAMI, FLORIDA Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles Van Eeckhout City File No.: 2550 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER SUITE3100 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 612.333.3434 TELEFAX 612.334.8888 Thomas J. Barrett Direct: 612.334.2676 TBarrett@hinshawlaw.com March 22, 2000 Our File No.: 41288-754868 Dear Ron: MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN MUNSTER, INDIANA PEORIA, ILLINOIS PHOENIX, ARIZONA ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS TAMPA, FLORIDA WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS Enclosed please find a computer recovered copy of a letter we sent to Mr. Van Eeckhout. We cannot locate the original. Feel free to call me with any questions. TJB/llc Enclosure HC26DS4/ 4707 / 26506458.vl 3/22/2000 Very truly yours, Thomas J. AP ARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS . .. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, continued) Barrett stated a public hearing had been scheduled with the Planning. Commission on January 19 , 2000 . Neither Mr. Hoyt nor representatives on his behalf appeared at the January 19 th public hearing. Mr. Sheridan stated Mr. Hoyt is prepared to submit a complete application to present at the February 28 , 2000 meeting of the Council. Mayor Jabbour stated a new public hearing v.ith the Planning Commission may be required. Barrett stated a public hearing would be required to review the variance request. Kelley stated the earliest this item could potentially return to the City Council \Vould be the last meeting in March. Mr. Sheridan stated he would be willjng to draft a letter to extend the deadline to permit time to proceed with the variance request. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to continue this item to SA. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. #2550 Chai::les Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South -Subdivision for Planned Residential Development Mr. Van Eeckhout was present with representative John Bergh of Loucks and Associates. Weinberger explained the issue facing this application was that the dry buildable acreage available totaled 13 . 7 acres where 14 acres are required for 7 lots . As planned, the subdivision did not meet city requirements of 2 acres per lot. The Planning Commission recommended denying the application based on the total dry buildable not meeting the minimum requirement of 2 acres dry buildable per lot in the RRIB zoning district. · - Kellogg stated that no trail or sidewalk was planned with the recommended 50 foot road width. Sansevere asked if the applicant had considered a reduction to 6 lots . Van Eeckhout responded that he would prefer 7 lots and felt that would be attainable once soil borings were done in the spring. 4 . ,. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, continued) Mayor Jabbour commented that the city would not allow sewer availability to increase lot density. All Council members agreed. The applicant must demonstrate a hardship to allow more than the permitted density on the site. Mr. McCusky, the adjoining property owner, was present with legal representation arguing that the applicant had not made arrangements for proper legal access to the subdivision. He was concerned that approving the subdivision may imply some legal rights to access. Barrett confirmed the easement to the property was for driveway purposes and may not be adequate to serve as access to the subdivision. Barrett stated the application deadline is March 2, 2000. The applicant must present a letter to the City of Orono to extend the deadline. Mayor Jabbour stated the applicant should provide a letter requesting the application be tabled, giving the applicant time to resolve the issues of dry buildable acreage and access to the property through a designated outlot. Kelley moved and Peterson seconded to table the application until the applicant requests further review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SA. #2540 Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue -After-the-fact Conditional Use Permit Mr. Sheridan provided a letter requesting the application be tabled until the end of March. The letter also stated that the property owner, Mr. Hoyt, has granted the city an extension of the time limits for approval. Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to table the application until the end of March. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE -VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4421 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4421, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) _and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C)(6). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5 ... ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2000 *7. #2553 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES -RESOLUTION NO. 4422 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4422, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivisions 2 (A)(3). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE -ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to table zoning application #2555 for Hennepin County and continue the request to a future Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #2 -STUBBS BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Request for Payment #2, Stubbs Bay Road Cul-de-Sac Project to Buffalo Bituminous Inc. in the amount of $2,643.61. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated a resident in the Saga Hill area wanted to poll the Council on whether they would allow snowmobiles in Saga Hill. The Council unanimously agreed that no snowmobiles will be allowed in the Saga Hill Natural Area. Sansevere also stated that a citizen has complained of unsightly yard junk along County Road 19 in the west central portion of the city, and wanted the Council to look into the matter. Mayor Jabbour stated the Council should take an official position on that; and that he sees nothing wrong with County Road 19. Kelley suggested that if people are within the city ordinances, they cannot legislate the way people live. Rick Meyers suggested the city legislate what is offensive and enact a law allowing the city to clean-up people's yards, then bill them for it. Peterson asked if something could be printed in the newsletter about the issue of unsightly yards regarding what the city ordinances allow and what the consequences are for violations. Mayor Jabbour mentioned the possibility of expanded pick-up and providing an occasional drop-off site. Meyers suggested that citizens with trucks could volunteer to help others ( especially the elderly) move trash to a drop-off site. 6 Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/99 11/1/99 3/2/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-lB One Family Rural Residential DATE: 2/14/00 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. List of Exhibits A Planning Commission Minutes (November 15, 1999) B City Council Minutes (December 13, 1999) C Revised Site Plan and Grading Plan D Notice of Planning Commission Action (November 15, 1999) E Planning Commission Minutes (January 19, 2000) F Lot Area Calculations G City Engineer Comments (January 17, 2000) Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 5 to Oto recommend denial of the application at their January 19, 2000 meeting. A primary issue was the proposed density within the subdivision. Staff had requested the developer present lot area calculations for each lot and outlot within the proposed development. The surveyor has indicated the total dry buildable area within the proposed PRD is 13. 7 acres (Please refer to Exhibit F for lot area calculations). The Municipal Code requires subdivisions by PRD comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning district. The density requirement is 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. Proposed is 7 lots on 13. 7 acres, thus not meeting the density requirements for the RR-lB zoning district. The Planning Commission had recommended the applicant reduce the number of lots to 6 to maintain the required 1 dwelling unit per 2 acre density. 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 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within Tract G and shall become part owner of a private road. Revised Plan The RR-1 B 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 of lots 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 35' 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. The revised plan has maintained the lot arrangement for Block 1. The Planning Commission had requested the lots be platted with an average size of about 1 acre, however to maintain the best building sites, and to allow larger lots to the south in Block 2, the lots have remained similar to those lots previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. They are consistent to the development to the north in the City of Long Lake. Block 2 has provided 3 lots with an average size of about 2 acres. The lot originally planned for where Outlets C and D are located has been eliminated from the plan. Outlets C and D would be platted as conservation outlets. Previously the lot were found to have adequate building sites. Mr. Van Eeckhout has revised his plan to not create a lot south of the Creek. This eliminates any concerns of placing hardcover and grading within 7 5' of a protected waterway. The DNR, Trails and Waterways Unit had requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property. By not developing the southern lot and platting it as a conservation outlot the buffer area between development and the Luce Line Trail will be preserved. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. 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. Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit G) 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. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Storm water 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. 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 Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. 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. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City and developer had explored the option of extending sewer across the Luce Line Trail and the Longridge Associates property to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. After looking at this option it has been determined this is not the best option to extend sewer to the south to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. 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. A conservation easement shall be granted over the conservation outlots to protect the outlots from future alteration and development. 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 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. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. 3. The private road would require the City approve land alteration within a City protected wetland. 4. The Planning Commission has recommended the number oflots be reduced to 6 lots based on the total acreage being 13. 7 acres. The applicant would request a variance to permit 7 lots on less than 14 acres. Staff Recommendation 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 or documentation of right- of-access for a private road acceptable to the City Attorney shall be submitted. B. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. C. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. D. The City Council 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, 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 for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. Charles E. Van Eeckhout January 21, 2000 Page 1 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON APPLETON, WISCONSIN BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS BROOKFIEID, WISCONSIN CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS CRYSTAL LAKE, ILLINOIS Fr. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA JACKSONVJLLE, FLORIDA JOLIET, ILLINOIS LAKE GENEY A. WISCONSIN LISLE, ILLINOIS Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55365 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER SUITE 3100 222 SOUTI! NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 612.333.3434 TELEFAX: 612.295.0398 Thomas J. Barrett Direct: 612.334-2676 TBarrett@HinshawLaw.com January 21, 2000 Re: Proposed Plat for 12 South Brown Road, Orono City File No. 2550 Our File No. 752031 Dear Mr. Van Eeckhout: MlAMI, FLORIDA MlLWAUKEE, WISCONSIN MUNSTER. INDIANA PEORIA. ILLINOIS PHOENIX, ARIZONA ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFOR..'IIA SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS TAMPA. FLORIDA WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS '1\s you may be aware, we are the City Attorneys for the City of Orono. Paul Weinberger has referred your pending subdivision application to us to review the City's concerns relating to access. It is our understanding that your subdivision proposal provides for access to the land from Brown Road over a private easement for driveway purposes. This easement was granted over Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 pursuant to a warranty deed executed by Franc P. Daniels and Marion B. Daniels in favor of Olive C. Case dated July 19, 1954, recorded August 24, 1954, as Document No. 432783 in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles ("Easement"). We have reviewed the Easement, your certificate of title and the certificate of title for Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 352 registered in the name of John F. Dunn and Mary Ann Dunn ( collectively "Dunn"). We question whether or not the proposed means of access meets the subdivision requirements of the City or Orono. The City of Orono ordinances clearly provide that when a private roadway is serving three or more lots, that roadway shall be platted as an Outlot and the City may require an Charles E. Van Eeckhout January 21, 2000 Page 2 easement for road and utility purposes be granted over the Outlet to the public. In the past, the City has always required an easement over Outlets which provide private access to multiple lots. In this case, there is a private roadway proposed to serve three or more lots and a portion of the private road crosses over land owned by Dunn. It is our understanding that Dunn is not willing to join in the proposed plat to permit the private roadway to be platted as an Outlot, nor will Dunn join in an easement to the City for underlying roadway and public utility purposes. As a result, the City must consider a variance from its ordinances to permit access to the proposed subdivision over a private easement. The Easement is clearly granted for "driveway" purposes, not "roadway" purposes. We question whether the easement, as granted, is sufficient to support access to six or seven lots. Prior to approving the proposed subdivision, the City must receive sufficient evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Dunn approve of the proposed development and the increased use of the easement area. Such evidence may be in the form of Mr. and Mrs. Dunn's written consent to the final plat Gr, preferably, an amendment to the current easement agreement that clearly reflects that the access rights benefit and run with all of the new lots and identifies maintenance obligations for the roadway. As you and I discussed, the City will allow you to make a case that the easement for driveway purposes is sufficient to meet to requirements of Orono's subdivision ordinances, but the title commitment to the City of Orono which you provided to staff on Wednesday evening was insufficient to resolve the problem. It merely guaranteed Orono's interest in the easement as stated, but did not assure that either Orono's interest in an underlying public easement, or that the access rights of the six or seven lots which are being platted, can be derived from the easement for driveway purposes. You have suggested that there is case law and other legal authority that either the Title Company or your attorney would be willing to provide, and we stand ready to evaluate that material. But if it should prove insufficient, then certainly some sort of undertaking by Mr.~ounn appears to be in order. If you have any questions regarding the access issues relating to the pending subdivision, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Thomas J. Barrett cc: Paul Weinberger . ' .. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2400 Marie and Arlette Ploen, Continued) Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with .the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation . Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. H2wn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot 8. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine . (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. -8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek . The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway st:rndards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowners Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated •his proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a fii1al plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. 8. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 1 O percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRO. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRO must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner. · Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergerncy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ORONO £>LANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, 120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. -9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1 C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1 C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is presently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) months as well as storage by the LMCD of their milfoil harvesters. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. In addition, the DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning boats, trailers and other watercraft on this property. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest corner of the property. Currently the LMCD stores four milfoil harvesters at this site. Weinberger stated Hennepin County is proposing to construct a building consisting of 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons, which amounts to approximately one-third of the annual mixed salt/sand usage during the winter months. The building would provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. Currently that operation is conducted outdoors. The proposed building is 70 feet by 112 feet in size, with the height of the building being 42 feet in height. A height variance would be needed since the proposed building exceeds the height of the principal building. Weinberger noted the height of the principal building is approximately 18 to 20 feet in height. County Staff has indicated the operations would reduce the noise to the surrounding neighborhoods and would also eliminate the salt and sand runoff into the adjacent wetlands during storms. Hennepin County is estimating the number of round trip truck runs would be reduced to 60 based on the size of the proposed building. Weinberger stated the Burlington Northern Railroad exists to the north of this site, with the property to the southwest being zoned LR-1 C-1, and the southeast being zoned B-5, Commercial. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has recently purchased the land immediately adjacent to this site, which is zoned LR-1 C-1. The property to the west of this site is zoned residential. Weinberger stated the proposed stormwater management plan includes construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. Weinberger recommended approval of this application be conditioned upon review and approval of the stormwater management plan by the City Engineer. Weinberger stated in order for a zoning code amendment to be approved, the Planning Commission should consider the following: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions: a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a County road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennpin County facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined by the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Weinberger stated a variance to permit hardcover alteration is needed as well as a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property. A variance is also Page 14 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 public road. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he was granted an easement for road purposes over a 40' corridor legally described as Tract G of RSL No. 1022 (PID # 03-117-23 12 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 January 10, 2000 #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: Proposal: List of Exhibits: 20 acres (14 acres dry buildable) Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. A Planning Commission Minutes (November 15, 1999) B City Council Minutes (December 13, 1999) C Revised Site Plan and Grading Plan D Notice of Planning Commission Action (November 15, 1999) Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development Application Background: The Planning Commission has previously reviewed this application and recommended by a unanimous vote to deny the request based on additional issues to be resolved and concerns about DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Planning Commission also had concerns with the lot size of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1119/00 page--1 Mr. Van Eeckhout has revised his plan to not create a lot south of the Creek. This eliminates any concerns of placing hardcover and grading within 7 5' of a protected waterway. The DNR, Trails and Waterways Unit had requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property. By not developing the southern lot and platting it as a conservation outlot the buffer area between development and the Luce Line Trail will be preserved. Revised 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 35' front yard setback, 10' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The establisp.ed setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The revised plan has maintained the lot arrangement for Block 1. The Planning Commission had requested the lots be platted with an average size of about 1 acre, however to maintain the best building sites, and to allow larger lots to the south in Block 2, the lots have remained similar to those lots previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. They are consistent to the development to the north in the City of Long Lake. Block 2 has provided 3 lots with an average size of about 2 acres. The lot originally planned for where Outlots C and D are located has been eliminated from the plan. Outlots C and D would be platted as conservation outlots. Previously the lot were found to have adequate building sites. 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 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1119100 page--2 the site. 4. 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. 5. 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within 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. 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. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Storm water 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1119100 page--3 Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. 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. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City and developer had explored the option of extending sewer across the Luce Line Trail and the Longridge Associates property to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. After looking at this option it has been determined this is not the best option to extend sewer to the south to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. 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. A conservation easement shall be granted over the conservation outlots to protect the outlots from future alteration and development. 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/9/00 page--4 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 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. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. 4. The private road would require the City approve land alteration within a 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. Storm water calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. 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 for review as #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout l 20 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 page--5 requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, 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 for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) pre- development. The applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision J//9100 page--6 "" ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 l'tn~u and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inqui~her the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the~' Stoddard stated with the acquisition o on this application. djoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approv pplication #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardc variance to permit construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the west side of · esidence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to re at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated 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 Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1 B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRO as a conditional use. Under a PRO the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots, Lots 5, 6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRO would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 16 A ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as prop~sed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, wi.th the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he 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 ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRD, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred tl]at some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stoddard stated he would be in favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlots. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decisio_r.i on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. -----NEWS~ (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM ~OL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -10:40 p.m. .._..,.~ The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were no~ -........ ~f~~ ..... ~ Page 19 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING l\!IINUTES FOR DECEl\tIBER 13, 1999 #2522 BANCOR GROUP, 11'iC -Continued t said there has been one 60 day extension by the City. Permission of the applicant would · . required for another extension. Ne\vman saili.~e doesn't have a problem extending the time limit. '-ti- '{~ Jabbour said the C1':w-ould need something in writing regarding extending the time limit. ' Kelley seconded the m\Jion. Flint amended the motion totl§Jate that it is subject to staff drafting the resolution and presenting it to the Council at\,tte next meeting. He asked if Newman would give his written consent to extend the de:tlline. i/q. Newman said he understands the process . d he is willing to give his written permission. ~, Jabbour said he would like the motion ame-mlgd to state that the Council is giving approval based on these conditions, if written ~~'¥mission for an extension is not obtained. '"'',\ ~,.... Flint and Kelley accepted the friendly amendment to the ni'ot,ion. ,,,, . ... VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. '\. \, \ Break, 10:30 p.m. -10:35 p.m. ~\, ·, '\ (#8) #2544 ALFRED AND l\!IARIL YN RICHIE, 905 TONKAWA R0~D -FINAL PLAT OF RICHIE ADDITION -RESOLUTION NO. 4400 ''\, -~,,. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4400, a • EJ!S9J.Uti~. 0 5 Na s 0. (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -CLASS IDSUBDMSION Charles Van Eeckhout, applicant, was present. \Veinberger presented the staff report. This application is for a seven-lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Brown Road South. It is approximately a 20-acre parcel with approximately 14 acres considered dry buildable. The current access to the property is via a private driveway easement across a property known as Tract G which is O\vned by Mr. John Dunn. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their last meeting and recommended by a vote of 7 to O to deny the request for this subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Page 28 B ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\lEETING l\1JNUTES FOR DECE:MBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application as there was a lengthy list of issues to be resolved regarding this property. Weinberger said the application requires the following approvals: 1. A conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. 2. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Kelley said he would have a hard time approving this when the Planning Commission has voted 7 to O to deny the application. He would like to see what the rest of the Council members feel before \Veinberger proceeds with the staff report. Sansevere asked Mr. Van Eeckhout ifhe has received any information from Mr. Dunn that he will sign the plat documents. Van Eeckhout said that Mr. Dunn has not signed the access documents. Van Eeckhout said his attorney has told him that he has all the legal access that he needs. He suggested that the City Attorney and his attorney work out the access question. Sansevere said he would not be comfortable moving forward unless it was clarified. Van Eeckhout said it is clarified and that he has an absolute ability to access this property adequately. The worst circumstance would be a condemnation which the City has the authority to do. He said the City approved this access to serve this property and he bought it under those circumstances. He feels this is a legal issue, not a planning issue. Jabbour said Van Eeckhout should expect the elected officials to be very up front with him. He said the Council members are uncomfortable acting on this application. Jabbour said there is J. difference between having an access to several homes versus a private easement for one home. Flint asked if access could be from the north for lots 1, 2, 3 & 4. Van Eeckhout said it was the general consensus on the part of City staff and his marketing people that access from the north would not make as nice of a community, but it isn't impossible. Flint said that perhaps some of the problems with the 30 percent inclines resulted because of the direction of the access. Van Eeckhout said this application has had some dark shadows cast over it from day one. One of those shadows are the 30 and 40 percent grades. He said they are strictly fictitious and Page 29 ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\'IEETING l\'IINUTES FOR DECEl\'IBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued there are no 30 and 40 percent roadway grades anticipated. He has a layout that shows they can serve all the lots with seven percent grades. Flint said that validates Kelley's point, that the work has not yet been done at the Planning Commission level that allows the Council to decide on the issues. Van Eeckhout agreed that the Council should not override the Planning Commission. He said this is a difficult process and he does not want to change the plans based on individual suggestions. He again stated he does not feel there is an access problem and it can be worked out between the attorneys. He said the main issue that the Planning Commission raised is the· size of the lots in the north portion of the property. The Planning Commission said those lots were too small, but they would not make any kind of commitment regarding the size oflots they would approve. He is reluctant to do detailed road design when he doesn't know where the road is going to be and he is reluctant to do detailed sewer designs when he doesn't know where the lot lines will be. He wants direction from the Council before making changes. He said he told the Planning Commission that he is comfortable with a 24' road width and he doesn't understand why the City wants a wider road because it will create more hardcover. He said that in light of what they talked about at the Planning Commission, he came up with a new plan which the Planning Commission has not seen. He presented a new plan with more open space. The new plan would eliminate all the creek crossings. Sansevere said he was present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Van Eeckhout had queried each Commission member on issues that Sansevere thought should have been dealt with at the staff level. Van Eeckhout said the staff will not give him the information. Jabbour said that the Council members want to have a thorough understanding of the project and 1-1r. Van Eeckhout should work through the Planning Commission process. Regarding the access, the City doesn't usually go through other people's land for a road. Kelley asked if this project should be included in the MUSA line. He said there has been an assumption that the City will bring sewer to this property. Jabbour said that assumption was made by the Council when the applicant asked. Sansevere said he is uncomfortable with the fact that 1-1r. Dunn has not signed the plat documents and dedicated the easements in favor of the City of Orono. He asked Barrett if that is something the City must wait for before acting on this application. Barrett said he would recommend that the Council make the PRD conditioned on demonstration of access or the proper title. He said he would give an opinion on the title and if the applicant doesn't have proper title, then he can't file the documents. Page 30 ORONO CITY COUNCIL :MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEl\'IBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued Dave McCoskey, 130 South Brown Road, asked how the easement questions can be resolved. Jabbour said that is between Mr. McCoskey's and the applicant's title companies. Jabbour said the City cannot act as Mr. McCoskey's agent. McCoskey said he does not want the development. Jabbour said the applicant has the right to develop the property. McCoskey asked if the access issue controls the whole layout. Jabbour said it can be approved subject to access and it will be up to the applicant to get the access. Douglas Coleman, 140 South Brown Road, asked if the development of the property is dependent on sewer. Jabbour said there must be sewer for this project. It would be hooked up to the Long Lake part of the sewer. The cost of the sewer will be paid for by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Coleman asked about the impact on the stream that runs from Long Lake to Minnetonka. Jabbour said there are shoreline management ordinances that the applicant has to adhere to. There are restrictions up to 300 feet from the creek. Weinberger explained some of the restrictions. The original proposal contained a crossing of the creek for a driveway and the sewer would have crossed the creek. Van Eeckhout said the new proposal eliminates those crossings. Kelley asked about the building envelopes and perhaps there isn't room for seven lots. Van Eeckhout said the only problem would be the sewer and there is legally room for seven lots. He showed where they would be located. Jabbour asked what the Council wants, a standard subdivision or a PRD. Kelley said he believes it should be developed as a PRD because of the topography. Van Eeckhout said the Planning Commission was hung up on the size of the lots in the north and that is what Van Eeckhout objected to. He said he had guidance from staff on the size of those lots. He said staff felt the size of the lots was appropriate from a transitional point of Page 31 ORONO CITY COUNCIL :MEETING :MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued view. He is trading the small lots for all the open space on the south end. He said that if the Council likes this concept, he will go back to the Planning Commission. Flint said he prefers the new proposal over the proposal in the staff report. Sansevere asked why the applicant doesn't make the lots bigger. Van Eeckhout said the best building sites are in those four spots. Jabbour asked how the neighbors feel about the ne\v proposal. Weinberger said there is dry buildable area around the lots in the north that would expand the size of the lots, but the Council should keep in mind the lots to the north of this area in Long Lake are zoned and platted for a 10,000-15,000 minimum size. He said this design maintains all four sewer connections in the same area. He said that originally this was shown using the entire development as part of one of seven lots. Now the applicant is showing open space. The entire area to the south just north of the Luce Line Trail is shown as open space which is really almost four acres dry. This also addresses many of the issues the DNR had with the driveway and the sewer crossing of the creek as well as the issue of the sewer line crossing the Luce Line Trail. These are some of the things that the applicant discussed with staff Kelley asked how everyone feels about the flag lot. Van Eeckhout said he lives on that lot. Coleman said this plan is better than the previous one. Kelley asked why the flag lot was so narrow at the top. Van Eeckhout said it is basically just a driveway at that point. Flint asked if the open space would be deeded to a homeowner's association. Van Eeckhout said that would be subject to agreement between his attorney and the City's representative. He would not object to deeding the open space to a homeow-ner's association. Jabbour said he wants the applicant to understand that this proposal will be subject to the access. Sansevere asked if Mr. Dunn is agreeable to sign the documents. Van Eeckhout said Mr. Dunn is in Florida, but he has talked to him once. He said Mr. Dunn has been paid twice for the easement and he wants to be paid again. Page 32 ORO~O CITY COUNCIL :MEETING Mll'fUTES FOR DECE:MBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VA.JV EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued Kelley said he would like to send this matter back to the Planning Commission. He doesn't have a problem with the size of the four lots in the north. He would like to have the outlet combined with lot 7 so it is a t\vo-acre parcel. He feels it needs to be connected to sewer because the Comprehensive Plan includes protection of lakes and waterways and there is a waterway through this land. Jabbour told :Mr. Van Eeckhout that this matter will be referred back to the Planning Commission and he asked staff to send the applicant a notice for a 60-day extension. Sansevere asked if there were trees on the western portion of Lot 7. Van Eeckhout said Lot 7 is totally wooded. Kelley said the setback could be increased as part of the PRO. Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to refer Application #2550 for Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, back to the Planning Commission and directing staff to send l\'Ir. Van Eeckhout a 60-day extension. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Moorse sta • d that this is a resolution approving the Mn/DOT adopted preliminary layout for Highway 12 an ~etter to go along ·with the resolution laying out the objectives of the City as the process is cont~d to the final design phase. He reviewed changes to the resolution. The Design Review C . "ttee members reviewed and commented on the resolution and the letter. Sansevere said he objects to meter ramps. He asked if that can be addressed at this time. Moorse said it is addressed in #7, Obje;~to be Addressed. Kelley asked about the lighting on the bridges. Jim Murphy said that in the final design there will be a c~, serable amount of discussion about the kind of lights that go on the bridges. - Kelley said he walked the corridor and he feels there will be a lot of h · agJight wash as cars that are westbound on the new road go underneath Old Crystal Bay Roacf:1%:ij_e said that Mn/DOT should do something to eliminate that headlight wash. ', Murphy said he will look at the cross sections, but he thinks the highway will be lo~than the railroad by two or three feet all the way through there. Page 33 I I l<O • '<I" 01 1~~1 lz< l~g ozl 10::: 3:: 1 10 ~ u ro1 : I I NOTE: NORTH hrl.Joo SCALE IN FEET wETLANDS DELINEATED BY SVOBODA AND ASSOCIATES, CAUTION THIS DRAlrING WAS PREPARED FOR REVIE1I' BY THE CIJENT, CITY iliD OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. THE DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE RElJED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PUNS. THIS DRAWING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CIJENT OR OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES. \ II "3 :(~II I , I · . j \ ~, 1) . I ~ •/ ( \ "' u \ ~ I\ r _, ~. \ \ :j ) \ \ .,. I "' ~ )\ fJ. '-\ _.. \ -.-' ,_.. ~ I ' )/ ,_, : '---... \ : J ,,.......,........~ --........._ r---,__ I I / ~ ........ ;J,-"..,,,._,._..1 J..,_. .--··-"' £: ' 11) -· ---~. --:__~y ··-·---....;_--.(· \ ·-·--./ '-.._ \ EXISTING TREES ----..'\ \ ) \ APPROXIMATE EDGE OF I I DELINEATED WETLAND ) I / I (APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD = 938 •1-) / ' (APPROXIMATE N.H.W. = 936.51/-) '1/ ~ -:-' 1 , A A . ·\ ! --IY _c-j::::::- =-'.:_E = -· -.....----- APPROXIMA ,E EDGE OF WETLAND .-........ C CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ CITY OF 0 RO N 0 M I N N E s 0 T A QDDltlBY:El.l:ll!II Mr. C. VanEeckhout Tit 1512/ Fu: 812/ , __ .. .,, .. ,i-,.,,.,_ ............ _,_ .._ ....... -.... , ... _. •• ,.-, .. ,1 -· .. ,, -···--·-·-· --·--, .. ·-., ........... ,_ .. , ... ···-- """"""""""""' ~~~~~~:--::.... :'on"'":.t-:'.;: ::=..ta~):'-..=. ~lfl:-p,o)ct i!-~=·:t=bpe:~~~ l!loilfwW..........,_,.._...,_,._~..,--~ ........ ~----111u-C100--•--:;,.:-_u --it!::,~=,,.::. ~,,;-u."' £t>tl-~,,_.., ... _.-;tt-. ___ ..._ I"'" I"""°" I 1-4-lln CITY SIJBWITTAL QUAllTY IWUGIXDT U¥ll1f: "'' "'"' A"f...~ .__..__. . .,..,.. ........ ~ -..... ~-:.::..=-~---··- EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN r:;JI c1-1] NORTH 0 50 100 ~ SCALE IN FEET GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: 20.7 ACRES 2.96 ACRES 14.0± ACRES 7.0± ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DRAWING WAS PREPARED FOR REVlE1r BY THE CLIENT, CITY AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. THE DRAlrING SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION OF OTHER PLANS. THIS DRAWING IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CLIENT OR OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES. --- APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND -- EXISTING TREES / OUTLOT· B -~--::: :::;Jt -~1 -,-.c. - . jl-&.-511 . ( . 261 .. O· \ . ~i} I 26 • 'O I • :..Fr::cc 1'''--ITE E-= I Q FL,_[ E_E -,-: • -Ol . ------I ---. -..,/' APPROXIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ CITT OF 0 RO N 0 M I N N E s 0 T A l:lmBllllmil:IED Mr. C. VanEeckhout Tat !12/ !'uc 112/ , __ .,.., ...... , .. , ... _,.,_., ___ ,_ .. _ .... -.. -.. ··-· -···---·' -· .... -···--·-·-· ""''----............... -... ... ··-- ""'"'"""""""" e:'...::..::-:i:: ~~ .:.,:-....,.~ !:.'":.t9:',;!:=,.•~l:""=-~w.lla ... J,oct ~~=·~E-;~E rn.1orw...--,.,_...,_,. _ _.__.,_ ,-.~., ....... ta_ClCO~.,...•- :i::... ""'-..... ~::. "=-=,_:_ ~....:=;--i: ~;s..-,.,,_,...., ... ,___ ___ I"" ,,,,_, I -,4-nn cm SUBMITTAL Qtwm IWfjGIDmfT Rl't'tP: I "" ""' J/!ti::!...~ ,-....~ . ...,.. ........ .,...... ...... ~~~--- J ··- PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN r;JI C2-1 I ... ~--NORTH CONSTRU:TII>I CF A SD..T fENCE $D..T F'ENC£ ""'1MT£NNCE PROGRAM hrtJOO 11/V L --•&Tn.n9N.l.•~--lUTollnDQCM--.a.. :-.:.:-=-.~,.---~ --..a-- .. ~~r-1.-:f~..&:r.lf~•m::ao I,_, _____________ _ ~.:._11:--.a-~--1U,1M-.rnc.ia.rr~ 81..T FENCE OETAL TYPICAL 7 TON GRADING/EROSION CONTROL NOTES• SCALE IN FEET i EX(STING D L \n-CR£ SOIL CORR£CTIIIG AND/tR F'D..L.D«:i OCCUR IJITHIN Tl£ STREET RIG<T-<F-VAY, Tl£ IAC1(f"ILL. ~TERIN.. StW...L B£ c:a,pACTEJJ TD 9SX CF TI£ STANDMD ICl1ST1.R£ DENSITY REl.ATII:tmaP IF SOILS <ASTM D-698-70> EXCEPT ~ TIP nR:E: F'E£'T C3') IF THE BACK- FlU.. YHIQt SHN.J.. BE COFACTED TD 1tm DENSITY. AN INI£PENDENT TESTDCi F1RM SHALL TEST TI£ STREET SECTIQ,I IN F'D.J. AREAS AND PRDVJDE THE R£SIJL TS IF TI-ESE TESTS TO THE CITY, D«ID£ER AND TI£ CUEHT, 2. TI,£ tarrrRN:TCR s,.w,.i. INSTALL SILT F'DCE PRl[R TD C010CING GRADDG ACTIVITJ£S AND SHALL MAINTAIN SAID fENCE F1R THE DURATil>\I IF mcsTRU::TIIIII ACTlVITl£S. 3. n£ ctJr<mtCrtR S>W..L Ln4IT HIS ACTIVITI£S TD T1£. fiWlKi LIMITS $>INN tJrt TH£ GRADIN:i P\..Nl ALL COHSTRUCTD ACTIVITIES SHALL COMPLY VITH Tl£ UXM.. t'RDINNCE. '4, n£ ca,mu,crrR SHALL INSTALL SNJV fDC£. A$ DIRECTED BY TI£ ENGD£:ER. Tn PROTECT TR£! IICOTS. !S. Tl£ CCNTRACTCR S>W..L SO£lU.£ HIS Cl'ERATD(S TD MINIMIZE Tl£ DISnRJ£D "61£.A AT .,,., GM'.H TD£. 6. ALL msTI.JRBCD IOI-STREET AR£AS SHALL BE RESTORED VITH A NINDl.tt CF •• TOP son.. MD S[£l) OR SCD 4S DIRECTED BY T1£. EN'.ID£IR. VITKIN. 72 HOURS CF ~ CF TI£ GRADING ACTIVITY IN TH.\T PERTID.l.AA /111£.A. A. Al.L SEED, SOD, Kl.CH AND F"ERTILIZER SHALL CCNtRM 'w'Ill-1 11£ Ftl.J..OVING JilrU1IOT SPECIFICATIONS, AS MCllllFlED BELOVi l ( \ ·-.. -.J· '~ \ EXISTING TREES '\ \. ) I I \ ) I / I (APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD = 938 1/-) / (APPROXIMATE N.H.W. = 936.s+/-) c__;::--:"' ! APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING TREES / OUTLOT· B I I .,,,..,,.-- ,:ppi::: I' 1...,, TE ;:_[\ =J:::-: -- APPROXIMATE ·\ I I); j ! 0 Q Ol .-........ --. EDGE OF WETLAND ' A .', s CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ CITY 01' 0 RO N 0 M I N N E s 0 T A QDE.BtllDm.Qm Mr. C. VanEeckhout ht 812/ Fu: 1112/ , __ ... , ... , ..... ,,.,_ ............ _,_ ---.. -~··-•-.. 1 ..... , .. ,1 -· ... ,, ... ,., __ ,_,_, .... ,_ -, .. ·-............ ,.,_ ... ... ···-- c..::oru01.WJF1CAT10N: ~~~~~~-=-~ :'".."':t-:'..:: :-=,•~i;t-...=-,. ~U,:-p,O>jad orrw~oflhll,...._..,_...iv-t_a,pn,i,,,,11 =t~a-::..: ~s:~-........,....._.,,,,.,..._ID_C:,00 _ _._,,_ :i:::.. ""--~ =,-.:. ~ ~ ~ ~~, ............ ~ ...... -liloDia- I°'"' 1-I 1-4-00 CITY SU8"ITTAL. QlWffl' IWI.M:.llml'T Ul'l'.l'I': .,, °'"' J!'2!-.~ ............ ,...,.. ................ •-.....a:~~=-i-=----·- PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1-::02 II C3-1 l NORTH 0 50 100 rJi....J SCALE IN FEET CAUTION THIS DRA'lflNG WAS PREPARED FOR REVIn BY THE CLIENT, CITY AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. THE DRA'lflNG SHOULD . jl-&.-511 ' . ( . I .. O• \ . ~i ) I ; \ \ I I I I I l l ( \ ·-.. ~· -......_ \ EXISTING TREES ----. '\ \ ) I I \ ) ! \ / I (APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD = 938 1/-) / I · (APPROXIMATE N.H.W. = 936.s+I-) < ~ -:1 . .\ I APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING TREES / --1\1 OUTLOT· B I I _,,,.,. - APPROXIMATE 0 Q Cl .-....... --. EDGE OF WETLAND CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ CITY OF 0 RO N 0 M I N N E s 0 T A gJliEBlQomam Mr. C. VanEeckhout Tl!: till/ Pu: 812/ ' ---_.,,, .... ,.,. ,, •. _ .. , .......... ·-· - .,._ .. ., • w -., OltNI _..10100 -, .. , I -· .. ,. -t••·---·-· 1oo•--, .. ,_ ............. ,_ ... ~. _., __ _....,....,,.,.,_ C:,O,flllill~ti,U.~ --•tt.~~--,_,_...,.Ollh'-'IIIIN1-~ i~--~~ :tu:bJS:oru. •~ ""-01>1J·•-1:1ona1 ... ........-.. --..111-c.aooni. ........ - ~--tt.tllllftr':.~~: r..-~ ,..., ...,. • of~ ....... -,.,.__ I ll'TE 1-I 1-4-99 ITY SlJBMITT,\L QU.u.nTIWf.M:-IWIJITUYIP: "" °'"' J!!!'f..~ ...... __.. . ..,,.,.. .................. ...... ,.;:.~~---·- PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN I '~mg:202 11 C4-1 I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 249-4600 ZONING FILE #2550 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 24, 1999 D --------------------- TO: Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 --------------____________ , ______ _ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Plat Review Conditional Use Permit (PRD) Variances _________________ , _____________ , ______ _ ---·------------------ DATE OF MEETING: November 15, 1999 Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial of the application by request of the applicant to allow the matter to move forward to a future City Council agenda. The Planning Commission, based on their review, recommendations of staff and the DNR required additional time for a thorough review. There were also a number of unresolved issues with the zoning request. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 2 and 3 were not consistent with lots that could be approved under standard zoning for the RR-lB district. It was recommended the applicant increase the lot sizes to approximately 1 acre in size. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The following issues must be resolved prior to any approvals by the City Council. A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he 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 for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. F. The DNR, MCWD and any other agencies withjurisdiction must approve grading plans and a crossing of the Long Lake Creek, which is a protected waterway. City Council Review Because the applicant requested the Planning Commission take action on this application it will be before the Council at a future date. The applicant shall be advised the Council may defer any direction to the applicant until the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to fully review the preliminary plat. Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/99 11/1/99 12/31/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit Variances Zoning District: RR-lB One Family Rural Residential District DATE: 12/6/99 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Proposal: Seven lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Brown Road South. The proposal will also require variances and a conditional use permit for land alteration, filling in a wetland and road width standards. The DNR is reviewing the proposal for permits to allow filling and crossing a protected tributary (Long Lake Creek) and crossing the Luce Line Trail for sewer extension to the south (Fox Ridge). Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 7 to O to deny the request for subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application to allow additional time for the applicant to revise the Planned Residential Development (PRD) and implement changes to the proposed lot layout based on recommendations by the Commission. Mr. Van Eeckhout then requested the Planning Commission take action on this item to allow the City Council to review the proposed lot layout and conditional use permit for a PRD. Concerns by the Planning Commission included the size of the four lots located in the northeast portion of the proposed plat and no dedication of conservation space. A PRD would normally require preservation of natural open spaces. This concept does not have any conservation outlots proposed. It would not be desirable to accept areas designated as wetlands as conservation areas since they would be considered protected areas by the granting of conservation and flowage easements with a standard plat. Please review the draft Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit M. 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 M Draft Planning Commission Minutes Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development Summary of Request: The Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South requires the follov,'ing 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. The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. Staff has met with representatives from the DNR and have determined the DNR would issue a permit for extending the sewer along Brown Road to the south. They have indicated this is the preferred location for a sewer line to cross the Luce Line Trail. 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. 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within 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 of lots 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 35' front yard setback, 10' 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-1 B 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 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland 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. 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 crossing. 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 Storm water 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 stormwater 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 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 topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. In discussions with the DNR on December 6, 1999 it is clear the DNR would issue a permit for the sewer crossing along Brown Road not as proposed in this plan. The purpose of extending sewer service from Long Lake through the Van Eeckhout property is to provide sewer to the Fox Ridge neighborhood. It is unlikely the DNR will issue permits for crossing the Luce Line Trail as proposed because a better alternative is available to cross under the trail below the Brown Road bridge. Langridge Associates Property To extend the sewer south of the Luce Line Trail to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, as proposed on the plan, it would be necessary to obtain a utility easement across a property owned by Langridge Associates. It is not known if obtaining the easement would even be possible. 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-IB. 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 of lot 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 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 75' 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 by the 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 Conformity to Surrounding Properties and PRD Standards The intent of the PRD Ordinance is to preserve natural open spaces. The subdivision has not made a provision for any space to be held as conservation/open space. Conservation and Flowage Easements will be granted in favor of the City of Orono for those areas determined to be within protected wetlands. Under subdivision requirements in a standard plat (not a PRD) the City would also require the same C & F easements for wetland protection. This plan has not dedicated land that would be considered preservation land or "open space". The land located south of the Long Lake Creek has potential to eliminate a few concerns if the lot would be used for conservation purposes. The DNR has requested in a letter dated November 10, 1999 an easement of up to 50' wide along the entire southern border with the Luce Line Trail to benefit the adjacent land owners and trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation. A 50' easement would restrict vegetation removal and land alteration. If an easement is requested with the PRD it would not remove the ability to develop the lot. The lot also requires regrading and filling of a portion of the Long Lake Creek for driveway purposes. If the lot does not develop a grading and hardcover would not be required to serve Lot 7. Staff feels a conservation outlet over Lot 7 would be desirable to meet the intent of the PRD standards. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 1 through 4 be realigned to have a minimum size of one acre. It appears the applicant has located the lot lines as shown on the survey to preserve the most ideal building sites. The lots located immediately north of the development are zoned for 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre) minimum lot size. The properties, as shown, have a greater lot size than those to the north in the City of Long Lake. Other Concerns A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he 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. The applicant shall provide to Staff for engineering review a proposed grading plan for the entire site. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. E. Road width for access to the property shall require a variance. The Code requires 28 feet of width. The applicant has proposed a road 24 feet wide. He has requested a variance from the Subdivision Code requirements. The Council should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for aPRD. Tabling the application to allow additional review by the Planning Commission would require the application deadline to be extended an additional 60 days or the applicant submit a letter requesting the application deadline to be waived. Application for Final Plat 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 for review 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 for review 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. 8. DNR permits shall be issued for crossing the Long Lake Creek for access to Lot 7 (if required). 9. MCWD permit for grading, drainage and erosion control plan. 10. Any additional information requested by the Staff, Planning Commission and Council to be documented in the Preliminary Plat Resolution. A Application# 2 550 Date Received_\_\ __ -, --(\-C\--(-ovv..-f' \~ CITY OF ORONO -SUBDMSION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Amount Paid Site address I 2-0 .S t:,12.0u.J ;.J P-..o A. o Property Identification Number (PID) _______________ ~-- Please check one -Property __ abstract or vtorrens? Attach legal description to application. Tr-'...at-T /-I (!.Ls APPLICANT Name Cl-\tl.Q..L~.:; VI\N C2...:=.1<.1-1ov j Address 12..o 5 e,acc~~ g.,p Phone (home) ~73.-0 ~ :.':>· City 1..-0,vi"} (..,~ Ii!.~ Zip5'>3 ~L, Phone (work) ___ _ O\Th'"ER (if different than applicant) Name -----------------------------Address __________________ Phone (home) ___ _ City ________________ Zip __ Phone (work) ___ _ ( attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use ( check) I'-/ ~Lo Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ----Other (specify) ___ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL 7 Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) v-Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites I Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) '-New Units 1 Total Units 3 Units per _i _ Acres ---- ----Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential ---- ----Other (specify) ___ _ 9 ~: • 4 •::.2 .. _~~ .-~- 24 ~ " 5:('34);; ;j 10• -er:: ~ ctJ~ ~ 0. 2 (24) 192 1.Jf I I I /:.' ~- I (8) JI [€ ., fl (76) (9) 31"3. S ( 10) (7) g, [W ,,,, l (9) N69"!!ne"'E ·475 (3) g: SJ ' ('37) ~ ~ <7,,"s;,I '60.6 f;!i'2l 315 B (38) ; (II) ( 10) m&S 176. 32 -.,, ~ ,.;" (2) (5) ,, .. ,. 165 il f c: ~ 240. 95 ~ 9 -....... -~~ (9) u 55) 193.~ (I) ,:~ "'· ;. , \'? ·I? jq.-llfi 371.!9 5 (8) • (11) % ~~ ~ ef" ~ I ~ (21J7 ·@ ;;, 'C: @l ~ ~ "~!il®IDln'rn $i11~lQlnrnx )Sil© ~i11ifil@I ~:E~'H©tm ~ {/':~'';~ ,, t,.:z~:-~···)· .. ; •>~ ··•· \'. ~,'.l. t. .) j_( .t-.,_·. . -,~ -... ..• ,-..,.__ ... ' , __ . ·._·..;_: .. I' ® ~ . s: .-•·-··-··-·· :, ! ® --= @ .. © ' D ~"s) l!';f. -~,.,. :~ ---;---~~"--'---------,--------i--------- qS: ~i ~-=: '2 '.~<•• .... I ; •' 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ,, ~ ~ (0) \..,. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . · _: =;:I~-r~ ::·· ... ~·;.,J.t-1 . . -~ .. -..... -; LSGAI DESQUPTIQN .. • .. PRELIMINARY !PLAT FOR .. ' ..! • ... -... ,..."'. -=-,1 !J)Fi'UCK VAN E~Cl.<fill:1-~il · &f}~~ACT, H,R.LS. NO. 352] . ,:· ,, . . r~~;jJ i :: : • (WAI /fJ ··-· • Tf/11 lAU Tna H. ~ Laad Sun-ey No. 352 Files ofR~ of Titles, Cowity of Hau>cpin. This a,rvey dlows the location_ of the boundaries of the above d=:rib<:d ;,ropa,y and the cxi>tiog boo.., drm:way and builc!in,;s th<rcon. It doc, Dot P'!')>Ort to ,:bow any olhc-µ:i,pro-., o< cn~. TOTAL AREA~ 20.001 ACRES .•••. _ .• ' ' -~ ., ·1 ·· ~ SI.ff' >al) STRtET ••• •~••· I -•-. 2 ~, . t.: \ :;o \ I I Jc. I· / / / I I, '- " \ , I ';f.,.,.__J ,,,., , ,,,.iv ) i I _,- / . -~ ,'-j(<-;,,·"'---- !I' ,;,,r \ H / j :. ( \ : : I I.· . I/ / // / / I I I ~--.J ----- '· '/ , ::--:::--·-,, . \ ·. ' .., --------J 14C -----;--- \ / -··'·-··- n -Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects November 9, 1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: ~i~~;:;;~:;~;loii~ii;;;i:~f iiiii1f ;i;~;{::::'.:: ::::::,:::~ ,m,,,,£ Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. • Keith A. Gordon. l'E. , Robert R. Pfefferle, l'E. , Richard W. Foster. l'E. • David 0. Loskota. l'E. • Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. , Mark A. Hanson. P.E. , Michael T. Rautmann. P.E. • Ted K.Field. l'E. • Kenneth P. Anderson. l'E. , Mark R. Rolfs. P.E. , Sidney I' Williamson. l'E .• LS. • Robert F. Kotsmith • Agnes M. Ring , Allan Rick Schmidt, l'E. Offices: s,. Paul, Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN• Milwaukee. WI Website: www.bcnestroo.com We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is across a parcel marked easement area. The parcel is 40-feet wide. The ownership of this easement area is unclear. We recommend that the access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not across an easement. The access should be a minimum of 50-feet in width to meet City standards for a public or private street. The proposed typical street sections do meet the City standards for a private street serving seven or more units. The typical street section for station 0+00 to 4+00 shows an urban curb and gutter section while station 4+00 to the end shows a rural section with ditches. A method of conveying storm water from the urban to rural section should be shown on the plans. This may require flumes, swales, ditching or storm sewer construction. The driveway serving the existing house will need to be relocated so that it doesn't encroach onto Lot 6. Proposed driveway locations to all Lots should be shown on the plans. It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2,3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as we recommend 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 crossing. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City's' Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. A general location for a NURP pond has been identified on the plans. The final plans should include final pond grading including a IO: 1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level (NWL). The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides 1-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to the pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City ordered and received a feasibility report for sanitary sewer to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood located just south of the Van Eeckout property. 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 Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckout 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 in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood if permission were obtained to cross the Luce Line and the parcel directly south of the Luce Line. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow the gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 system. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road and determine whether a westerly extension of the sewer to South Brown Road makes sense. We can provide a cost estimate to extend the proposed sewer southerly to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood with gravity sewer if the City so desires. 5. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 146. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of - ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~{~ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono ' \ RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38. 03-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN IDNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN . 20.S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RDS W F FARLEY & KG FARLEY WILLIAM & KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON & H DAYTON TOBIN J & NAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINN IDNR) !LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 12 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 ,03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RDS WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST ff2100 ST PAUL HN 55101 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R & B HACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 BROWN RDS S BITTMAN & L BITTMAN SCOTT & LISA BITTMAN 25 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL MAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-111-23 12 0005 00120 BROWN RDS CHARLES EVAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN .55356 38 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 BROWN RDS JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0011 00140 BROWN RDS D & L COLEMAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEMAN JR 140 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD DE KIRKMAN & J M KIRKMAN DAVIDE & JOANNE H KIRKMAN 1945 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 .03-117-23 21 0007 00145 BROWN RDS JOHN H WINTON JOHN M WINTON 1314 MARQUETTE AVE ff903 MPLS MN 55403 ,'.".s :-::::"::?')~· ,,.... \ l\ A '<~.-:r·.:~:~--:.: ·t1 (:·,J·\ f_: ·/ ·•\ ,·~'. .:" ,~.,;-,•...:..~_.•.,,.n,; \J.,,; 0 :{,:·~~:) L.,., ..... :, r.):.} ...-;"·~ '1~~ ,1 .• . • .·• jf ~1 t;(" '::. i ~l r)· '\4 '(;..: ;.i.,,,, 1%'.-)i;,1 "" ~ .. ,. ~ ''- ~';t il ' ',l;t·,"" " ~,~"11•.r;..., .. 'I iY•t~, ) T\ I ' L RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR. OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP,ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER MAME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 21 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN !DNRJ !LUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 03-117-23 21 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN PEARLING JOHN PEARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD KV BIGELOW & J T BIGELOW KENNETH & JUDY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0060 00046 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER & AL PASTER JAMES T PASTER '46 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0063 00064 CREEKSIDE DR MARY ANN HANSEN MARY ANN HANSEN 64 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0072 00041 APPLE GLEN RD DJ DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 41 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 21 0014 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 44 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0021 00026 APPLE'GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR 'J LOHMAN & RA OHMAN JOHN LOHMAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0064 00043 CREEKSIDE DR R G ROACH & KA ROACH ROBERT G & KIMBERLY A ROACH 43 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD NE & M J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE GLEN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYDS KELLEY LESTER SKELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD ME & MB GUTHRIE MARY & MITCHELL GUTHRIE 38 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118~23 43 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN & MR WILLIN THOMAS & MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0062 00058 CREEKSIDE DR M & J BERNS MICHAEL E & JOLYNN M BER.NS 58 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD SC FEDIE & W L FEDIE STEVEN C & WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0074 01980 KENNEDY LA LR DANIELSON/NM DANIELSON LEER & NANCY M DANIELSON 1980 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 1< t,. ,..___, -:~~ I· :~~~' ~ ' ' ':, ' '\ 1 •• ·,1 i 1 i\ / // .. ·, ·. ✓ '\ •·, .:1 , .. '.!I ';f,., :'y ,:'/ • l f. -~, . ., ·~'J::~ ) ' ) RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 72 34-118-23 43 0075 01985 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 i . 72 34-118-23 43 0083 00010 BROWN RDS DP & LA ERICKSON DAVID P & LISA ANN ERICKSON• 10 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 31 72 34-118-23 43 0081 00055 VALLEY VIEW RD G W ANDERSON & SJ ANDERSON GREGORY W & .SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD· LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 00040 72 34-118-23 43 0082 00018 BROWN RDS JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. /J4. . . . • DATE?-9-19 BY . 7MC Sa.A~ //'- {. ;,· ,_ ... "' (! . :)) ...... ,,. _,,.,,,. t• Y) I t: .. ) ~.. ~.) \·• I I · I I f' . u· - / '';·, «·· ... -~-:) ~:} •.i( ··~hi '~< :~ ~;,~ :i \:,~·.:~ ·c. 3, T. l/7, R. 23 --(GZO) J '--\ '6030) \ 2 ........_ Ha G / I I I I.I.I ~,, ...I - I( ~ •c 2 C 0 ...I - (7) t l ) cm ,•,a· \ \ -i.5;;;~· .. .,..i•···•~ ...•. (I) / .l ...... A~ .......... ,;!j1' (2) --· '43 --- @ (I) ........ (3) ~~te&,.NJb 't>IST'M~· ~Oc.<N DAR-."( . () H V ·--·--·---·-- Sca.t49 In Feet ! --- r, N ------15G-J 1so o 1so 1m 8 April 1997 i i i . I ; I... ·-,. _/·· ·-....· .. ...... /. ·-...... ·-...... -------·--·--·--.! --·--•-"', / /.- _/.• ·, .. ,~ / . / Long Lake ··---!~rt~ .......... -.... .......... .• -~,,0wn 's Bay Part VII \ .. - / _/ / ,/·· ,/ ,/· ,/· _/ / Tl \) I ' City of Orono Minnesota SITE'° T ( AJ~ /AJ MM5AJ I MUSA BOUNDARY l l ~ CURRENT MUSA Part I Navarre/Forest Lake/fonkawa (Resol. #1135 4-14-80) Part II Orono Schools/Industrial Park (Resol. #1135 4-14-80) Part III Hackberry (Resol.#1135 4-14-80) Part IV Herrick Circle (Resol. #1135 4-14-80) PartV Chevy Chase/Ferndale Green (Resol.#1135 4-14-80) Part VI Mtka. Bluffs/Orono Lane/W. Ferndale (Resol.#1337 11-23-81) Part VII . County Road is Marinas (Resol. #1337 11-23-81) Part VIII Crystal Bay · (Resol. #2131 2-23-87) Part IX Fulmer Property (Resol. #213'1 2-23-87) PartX Highway 12 Corridor West (Resol. #2437 5-23-88) Part XI Highway 12 Corridor East (Resol. #2437 5-23-88) Part XII North Shore/Scotch Pine (Resol. #3283 5-24-93) Part XIII 650 Brov,n Road North (Resol. #3283 5-24-93) Part XIV Fairway Hills Addition (Resol. #3283 5-24-93) Part XV Long Lake/Fleming Trail* (Resol. #3283 5-24-93) Part XVI Stubbs Bay (Resol. #3153 8-10-92) Part XVII Orono Sewer Plant Property (Resol. #3348 10-25-93) Part XVIII Nettles Property (Resol. #3348 10-25-93) Part XIX North Long Lake (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) Part XX Long Lake Country Club (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXI East Long Lake (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXII Orono Orchards · (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXIII Fox Ridge (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXIV Webber Hills (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXV Edgewood Hills (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXVI Bracketts Point (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXVII Foxhill (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXVIII Bayridge/Hartwood (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartXXIX Orono Schools/Hockey Arena · (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) PartX:XX Dillman Property (Resol. #3791 10-28-96) Proposed MUSA Addition PartXXXI Ma.xwell Bay Area EPeeiii:ng,-A t-Oe b /~9~ • Annexed to City of Long Lake ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION l\!IEETING l\flNUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999· #2488 GREGG KLOHN, CONTINUED Klohn stated he would Hke the application to be tabled. Hawn inq.uired w~ether he .would b~ willing to ·waive the 60 day time limit. Klohn indicated that would be fine. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2488, 4455 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans, and to extend the 60 day time limit to 120 days. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays O. · · SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#11) #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH-SKETCH . PLAN REVIEW . . .. Charles Van Eeckhout was present. Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting to subdivide a 20 acre parcel to create nine sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres in area. This proposal would require rezoning the area from RR-1 B, Single Family, 2 Acre, to R-1A, Single Family, 1 acre; extension of the sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake; expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area; variances to the back lot ordinance; creation of a private road in a substandard corridor; variances to lot width; creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek; construction of a road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands; creation of a wetland outlot for Park; and construction of an 800 foot private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. Charles Van Eeckhout stated that he has owned the property for the past 29 years. Van Eeckhout stated that he has done other subdivisions within the City of Orono and has made it a point to avoid the need for variances as much as possible. Before purchase of this property, Van Eeckhout commented that he checked with the City of Orono regarding what regulations existed regarding possible subdivision of this area and that this proposal encompasses essentially what he was told he could do at that time. · Van Eeckhout stated that in 1975, the City rezoned this area, which changed this area from a one acre density to two acre, and that rezoning should be considered as a taking of value, and that this property should be allowed to be developed under one acre standards as he was originally told. Van Eeckhout remarked that he did.not receive any"compensation for the taking, which in his· opinion decreased the value of his property. Van Eeckhout noted that a lot of new rules and regulations have been adopted by the City over the years, and requested that the Planning Commission rezone this area back to what it originally was at the time of purchase. Gaffron commented that the City of Orono would disagree with the opinion that the rezoning was a taking. Van Eeckhout stated that he has quarter acre lots to the north adjacent to his property, one acre lots on the northwest, and one acre lots to the south, and wetlands to the east. Van Eeckhout remarked that in essence his property was spot zoned at the time the area wa~ rezoned. Van Eeckhout commented that this subdivision would contain one acre lots, which in his opinion are Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COM:MISSION MEETL~G :MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED sufficient lots, noting that two acre lots would cost more, and that due to environmental concerns because of its location by Long Lake Creek, this area should be connected to City sewer. A large n_un:iber of trees _also exist on the property which cannot be cut down~ Van Eeckho·ut stated that he would like to have a forester out there to review the situation to determine whether some of the trees can be cut down· to help the undergrowth grow back. Van Eeckhout stated he is willing to work with City Staff on these issues. Lindquist remarked that he understands Van Eeckhout's position on the taking, but that is an issue for the City Council. Lindquist commented that in his opinion this area should remain zoned at two acres. Hawn stated she is in agreement with Lindquist and that the Planning Commission does not do rezoning. Hawn remarked that this area might be a potential site for a PRO and might lend itself to some cluster development. Van Eeckhout commented that in his opinion under this sketch plan there is sufficient spacing for the proposed residences, noting that he would not have a problem with doing a PUD on this area as he has presented it tonight. Stoddard stated that he also concurs that this is an issue for the City Council to determine, noting that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and it does not appear that the Planning Commission would recommend rezoning of this area .. Stoddard remarked that the City also needs to make a determination ·on whether this area should be included in the Metropolitan . Urban Service Area. · Hawn noted that this application is driven by whether or not the Applicant can rezone this property and that issue should be resolved first before further consideration is given to this sketch plan. Gaffron stated that the area south of the Luce Line is zoned two acres, noting that Fox Ridge was developed back in the 1960s. · Stoddard commented that the Applicant will also need to determine the type of wetlands that exist on the property. Van Eeckhout stated that in his opinion this area is incorrectly zoned wetland and he has farmed the wetland area on a regular basis. Van Eeckhout remarked that the wetland is six feet above the water level. Van Eeckhout commented that in his opinion this area can adequately support nine structures. · · Lindquist stated that in his opinion this area will probably remain zoned at two acres. Hawn noted that it has was the consensus of the Planning Commission in a meeting regarding the comprehensive plan not to extend sanitary sewer to prevent denser housing. Hawn suggested the Applicant look at a PRO. Van Eeckhout noted that a PRO would require extension of the sewer. Hawn stated that a PRO probably would require extension of the sewer. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION l\tIEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED Gaffroh remarked that if the Applicant took the total buildable acreage of the property and divided it by two, the Applicant might be able to put a maximum of seven homes on this property,· and that clustering may help to preserve som·e of the natural features of the area. • · · . . . . . . . ·' . . . •. . . . . . . Van Eeckhout commented that the City should take a long-range view as far as it relates to sewer issues, noting that in his opinion eventually sewer will more than likely be needed in Orono. Gaffron stated this application will go before the City Council at their June 14th meeting, noting that no formal action is needed to be taken by the Planning Commission on this application. (#12) #2491 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD-SKETCH PLAN Deborah Sholl was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a sketch plan review for a Class Ill Subdivision . for property located at 4100 Watertown Road, which consists of approximately 37 acres. Approximately two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the City Wetland maps. The Applicant is proposing to create two parcels, with one parcel being approximately 14 acres, 12 acres dry buildable, and the other west parcel would be 23 parcels. Weinberger stated that there was a conditional use permit on this property to allow the keeping of domestic animals for commercial purposes and to allow the continued use of the property for a public riding stable. Following sale of the property, the commercial use of the property has ceased. The property also contains two residential properties.on one lot without a conditional use permit for a guest house. The lot was combined with another five acre lot to the northeast in January of 1996. Weinberger remarked that ~o oversized accessory buildings are located on the property. Oversized accessory buildings are allowed in this district subject to the condition that not more than one oversized accessory structure shall be permitted on any property. An oversized structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. The total footfrint area for the two accessory buildings is 14,497 square feet. A number of variances would be required for this subdivision due to the oversized accessory buildings. Variances would be required to permit two oversized accessory buildings on one 12 acre lot where one is allowed; to permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3,000 square feet maximum allowed for oversized accessory structures; and to permit 14,497 square feet for all accessory buildings where 6,000 square feet is allowed.· Variances are also needed for setbacks to the houses and the guest house. There are also some structures located an the property without a principal structure. · · Weinberger stated that the use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial. purposes is a permitted use provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards, which requires that a minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. Weinberger stated that Watertown Road is a City owned right-of-way. The Subdivision Code requires the north 33 feet of Watertown Road be dedicated to the City .. The portion of the property dedicated is not considered as lot area. Page 18 ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\iIEETING l\iIINUTES FOR JULY 26, 1999 (#5) #2490 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BRO\VN ROAD SOUTH -SKETCH PLAN REVIE\V Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present along with Tom Loucks, Planner. Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting City Council direction regarding potential rezoning of this site to allow higher density housing. This lot is comprised of 20 acres, with roughly 12 to 14 acres being dry buildable. This lot is located outside of the MUSA, but an issue for City Council consideration is whether this property should be developed with City sewer regardless of whether it is rezoned. A third item for consideration is whether Council believes the site should be considered for a Planned Residential Development. Gaff-on stated the Applicant presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission which called for nine sewered building sites ranging in size from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acre. The Planning Commission did not offer the Applicant much direction as they felt that the City Council should determine whether this property should be rezoned and whether City sewer should be provided. Loucks stated that this 20 acre parcel has unique characteristics, noting that the site abuts the City of Long Lake as well as the Long Lake sewer lines. The site is adjacent to some two acre developments as well as a number of one-third to one acre residential developments in Long Lake. Loucks requested that the City Council consider the possibility of a PRD for this property. Loucks stated the proposed lots range from 15,000 to 20,000 feet to 1.5 acres with a diversity of housing being contemplated. The Applicant will attempt to preserve as much of the natural features of this property as possible. Gaffron stated that a zoning code amendment requires a 4/S's majority vote, noting that this property would not need to be rezoned in order to do a PRD if density standards are met. The number of units being proposed does exceed the number that could be accomplished through a standard two acre plat, and a PRD d9es not allow the City to increase the density, hence this proposal for nine lots on 12 -14 acres would require rezoning. Kelley commented that he is not in favor of rezoning, but would support a PRD with seven lots and hookup to City sewer. Mayor Jabbour thanked the Applicant for his efforts in attempting to preserve the natural characteristics of this property. Kelley remarked that he was unsure whether onsite sewer sites would be available on this site due to the topography and wetlands that exist. Flint inquired if the zoning is not changed, how a PRD would assist the Applicant. 7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETrnG :MINUTES FOR JULY 26, 1999 (#2490 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Loucks stated under a PRD they would be able to have lots that are less than two acres as long as the density standard is not exceeded. Flint inquired what the density standard is for this lot. Loucks stated the area will need to be calculated, but in his view there is approximately 16 acres of upland. Loucks stated they are willing to work with City Staff on this matter. Sansevere stated he was in agreement with Kelley on the density. Peterson commented that she also was in agreement with Kelley regarding the density. Mayor Jabbour stated that in his view a PRD would be appropriate, noting that he is amenable to extending City sewer to this property. (#6) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD -VARIAN CE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERi"\'IIT Rick Luzaich, Applicant, was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attorney-at-Law. \Veinberger stated that the Applicant's reforestation plan was denied at the last City Council meeting, with a revised plan having been submitted by the Applicant today. The Applicant is proposing to add a number of trees, which increases the canopy cover over the entire property. The City's consulting forester is recommending a minimum spacing of25 feet which will allow for greater canopy coverage when the trees mature. Bedker is recommending that any plan submitted by the Applicant restore a minimum of 90 percent of the estimated 14,450 square feet of tree canopy that was removed. The Applicant's plan achieves 83 percent canopy restoration over the 25 year period. Bedker is ready to recommend adoption of the plan with the recommended changes. \Veinberger stated the issues for consideration by the City Council include the right to review the subject property by City Staff to ensure eventual full restoration on the property. Staff is recommending that a letter of credit be on file with the City to ensure reforestation of this property as well. Reznick stated according to his understanding, the Applicant's landscape architect was to meet with the City's forester, which has been done, and the recommendations of the City's forester 8 I I I I i I: I, I i i i I II L LAND USE JUNE, 1980 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years. LAND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2. TO MAIN'I'AIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3. TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A VARIETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT QF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. 6. TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map No. 6 •. 2. ORONO'S LAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive ~nvironmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmen_tal Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of n~tural resources while prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 I :~ LAND USE JUNE, 1980 3. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. 4. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways• and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease- ments for conservation of these lands. 5. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason- able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited .. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 -----w----==----------1111122L111 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 7. DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flQod damage or pollution dangers. 8. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. 9. ORONO'S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND OWNERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require- ments of the Community Management Plan. 1-2. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. CMP 4-14 -- I~ I rr I I I I I • u I • -I . ~ ·~ LAND USE 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. JUNE, 1980 14. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the city has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura- tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 15. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform, City- established standards to ensure proper functioning ·and compatibility with overall City plans • 16. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 I i I i LAND USE If the individual development's density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facilities· proportionate to the cumulative effect of-such density increase from multiple small developments. JUNE, 1980 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT'S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be of such size, characte~ and location that it can be safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with •evere limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the ~ommunity. URBAN LAND USE POLICIES 1. THE MAJORITY.OF ORONO'S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential. uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation. services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 I& ■Jfillffln I • • • I • • ,1 C I, L ', I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents • Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged . 3. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. 4. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. 5. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. CMP 4-17 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 6. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. 7. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a ~unicipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. 8. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the. existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. 9. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will n~be expanded into the rural area and urban servicesand facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. 10. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for·minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. CMP 4-18 j l j f u ' ii 11 ri U{ • II • LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro- hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm wat~r nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for·that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 LJ LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUASI- AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. 3. RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDI1IONS. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water table, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. 4. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be exterided into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will•be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. 5. RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural are~s or at rural densities. 6. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEh1ER SERVICE. Orono's soil, topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water, surface water or the. public health. CMP 4-20 I I i • • LAND USE JUNE, 1980 7. RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPABILITY. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water table. 8. RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for.the intended use, especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and internal improvement maintenance, so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. 9. RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOOD AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marsh- lands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available· privately owned and maintained open space. 10. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total population in the wate~shed increases, the total requirement for storm.water filtration will increase. Orono's rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration. CMP 4-21 --------............... ~----- I I I I _j LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS WILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In addition, the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas, including minimum setbacks, green belts, clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono's rural shoreline as seen from the lake. THE LAND USE PLAN MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY: THE DESIGNATION OF ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The detaile location of the dividing line (the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluation of each of the elements of this Community Management Plan. Environmental concerns, historic land use patterns, and the availability of sewer, transportation and other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actual MUSA line location. Orono's Urban Service Area identifies those portions of the City that have been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro- politan Council's Development Framework Guide. Orono's Rural Service Area identifies those portions of the City that do not have urban services and are not planned to have urban services. Orono's Rural Service Area is intended to permanently accommodate General Rural Land Uses and housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council, and as distinctly different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally describe and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14, 198C This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the broad-brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan CounciJ ,Orono's MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and land use plans of adjoining municipalitie~. Orono's MciSA line location direct: affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City~ MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the basis for land use zoning decisions. CMP 4-22 To: From: Date: Re: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner January 10, 2000 #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: Proposal: List of Exhibits: 20 acres (14 acres dry buildable) Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. A Planning Commission Minutes (November 15, 1999) B City Council Minutes (December 13, 1999) C Revised Site Plan and Grading Plan D Notice of Planning Commission Action (November 15, 1999) Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development Application Background: The Planning Commission has previously reviewed this application and recommended by a unanimous vote to deny the request based on additional issues to be resolved and concerns about DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Planning Commission also had concerns with the lot size of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 page--] Mr. Van Eeckhout has revised his plan to not create a lot south of the Creek. This eliminates any concerns of placing hardcover and grading within 7 5' of a protected waterway. The DNR, Trails and Waterways Unit had requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property. By not developing the southern lot and platting it as a conservation outlot the buff er area between development and the Luce Line Trail will be preserved. Revised 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 35' 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. The revised plan has maintained the lot arrangement for Block 1. The Planning Commission had requested the lots be platted with an average size of about 1 acre, however to maintain the best building sites, and to allow larger lots to the south in Block 2, the lots have remained similar to those lots previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. They are consistent to the development to the north in the City of Long Lake. Block 2 has provided 3 lots with an average size of about 2 acres. The lot originally planned for where Outlots C and D are located has been eliminated from the plan. Outlots C and D would be platted as conservation outlots. Previously the lot were found to have adequate building sites. 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 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 page--2 the site. 4. 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. 5. 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within 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. 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. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Storm water 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 stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1119/00 page--3 Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. 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. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City and developer had explored the option of extending sewer across the Luce Line Trail and the Longridge Associates property to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. After looking at this option it has been determined this is not the best option to extend sewer to the south to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. 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. A conservation easement shall be granted over the conservation outlots to protect the outlots from future alteration and development. 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 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 page--4 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 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. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. 4. The private road would require the City approve land alteration within a 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 for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. 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 for review as #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1119/00 page--5 requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, 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 for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) pre- development. The applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1119/00 page--6 STATE O F MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss . ) CITY OF ORONO ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I , Mary Ann Johnson, of the City of Orono , Hennepin County , Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2550, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of January , 2000. V'll~~~ Mary~ Johnson v' CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kalley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612) 249-4600 Fax (612) 249-4616 ~ The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 , beginning at 7:15 p.m . on application #2550 by Charles Van Eeckhout for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development includ ing variances for property located at 120 Brown Road South . The proposed subdivision will create lots on 14 buildable acres . All persons wishing to be heard will be heard at this time. To re view the application, please call 249-4600 fo r an appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner (Published in The Lake r and Pioneer Jan. 8 ,2000 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A .) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Application #2550 van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks: It was first published Saturday the 8th day of January 20.Q_Q_, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the ___ day of __ .&i_· -.~-_ l_&?; Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this 8th otary Public (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $13.45 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $13.45. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.49 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.44. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612) 249-4600 Fax (612) 249-4616 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Wednesday, January 19, 2000, beginning at 7:15 p.m. on application #2550 by Charles Van Eeckhout for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development including variances for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The proposed subdivision will create 7 lots on 14 buildable acres. All persons wishing to be heard will be heard at this time. To review the application, please call 249-4600 for an appointment. City of Orono By: Pl nning Commission Paul einberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner To be published the week of January 8, 2000. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office ,!!!~,Jae LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Engineers, Planners, Surveyors, Designers & Archeologists 7200 Hemlock Lime, Suite 300, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: 612/424-5505 Telecopier: 612/424-5822 To: City of Orono Orono, MN Attn: Mr. Paul Weinberger WE ARE SENDING YOU VIA Re: Creekside Forest Orono, MN attached THE FOLLOWING: Copies Date Sheet No. Description 15 1/5/00 C 1-1 Existing Conditions Plan Date: 1/5/00 Project#: 99202 ----- -----~-------+--------1-----------------------------------l 15 1/5/00 C2-1 Preliminary Site Plan ------j-------t-------+--- 15 1/5/00 C3-1 Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan ,____ ----f-------------------+----+--------- 15 115/00 C4-1 Prelininary Utility Plan -----,------+-------- --------------------------·-··-·---- I 1 I 1/4/00 Reduced Set ( 11 "x 17 ") ~----·-- These are Transmitted: 0 For approval D As requested 0 For review & comment D Approved as noted 0 Returned for corrections Plans for Planning Commission meeting on Jan 19th. Please disregard the plans sent yesterday, several problems. Please call ifthere are any questions. Thanks John - ~ For your use 0 Approved as submitted D. __ rincipal WALKER POND MODEL PROJECT: Creekside Forest PROJECT NUMBER: 99202 POND: Southwest CALCULATIONS BY: BOOTS DA TE: 1/4/00 UNITS ACRES INCHES FEET FEET FT/FT FT/FT LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO - FEET UNITS AC-FT AC-FT FEET INCHES DESIGN STORM RUNOFF INCHES AC-FT FEET FEET SQFT FEET FEET FEET FEET SQFT FEET FEET FEET FEET SQFT CUFT CUFT CUFT AC-FT FEET INPUTS 1.50 35.00 0.20 2.50 7.00 10.00 4.00 4.00 1.50 200.00 MODEL COMPUTED VALUE 0.07 1.14 3.71 18.57 0.57 0.07 200.00 133.33 13333.33 2.50 158.38 105.58 -2.50 8361.11 -7.00 18.00 83.46 55.64 2321.65 26877.44 22632.93 49510.37 1.14 0.18 1.7 Elev. 936 938 940 Southwest 1/4/00 BOOTS Area Volume Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. 390 0 1450 1840 4450 5900 Cu.Ft. 0 0.00 1840 0.04 7740 0.18 WALKER POND MODEL PROJECT: Creekside Forest PROJECT NUMBER: 99202 POND: Northwest CALCULATIONS BY: BOOTS DA TE: 1/4/00 UNITS INPUTS Northwest ACRES 1.60 1/4/00 35.00 BOOTS 0.20 INCHES 2.50 FEET 7.00 Elev. Area Volume FEET 10.00 Sq.Ft. Cu.Ft. FT/FT 4.00 FT/FT 4.00 936 100 0 0 0.00 1.50 938 1050 1150 1150 0.03 FEET 200.00 940 2480 3530 4680 0.11 MODEL COMPUTED UNITS VALUE AC-FT 0.08 0.11 AC-FT 1.14 FEET 3.71 1.9 INCHES 18.57 DESIGN STORM RUNOFF INCHES 0.57 AC-FT 0.08 FEET 200.00 FEET 133.33 SQFT 13333.33 FEET 2.50 FEET 158.38 FEET 105.58 FEET -2.50 SQFT 8361.11 FEET -7.00 FEET 18.00 FEET 83.46 FEET 55.64 SQFT 2321.65 CUFT 26877.44 CUFT 22632.93 CUFT 49510.37 AC-FT 1.14 3.71 WALKER POND MODEL PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: POND: CALCULATIONS BY: DATE: INPUT VARIABLE: WATERSHED AREA CURVE NUMBER IMPERVIOUS FRACTION DESIGN STORM RUNOFF Creekside Forest 99202 Northeast BOOTS 1/4/00 UNITS INPUTS ACRES 1.00 35.00 0.20 INCHES 2.50 FEET 7.00 FEET 10.00 FT/FT 4.00 FT/FT 4.00 1.50 FEET 200.00 MODEL COMPUTED UNITS VALUE AC-FT 0.05 AC-FT 1.14 FEET 3.71 INCHES 18.57 INCHES 0.57 AC-FT 0.05 FEET 200.00 FEET 133.33 SQFT 13333.33 FEET 2.50 FEET 158.38 FEET 105.58 FEET -2.50 SQFT 8361.11 FEET -7.00 FEET 18.00 FEET 83.46 FEET 55.64 SQFT 2321.65 CUFT 26877.44 CUFT 22632.93 CUFT 49510.37 AC-FT 1.14 3.71 Northeast 1/4/00 BOOTS Elev. Area Volume Sq. Ft. Cu.Ft. 936 10 0 0 0.00 938 930 940 940 0.02 940 2325 3255 4195 0.10 0.10 1.8 WALKER POND MODEL PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: POND: CALCULATIONS BY: DATE: WATERSHED AREA CURVE NUMBER IMPERVIOUS FRACTION DESIGN STORM MAXIMUM DEPTH BENCH WIDTH be BENCH SLOPE be SIDE SLOPE ab LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO DESIGN STORM RUNOFF Creekside Forest 99202 Southeast BOOTS 1/4/00 UNITS INPUTS ACRES 0.40 35.00 0.20 INCHES 2.50 FEET 7.00 FEET 10.00 FT/FT 4.00 FT/FT 4.00 -1.50 FEET 200.00 MODEL COMPUTED UNITS VALUE AC-FT 0.02 AC-FT 1.14 FEET 3.71 INCHES 18.57 INCHES 0.57 AC-FT 0.02 FEET 200.00 FEET 133.33 SQFT 13333.33 FEET 2.50 FEET 158.38 FEET 105.58 FEET -2.50 SQFT 8361.11 FEET -7.00 FEET 18.00 FEET 83.46 FEET 55.64 SQFT 2321.65 CUFT 26877.44 CUFT 22632.93 CUFT 49510.37 AC-FT 1.14 FEET 3.71 Southeast 1/4/00 BOOTS Elev. Area Volume Sq.Ft. Cu. Ft. 936 0 0 0 0.00 938 1050 1050 1050 0.02 940 3290 4340 5390 0.12 0.12 1.6 TELECOPY COVER LETTER Please deliver the following page(s) to: Name: Nancy Chadwick From: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Total number of pages including this cover letter: Date: January 4, 2000 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Phone: (612) 249-4600 and ask for: Paul Our fax number is: (612) 249-4616 cc. Tom Barrett CITY of ORONO Nancy L. Chadwick Independent Paralegal Services 9747 Hall Avenue N .E . Monticello, MN 55362 January 3, 2000 Street Add ress: 2750 Kelley Pa rkw ay Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices RE: Easements for Plat of Property located at 120 South Brown Road (PID # 03-117-23 12 0005) Dear Nancy: Mailing Address: P.O . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 -0066 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 public road. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he was granted an easement for ro ad purposes over a 40' corridor legally described as Tract G of RSL No . 1022 (PlD # 03-117-23 12 0004) which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. The property is owned by John Dunn. The C ity 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 that Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he and Mr. Dunn had completed sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s . 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. Would it be possible for you to research what easements have actually have been recorded, and if Mr. Van Eeckhout has leg iil access to his property by constructing a road over Mr. Dunn 's property (Tract G)? Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss these two easements. Tom Barrett was present at the most recent Council meeting when they were discussed. 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 main tained by the Homeowners Association, but the corridor is owned by Mr. Dunn. Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 The Preliminary Plat will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, January 19, 2000. Do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 249-4623 should you have any questions. Sincerely, 'Y~;J~ Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Enclosures A Plat Map B Copy of Plat of Kallestad Acres 2 (Z4) 192 7Z7.2 r/ I I I .1 /::' ~- (76) (7) 544 \..__.J ' cal n fgJ JI (£ I!, 9\ fl ,,,, I (9) NB9•!:5' \B"E 475 (3) (11) m.sa -443 - 55) ( 1) (2) 15!L53 II ~lUl~l!1ln'I~ ~lUl~wnrnx ~[)11© ~lUl~©I ~IEtHl\l[)1) ~ ~~;~ ;;; -'~f;i~~ {/) KALLESTAD AC.RES Norlhw~~I <:.ornt!f' of ·/.he 1 Narfhwe,f ~ of' 'th~ Nor fl, -/, ea,-1 y,. of s,d·/or, .3, -' Townsh,f' /17 Norlh, Ron9e 1 i!-' >vbl of lh, .Sfh P.M. ( l-l~nnep/,1 {ovnfy /1onumenl) I I \1 I V "' I ., Ir, ~~ We..5f 11',u. of fhe Nor#,we~/. ~._, ~ YI of I-he ltbrlfteo3.f /",< of - ;;.:.;:; .,~:-;;';i;t;, ... · 1 "'3-..... fhe .5'1-h PM. "' "' I " "' <o ~ ::i:: l~i 33 'J ''{ 1, ~ Ct "I: C) ~ Q::: " ~ "-~ \o "' ;).._ ' I--. , .... ~' <:: ' C'.:: ~ :::i C) () '-) c,) SCALE IN FEET , /,,,,J'~ ,,' ..... o .. "' "! ,, ~ EAST 172.00 2 ~ ---- 0 /00 I I ' ' --, 200 cenferl/11~ of Lon7 Lak.e Cr"t:t!./... ------ /0 1 GORDON R. COJ LAND SURVEYOR 8 I LONG LAKE , MINNES N R co..J.. · o...11'\. J l,"-t· ; \ ; -J---; ~ "'-~.Q.YIA~ o DENOTES IRON MONl BEARINGS SHOWN ARE A B . , CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION December 29, 1999 Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: ZONING APPLICATION #2550 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an application is considered complete. Your application completion date was November 1, 1999. The 60 day review period may be extended by the City of Orono by notification to the applicant. The City Council has tabled your request for subdivision, conditional use permit and variances. The application deadline date for #2540 is December 31, 1999. The City of Orono is hereby extending your application an additional 60 days to allow an extended review period. The earliest your application can return to the Planning Commission in January 19, 1999. The new application expiration date is March 2, 2000. The earliest potential date that the City Council could take action on this application is February 14, 2000. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions. Sincerely, 0/~ Jd4~ Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 -~o:t>>:i /0 ', 0) f( -. : ', I \ 'v,.. :,..) ' " ~' \.~ .';!', II ~/1 \\~ ,11., .. ,.,1\,. <.),;/ \' '-:~ }!·', ,_1~ ~ / \ <~ b-:r,, I •~o~// ',:; ... "-1:?iS,,0, __,,,, CITY of ORONO l'.0.IIOXM CRYS'JAL UAY, MINNJ:SOTA .~5.12.1 Mr. Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ;('. (Q r~ lf U ~.f'C,!';l ,•,1:; •• : --·-------, . ;,: I I. ~-: ~ 0 3 3 ~ .. ... , _______ , * * N , .. ET EA • 1' -· 4102747 / J ___ .~ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15 , 1999 (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the Shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land , he would tend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved , Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24 ' by 30' garage to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE : Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SUBDIVISION FOR__ ---~-- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m . -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted . Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated 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 Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cl uster development and preservation space. The RR-18 zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRD as a conditional use . Under a PRO the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots . The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac . The development would also include three larger lots, Lots 5, 6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake . Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRO would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes . This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements . Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road . The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. · The subdivision is .located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future . It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he 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 ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the ONR issues resolved as well prior 'fo approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRO, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRO the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to ttie City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stol!dard stated he would be in favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlots. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good airection to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. -10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#2542 Bruce Hedblom, Continued) Bruce Hedblom, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck and replace it with a 10.6' by 23.4' three season porch and 10.6' by 9' wood deck. This proposal would not increase the size of the space but would change the use. The space will consist primarily of the three season porch and a small portion on the end will be deck. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will remain the same. Hedblom stated at the time the house was originally constructed in 1972/1973, it met all the required building codes at that time. Hedblom noted the footprint of the house will not change with this proposal. Hedblom stated he are interested in making the deck more usable by converting it to a three season porch. Hedblom stated his adjoining neighbors do not object to this project. There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired why City Staff was recommending denial on this application. Bottenberg stated Staff was recommending denial of this application due to the excessive hardcover that currently exists on the property. Hedblom noted that the hardcover will remain the same. Lindquist commented that there is some plastic underlayment that could be removed. Hedblom stated the plastic underlayment adjacent to the house is there for drainage purposes, but he would be willing to remove it if requested to do so. Lindquist stated he would like to see the plastic underlayment removed. Lindquist noted he does not have a problem with the hardcover Hedblom noted that the residence is under the structural coverage limits. Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the application. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2542, Bruce Hedblom and Carol Cline-Hedblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to lakeshore hardcover and granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to permit construction of a three season porch and deck to replace an existing deck, subject to the removal of the plastic and permeable underlayment and rock. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1. Stoddard stated he voted against this application due to the increased structure in the average lakeshore setback. (#8) #2543 TED EDIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD -VARIANCES, 10:41 p.m. -10:52 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Ted Edin, Applicant, was present. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEl\IBER 15, 1999 stated one mistake on the survey is the size of the screen porch should be approximateiy the garage being proposed was slightly larger than normal. M r the larger garage is the need for a stairway to access the upper . and lower floor of the garage . Smith commented she would like to see the rdcover in this area minimized if possible. Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on th e Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece o on this application . d , he would tend to look favorably Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Applicat1 Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover varianc construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the west side of their residen to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of tti at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m . -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat applicat ion for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South . The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space . Page 23 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 The RR-1 B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRO as a conditional use. Under a PRO the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots, Lots 5, 6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRO would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWO will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The ONR 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. City Staff will continue to work with the ONR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the ONR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Page 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he 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 ten percent slope; C. Storrnwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Storrnwater will 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 Page 25 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition, Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject _to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to Page 26 approval being given. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a • PRO, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRO the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Page 27 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stoddard stated he would be in favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlots. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient infonnation available to the Planning Commission in order to make a Page 28 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7 #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - The Certifi te of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated · e Applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck and replace it with a 10.6' · 23.4' three season porch and 10.6' by 9' wood deck. This proposal wouid not increase the size of tli space but would change the use . The space will consist primarily of the three season porch and a mall portion on the end will be deck. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will remain the sain Hedblom stated at the time the hous was originally constructed in 1972/1973, it met all the required building codes at that time. He blom noted the footprint of the house will not change with tllis proposal. Hedblom stated he are intere ed in making the deck more usable by converting it to a three season porch. Hedblom stated his adjoini · g neighbors do not object to this project. There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired why City Staff was recommending d · Jal on this application. Bottenberg stated Staff was recommending denial of this aR lication due to the excessive hardcover that currently exists on the property. Hedblom noted that the hardcover will remain the same. Lindquist commented that there is some plastic underlayment that co . Hedblom stated the plastic underlayment adjacent to the house is there f , rainage purposes, but he would be willing to remove it if requested to do so. Lindquist stated he would like to see the plastic underlayment removed . Lindquis not have a problem with the hardcover Page 29 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Zoning District: List of Exhibits: #2 550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-lB One Family Rural Residential A TEP Panel Findings and Determination B Letter From Apple Glen Road Property Owner (August 21 , 2000) DATE: December 15, 2000 ITEM NO.: 3 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 of lots 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 Page 2 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. Minnehaha Creek • Watershed District Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Life MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2000 To: Paul Weinberger, City of Orono From: Jim Hafner, Senior Technician ~ RE: Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Van Eeckhout Site A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of David Thill (Hennepin Conservation District), Doug Snyder (Board of Water and Soil Resources), and Jim Hafner (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) visited the Van Eeckhout site on October 16, 2000 . Others present were Paul Weinberger (City of Orono) and Barbara Moeller (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). The soil survey for this site indicates marsh soils, which are almost always found in a wetland. The wetland delineation performed by Svoboda Ecological Services (SES) found some areas to be outside the wetland boundary based on vegetation and a lack of hydrology. The TEP was asked by the City of Orono to confirm those areas. It was reported by SES and the landowner that the site had been drained by ditches for many years . The exact date of ditch construction was not known but estimated to be over fifty years ago. After a field investigation of the site the TEP requested that an aerial photo history be arranged to examine physical changes in the site from ditching or other activities. Wayne Jacobson from SES acquired the necessary photos. Following review of the aerial photos, dating from 1937 to 1997, the TEP concluded this was an altered site. Photos did not show standing water when adjacent wetlands did with some adjacent wetlands getting progressively wetter in time . This is an example of effective draining due to ditching. Deep pits dug to inspect soils and test for hydrology did not have water seeping into them. Upland vegetation was observed to be moving into the reed canary grass. These factors all suggest the removal of hydrology and were a basis for the TEP decision. Based on this decision, the TEP generally agreed to the delineation line. One exception was an area behind the existing house where a small i solated wetland had been delineated separately from the main wetland. The TEP felt the wetland line could have been extended to the 938 contour line which is the general elevation of the larger wetland basin that has been delineated as wetland and takes in the small basin that does show hydrology in the part of the property east and south of the existing house. The · LGU, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), will require wetland buffers that would extend out A to that contour as part of the MCWD permitting process for the proposed development of this site. These buffers will also be recorded on the property deed, another MCWD requirement. Therefore, with these requirements, the TEP was comfortable with the delineation line as presented by SES. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT ·_.,,.·,. Date: October 24 2000 LGU: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District County: Hennepin LGU Contact --"'Tim=Hafu==er~-------- Project Name/#: Van Eeckhout Phone#: _,(=9=52=)_,4_._7-=--1-0=5=9;...:0 ______ _ Location of Project: Tl17N R23W 03 NW 1/4 ofNW 1/4 Orono Hennepin Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County TEP Members ( and others) vrno reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X) SWCD: David Thill (X ) LGU: Jim Hafuer (X ) BWSR: Doug Snyder Other Wetland Experts present:, _________________ _ TEP requested by:.~C=ity~o=-fOr~o=n~o ____________________ _ 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): .JL Delineation check 2. __ Ex.emption Determination (WCA Ex.emption# _) No-Loss Determination __ Replacement Plan Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a Wetland Type (Circular 39) ______ _ (Cowardin) ____ _ b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths ofacre) ______________ _ 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? _ yes _ no 4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Sh<>reland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes() No ( ) 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes(X) No() Ifno, vrny? _____________________ _ 8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) 11/8/00 .~~::::&:.=====--~/~/ 1/)060 SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) (Date) August 21, 2000 · . City of Orono City Planner Paul Weinberger 2750 Kelly Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, We are writing to express our opinion on the proposed Creekside Forest development by Mr . Charles Van Eeckhout. We are against the use of Apple Glen Road, in the City of Long Lake, for access to the development for the following reasons: • In 1997 Apple Glen Road was reconstructed at a width of 26 ft. as opposed to the 32 ft width that was originally proposed as part of Lon·g Lake's plan to · have all newly constructed streets be a uniform width. This was because the City of Long Lake determined that because there was a large mature tree along the right of way and approximately only 14 residences located on Apple --"" Glen Road a ~arrower street was acceptable. An addition of 7 lots/ . residences would create a 50% increase in the amount of traffic on Apple Glen, which is clearly not what the road was designed for. • Construction traffic created by the 7 proposed residences would surely create excessive wear and tear on the newly constructed Apple Glen Road surface. • We have learned that Mr. Van Eeckhout offered an absurdly low amount of money to acquire a small amount of property from one of his neighbor to the north so that access to the development could be off of South Brown Road. It appears he may have offered such a low price because he didn't want the · street to go by his front yard in the first place. He would rather have all of the traffic cre~ted by the new homeowners.driving by the front yards of 14 or so other residences on someone else's street (i.e. Apple Glen). • Apple Glen Road Is having a sort of turnover of young families living on it. These families have young children and any increase in the amount of vehicular traffic creates a safety concern for the children playing In the neighborhood. • It Is our understanding that when Apple Glen Road was reconstructed in. 1997 the City of Long Lake approached the City of Orono .about acquiring a small amount of land on the Orono side of the border for the purpose of constructing a cul-de-sac for Apple Glen. City . of Orono officials purportedly refused to cooperate with Long Lake's request. It is ironic that this roadway use proposal is now before the City of Orono after their lack of cooperation regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Although we are not personally opposeQ to the proposed Long Lake/Orono merger, many of our neighbors are because of the aforementioned and other issues involving the City of Orono in which they feel Orono tries to dominate Long Lake. Allowing the use of Apple Glen for this development would greaUy increase the anti-Orono sentiment. (over) 8 'd 80LO'ON t890 9Lt ll9 3183A 30NVA ~dl0:8 OOOl · tl•inV Page2 It Is clear that the best way to allow for the development of the Creekside Forest for all involved Is for Mr. Van Eeckhout to pursue acquiring property from his neighbor to the north so that access to the proposed properties can be via South Brown Road. ··1t is our understanding that the property owner is willing to entertain legitimate offers from Mr. Van Eeckhout to obtain a portion of the property. This scenario affects by far the least amount of property owners (2 versus 14). ·---~~. Thank you for reading our concerns! ·,, Sincerely, c/.4 9---, ~ vv1,rpi . Charles & Andrea Miner · . ' . l, · ; . 59 Apple Glen Road, Long Lake .. . : · · · (952) 473-6049 · : ~ '• . cc: Matt Goldstein, -Long Lake City Planner Fax: (952) 476•9~22 ••• I \ • .:·· J • •, • . {, ' ~ . '~ ; ..... "··" .... . . ( . t 'd 80LQ·ON t890 9Lt Zl9 3183A 30NVA ~d8Q:8 OOOZ · tz·~nv September 23, 2000 Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 To: Members of the Orono City Council Ladies and Gentlemen: In light of the article which appeared in the September 20, 2000, edition of the Sun- Sailor Newspaper, we feel compelled to clarify the record with regard to the issue of access to the proposed VanEeckout development. Following several preliminary conversations, we asked Mr. VanEeckout to draw up a proposal and make us an offer for the easement he sought. We suggested that said proposal clearly specify the scope of the easement he was seeking and that it be in legally recordable form. Eventually, Mr. VanEeckout submitted a proposal to us. However, the amount of compensation offered, the vague description of the proposed easement, and the inclusion of other unrelated issues in the proposal indicated to us that we were nowhere near to reaching an agreement. We informed Mr. VanEeckout of this fact in a letter which clearly specified the criteria to be met in any future proposal. (Copies of Mr. VanEeckout's proposal and our responsive letter are available upon request.) However, rather than making a realistic offer to obtain an easement through our property, Mr. Van Eeckout chose to switch course and pursue an access through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. In fact, following receipt of our letter, Mr. VanEeckout has initiated no further discussions with us regarding an easement to his proposed development off of Brown Road. Mr. VanEeckout's characterization ofus as "uncooperative" is disingenuous and just plain false. As we indicated in our responsive letter, we are more than willing to consider a reasonable proposal for an easement to his proposed development. In fact, we openly acknowledge that we are willing to grant such an easement for reasonable compensation in light of the value of Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development. However, thus far, Mr. VanEeckout has demonstrated a willingness to proceed only on his terms, at his price, and his schedule. Now that you have a slightly more balanced picture of the situation regarding the issue of access to Mr. VanEeckout's proposed development, I think you are in a position to conclude for yourselves who is being "uncooperative". Should you have further questions or desire a copy of the documents exchanged please feel free to contact us at 473-8396. John and Mary~ 4) n 1 (9) 1· 475 ( I) 0 (76) : (74) : (73) "' ;(75) : , 110 , 1--~~-, I ••• •• •• • • ••• ., 10 ( 21) : l ~ L, ->: ~II.I ~"· ,, I -•----•------------------T-------• TI n :.. . .7~ .................. 31.~ ............. --~ J_ __ __,3~15~__._-, 10 (63) 0 .,. ;~ ,,.. . s. ~ L S C ◄ 1> E ft II.. (9) <~> I Ptlfii 17 (!,I 8 (7) I 036) ( 10) 1 ( 11) ····· ..... ., ....... . ( 2) (69) ----7W:r · . E M ( 5) CITY Of LCNG LAKE 3&0.6 CITY OF ORONO -~ I .-t cP I I ~' ~, \ ~-- // .-,:::., 1(~ ✓• •••• Lf--····~ ~~~ I; ~~---~ V " :::: ---~ ✓----- ( 2> ... 6 ( 10) ( I) I I lco • --t-01 ,~:, I I~ (5 <( a::: O z 10:::~ l 'o~ U CJI : I I NORTH hrUOO SCALE IN FEET GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE : 20 .17 ACRES 2 .88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION / I ! I -OPEN SPACE.EASEMENT TO DNR 7 26 I APPRO XI MATE 100 YEAR FlOOO ELEV •938 "/- TREES -· - -----APPRO XIMATE EDGE OF WETLAND -- CREEKSIDE FOREST ~ CITY OF 0 RO N 0 M I N N E s 0 T A - Q!JCEllm:mQCI Mr. C. VanEeckhout f.t: 812./ Fu: 112 / I I I -•_,.,, I•• U•••••• _,,,_,_ -,__, ------.----. .. -•-···-----· -... , ............ __ ,_, .,.,_ -.... ·-··-··--- ~---- -=~ coca._,._...11-._~~,.,.,...-i---.,,-~·~-..-...----.... -----)lcl.-CACOl'f,a __ .__.,._,......, .... ___ ,...,..,. .,,.~ .. -...i-ct•-----:..::-::~·----= :.-.;~·-=-:=..=.~---=-==-~...:~ .thM---,-,,,~-........... -• ---.... ----~-~~..__ ... _______ la..,E l •N5ICIH I ...... CITY SUIM ITT AL 7-21-0G I ... I QUWTT ............ ......., .., ..,,, I A~-~ I ~ ...... ,-.,.. .......... ~ -.... ..=.-::.:=~--··- PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN [:;JI C2-1 I ORONO CITY COUNCIL :MEETING l\flNUTES FOR DECEl\IBER 13, 1999 (#6) #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC -Continued Barrett said there has been one 60 day extension by the City. Pennission of the applicant would be required for another extension. Newman said he doesn't have a problem extending the time limit. Jabbour said the City would need something in writing regarding extending the time limit. Kelley seconded the motion. Flint amended the motion to state that it is subject to staff drafting the resolution and presenting it to the Council at the next meeting. He asked if Newman would give his written consent to extend the deadline. Newman said he understands the process and he is willing to give his written pennission. . Jabbour said he would like the motion amended to state that the Council is giving approval based on these conditions, if written permission for an extension is not obtained. Flint and Kelley accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Break, 10 :30 p .m. -10:35 p .m. (#8) #2544 ALFRED AND MARILYN RICHIE, 905 TONKA WA ROAD -FINAL PLAT OF RICHIE ADDITION -RESOLUTION NO. 4400 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4400, a Resolution Approving the Plat of Richie Addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -CLASS ID SUBDIVISION Charles Van Eeckhout, applicant, was present. Weinberger presented the staff report . This application is for a seven-lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Brown Road South. It is approximately a 20-acre parcel with approximately 14 acres considered dry buildable. The current access to the property is via a private driveway easement across a property known as Tract G which is owned by Mr. John Dunn. The Planning Commission reviewed this. matter at their last meeting and recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to deny the request for this subdivision, conditional use pennit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Page 28 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application as there was a lengthy list of issues to be resolved regarding this property. Weinberger said the application requires the following approvals: 1. A conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. 2. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Kelley said he would have a hard time approving this when the Planning Commission has voted 7 to O to deny the application. He would like to see what the rest of the Council members feel before Weinberger proceeds with the staff report. Sansevere asked Mr. Van Eeckhout if he has received any information from Mr. Dunn that he will sign the plat documents. Van Eeckhout said that Mr. Dunn has not signed the access documents. Van Eeckhout said his attorney has told him that he has all the legal access that he needs. He suggested that the City Attorney and his attorney work out the access question. Sansevere said he would not be comfortable moving forward unless it was clarified. Van Eeckhout said it is clarified and that he has an absolute ability to access this property adequately. The worst circumstance would be a condemnation which the City has the authority to do. He said the City approved this access to serve this property and he bought it under those circumstances. He feels this is a legal issue, not a planning issue. Jabbour said Van Eeckhout should expect the elected officials to be very up front with him. He said the Council members are uncomfortable acting on this application. Jabbour said there is a difference between having an access to several homes versus a private easement for one home. Flint asked if access could be from the north for lots 1, 2, 3 & 4. Van Eeckhout said it was the general consensus on the part of City staff and his marketing people that access from the north would not make as nice of a community, but it isn't impossible. Flint said that perhaps some of the problems with the 30 percent inclines resulted because of the direction of the access. Van Eeckhout said this application has had some dark shadows cast over it from day one. One of those shadows are the 30 and 40 percent grades. He said they are strictly fictitious and Page 29 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued there are no 30 and 40 percent roadway grades anticipated. He has a layout that shows they can serve all the lots with seven percent grades. Flint said that validates Kelley's point, that the work has not yet been done at the Planning Commission level that allows the Council to decide on the issues. Van Eeckhout agreed that the Council should not override the Planning Commission. He said this is a difficult process and he does not want to change the plans based on individual suggestions. He again stated he does not feel there is an access problem and it can be worked out between the attorneys. He said the main issue that the Planning Commission raised is the size of the lots in the north portion of the property. The Planning Commission said those lots were too small, but they would not make any kind of commitment regarding the size oflots they would approve. He is reluctant to do detailed road design when he doesn't know where the road is going to be and he is reluctant to do detailed sewer designs when he doesn't know where the lot lines will be. He wants direction from the Council before making changes. He said he told the Planning Commission that he is comfortable with a 24' road width and he doesn't understand why the City wants a wider road because it will create more hardcover. He said that in light of what they talked about at the Planning Commission, he came up with a new plan which the Planning Commission has not seen. He presented a new plan with more open space. The new plan would eliminate all the creek crossings. Sansevere said he was present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Van Eeckhout had queried each Commission member on issues that Sansevere thought should have been dealt with at the staff level. Van Eeckhout said the staff will not give him the information. Jabbour said that the Council members want to have a thorough understanding of the project and Mr. Van Eeckhout should work through the Planning Commission process. Regarding the access, the City doesn't usually go through other people's land for a road. Kelley asked if this project should be included in the MUSA line. He said there has been an assumption that the City will bring sewer to this property. Jabbour said that assumption was made by the Council when the applicant asked. Sansevere said he is uncomfortable with the fact that Mr. Dunn has not signed the plat documents and dedicated the easements in favor of the City of Orono. He asked Barrett if that is something the City must wait for before acting on this application. Barrett said he would recommend that the Council make the PRD conditioned on demonstration of access or the proper title. He said he would give an opinion on the title and if the applicant doesn't have proper title, then he can't file the documents. Page 30 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued Dave Mccoskey, 130 South Brown Road, asked how the easement questions can be resolved. Jabbour said that is between Mr. McCoskey's and the applicant's title companies. Jabbour said the City cannot act as Mr. McCoskey's agent. McCoskey said he does not want the development. Jabbour said the applicant has the right to develop the property. McCoskey asked if the access issue controls the whole layout. Jabbour said it can be approved subject to access and it will be up to the applicant to get the access. Douglas Coleman, 140 South Brown Road, asked if the development of the property is dependent on sewer. Jabbour said there must be sewer for this project. It would be hooked up to the Long Lake part of the sewer. The cost of the sewer will be paid for by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Coleman asked about the impact on the stream that runs from Long Lake to Minnetonka. Jabbour said there are shoreline management ordinances that the applicant has to adhere to. There are restrictions up to 300 feet from the creek. \Veinberger explained some of the restrictions. The original proposal contained a crossing of the creek for a driveway and the sewer would have crossed the creek. Van Eeckhout said the new proposal eliminates those crossings. Kelley asked about the building envelopes and perhaps there isn't room for seven lots. Van Eeckhout said the only problem would be the sewer and there is legally room for seven lots. He showed where they would be located. Jabbour asked what the Council wants, a standard subdivision or a PRD. Kelley said he believes it should be developed as a PRD because of the topography. Van Eeckhout said the Planning Commission was hung up on the size of the lots in the north and that is what Van Eeckhout objected to. He said he had guidance from staff on the size of those lots. He said staff felt the size of the lots was appropriate from a transitional point of Page 31 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued view. He is trading the small lots for all the open space on the south end. He said that if the Council likes this concept, he will go back to the Planning Commission. Flint said he prefers the new proposal over the proposal in the staff report. Sansevere asked why the applicant doesn't make the lots bigger. Van Eeckhout said the best building sites are in those four spots. Jabbour asked how the neighbors feel about the new proposal. Weinberger said there is dry buildable area around the lots in the north that would expand the size of the lots, but the Council should keep in mind the lots to the north of this area in Long Lake are zoned and platted for a 10,000-15,000 minimum size. He said this design maintains all four sewer connections in the same area. He said that originally this was shown using the entire development as part of one of seven lots. Now the applicant is showing open space. The entire area to the south just north of the Luce Line Trail is shown as open space which is really almost four acres dry. This also addresses many of the issues the DNR had with the driveway and the sewer crossing of the creek as well as the issue of the sewer line crossing the Luce Line Trail. These are some of the things that the applicant discussed with staff Kelley asked how everyone feels about the flag lot. Van Eeckhout said he lives on that lot. Coleman said this plan is better than the previous one. Kelley asked why the flag lot was so narrow at the top. Van Eeckhout said it is basically just a driveway at that point. Flint asked if the open space would be deeded to a homeowner's association. Van Eeckhout said that would be subject to agreement between his attorney and the City's representative. He would not object to deeding the open space to a homeowner's association. Jabbour said he wants the applicant to understand that this proposal will be subject to the access. Sansevere asked if Mr. Dunn is agreeable to sign the documents. Van Eeckhout said Mr. Dunn is in Florida, but he has talked to him once. He said Mr. Dunn has been paid twice for the easement and he wants to be paid again. Page 32 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -Continued Kelley said he would like to send this matter back to the Planning Commission. He doesn't have a problem with the size of the four lots in the north. He would like to have the outlot combined with lot 7 so it is a two-acre parcel. He feels it needs to be connected to sewer because the Comprehensive Plan includes protection oflakes and waterways and there is a waterway through this land. Jabbour told Mr. Van Eeckhout that this matter will be referred back to the Planning Commission and he asked staff to send the applicant a notice for a 60-day extension. Sansevere asked if there were trees on the western portion of Lot 7. Van Eeckhout said Lot 7 is totally wooded. Kelley said the setback could be increased as part of the PRD. Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to refer Application #2550 for Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, back to the Planning Commission and directing staff to send Mr. Van Eeckhout a 60-day extension. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) HIGHWAY 12 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT-RESOLUTION NO. 4403 Moorse stated that this is a resolution approving the Mn/DOT adopted preliminary layout for Highway 12 and a letter to go along with the resolution laying out the objectives of the City as the process is continued to the final design phase. He reviewed changes to the resolution. The Design Review Committee members reviewed and commented on the resolution and the letter. Sansevere said he objects to metered ramps. He asked if that can be addressed at this time. Moorse said it is addressed in #7, Objectives to be Addressed. Kelley asked about the lighting on the bridges. Jim Murphy said that in the final design there will be a considerable amount of discussion about the kind of lights that go on the bridges. Kelley said he walked the corridor and he feels there will be a lot of headlight wash as cars that are westbound on the new road go underneath Old Crystal Bay Road. He said that Mn/DOT should do something to eliminate that headlight wash. Murphy said he will lo_ok at the cross sections, but he thinks the highway will be lower than the railroad by two or three feet all the way through there. Page33 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#12) HIGHWAY 12 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT-Continued Moorse said there is a question about the first sentence of the letter that states "approved the corridor for the upgrade of Highway 12 without restrictions." Flint said the words "without restrictions" should be removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4403 to Approve the Trunk Highway 12 Adopted Preliminary Layout Plan, as amended, and to authorize staff to send the letter to Mn/DOT, as amended. Jabbour thanked Mr. Murphy for his work on the Design Review Committee. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT None ENGINEER REPORT (#10) POLICY ON COST ALLOCATION FOR SEWER PROJECTS Kelley recommended that this matter be discussed at the January meeting. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to table the Policy on Cost Allocation for Sewer Projects until January. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#11) EAST LONG LAKE SEWER PROJECT A. ORDER FEASIBILITY STUDY -RESOLUTION NO. 4401 B. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION NO. 4402 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4401 ordering the preparation of a feasibility study for the East Long lake Sanitary Sewer Project and to approve Resolution No. 4402 accepting the feasibility study and scheduling a public hearing for the East Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project for 7:00 P.M. on January 10, 1999. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 34 Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/99 11/1/99 12/31/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit Variances Zoning District: RR-lB One Family Rural Residential District DATE: 12/6/99 ITEMNO.: ~ Agenda Section: Zoning Proposal: Seven lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Brown Road South . The proposal will also require variances and a conditional use permit for land alteration, filling in a wetland and road width standards. The DNR is reviewing the proposal for permits to allow filling and crossing a protected tributary (Long Lake Creek) and crossing the Luce Line Trail for sewer extension to the south (Fox Ridge). Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to deny the request for subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application to allow additional time for the applicant to revise the Planned Residential Development (PRD) and implement changes to the proposed lot layout based on recommendations by the Commission. Mr. Van Eeckhout then requested the Planning Commission take action on this item to allow the City Council to review the proposed lot layout and conditional use permit for a PRD. Concerns by the Planning Commission included the size of the four lots located in the northeast portion of the proposed plat and no dedication of conservation space . A PRD would normally require preservation of natural open spaces. This concept does not have any conservation outlots proposed. It would not be desirable to accept areas designated as wetlands as conservation areas since they would be considered protected areas by the granting of conservation and flowage easements with a standard plat. Please review the draft Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit M. 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 M Draft Planning Commission Minutes Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 -RR-lB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development Summary of Request: The Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South requires 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. The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. Staff has met with representatives from the DNR and have determined the DNR would issue a permit for extending the sewer along Brown Road to the south. They have indicated this is the preferred location for a sewer line to cross the Luce Line Trail. 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. 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within 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-1 B 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 35' 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-1 B 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 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland 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. 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 crossing. 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 stormwater 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 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 topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. In discussions with the DNR on December 6, 1999 it is clear the DNR would issue a permit for the sewer crossing along Brown Road not as proposed in this plan. The purpose of extending sewer service from Long Lake through the Van Eeckhout property is to provide sewer to the Fox Ridge neighborhood. It is unlikely the DNR will issue permits for crossing the Luce Line Trail as proposed because a better alternative is available to cross under the trail below the Brown Road bridge. Langridge Associates Property To extend the sewer south of the Luce Line Trail to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, as proposed on the plan, it would be necessary to obtain a utility easement across a property owned by Langridge Associates. It is not known if obtaining the easement would even be possible. 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 of lot 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 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 75' 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 by the 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 Conformity to Surrounding Properties and PRD Standards The intent of the PRD Ordinance is to preserve natural open spaces. The subdivision has not made a provision for any space to be held as conservation/open space. Conservation and Flowage Easements will be granted in favor of the City of Orono for those areas determined to be within . protected wetlands. Under subdivision requirements in a standard plat (not a PRD) the City would also require the same C & F easements for wetland protection. This plan has not dedicated land that would be considered preservation land or "open space". The land located south of the Long Lake Creek has potential to eliminate a few concerns if the lot would be used for conservation purposes. The DNR has requested in a letter dated November 10, 1999 an easement of up to 50' wide along the entire southern border with the Luce Line Trail to benefit the adjacent land owners and trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation. A 50' easement would restrict vegetation removal and land alteration. If an easement is requested with the PRD it would not remove the ability to develop the lot. The lot also requires regrading and filling of a portion of the Long Lake Creek for driveway purposes. If the lot does not develop a grading and hardcover would not be required to serve Lot 7. Staff feels a conservation outlot over Lot 7 would be desirable to meet the intent of the PRD standards. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 1 through 4 be realigned to have a minimum size of one acre. It appears the applicant has located the lot lines as shown on the survey to preserve the most ideal building sites. The lots located immediately north of the development are zoned for 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre) minimum lot size. The properties, as shown, have a greater lot size than those to the north in the City of Long Lake. Other Concerns A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he 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. The applicant shall provide to Staff for engineering review a proposed grading plan for the entire site. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. E. Road width for access to the property shall require a variance. The Code requires 28 feet of width. The applicant has proposed a road 24 feet wide. He has requested a variance from the Subdivision Code requirements. The Council should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. Tabling the application to allow additional review by the Planning Commission would require the application deadline to be extended an additional 60 days or the applicant submit a letter requesting the application deadline to be waived. Application for Final Plat 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 for review 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 for review 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. 8. DNR permits shall be issued for crossing the Long Lake Creek for access to Lot 7 (if required). 9. MCWD permit for grading, drainage and erosion control plan. 10. Any additional information requested by the Staff, Planning Commission and Council to be documented in the Preliminary Plat Resolution. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767 . December 6 , 1999 City of Orono Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, ,· This is the second letter from the DNR, Trails & Waterways Unit in regards to the application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state 's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres . Lot # 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources , Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiple-use recreational Luce Line State Trail. There is a sewer line extension proposed in the development plan. As it ex ists on the preliminary plat map dated 10-14-99, the sewer runs from north to south and intersects the trail east of Brown Rd. S. Trails & Waterway 's preferred route for the sewer extension would be to follow the Brown Road South right-of-way. This would minimize interference to the trail right-of-way and concentrate utility crossings at road intersections. We also support the City of Orono's position that Lot# 7 be set aside as a conservation outlot. This would benefit both the landowners and the trail users by providing a screening of vegetation between the housing development and the trail. Please note the above concerns in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you , s ~~ w ~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger DNR In fo rm ati o n: 6 12-296-6 157, 1-800-766 -6000 • TT Y: 6 12-296-5484 , 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Oppo rt unit y Employer Who Va lu es D ivers it y ft Pr int ed o n Recyc led Pape r Con tainin g a C.4' Minimum o f 10 % Post·Cons um cr Wa ~tc Ceil Straus DNR Water Division i.200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 November 30, 1999 Dear Ceil: CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Enclosed is a copy of a 7-lot subdivision located at 120 Brown Road South in the City of Orono for Charles VanEeckhout. The property is located north of the Luce Line Trail on 14 acres. The proposed development will require extensive grading within wetlands and Long Lake Creek, which is a protected tributary. The plans are not final grading plans, but a crossing of the Creek is required for access to the southern most lot. Please review the enclosed site plan. This zoning application will be initially reviewed by the City Council on December 13, 1999. Do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 249-4600 should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Q;iJL~ Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 612-473-0825 11 /15/99 Orono Planning Commissioners City Staff Re: #2550 Staff report prepared for the Nov.15, 199 public hearing The Staff report deals with several issues that I would like to comment on. I had intended to meet with the staff to clarify and discuss these matters . I made several attempts to do so and of course we understand everyone is busy and time is short .. 1) Road access- The 40 foot road access to this site was established and approved by the City in the past . The City further approved the installation of gas and Telephone utilities to serve the 12 or 14 lots that were discussed based on the one acre zoning in effect at that time. These approvals are assumed since the City would have to approve the RLS and the utilities would not install without a signed City permit. These utilities are currently in place and it would be quite expensive to relocate or disrupt these lines to realign the right of way. In reviewing this matter with my real estate attorney and with the real estate attorneys at Old Republic Title Company they have assured me that I have all the rights , legal and statutory authority I need to construct and maintain adequate roads to serve the property. This access corridor is owned by Mr John Dunn who wishes to retain ownership even though he can do nothing with the corridor to interfere with my rights to build and use the road. It is not proposed to include his property in the plat and I am advised that it is not legally required. 2) Road Design- The final road design has not been fully developed and in our view should not be further dealt with until the preliminary plat has been approved by the City council. The site topography has been purchased from the city and a sufficient amount of field survey work has been preformed and a preliminary grade has been established to demonstrate without question the feasibility of the road construction. The wetlands crossing is not difficult or unusual and appropriate approvals would be applied for upon preliminary plat approval by the City council. This wetland is not particularly sensitive since it lies above the OHW and the 30 year flood levels. It is my understanding that the Orono road construction standards require a 24 foot roadway for a 6 lot subdivision and 28 foot road for 7 lots or more. I would like to request a variance to this standard for the following reasons. A) since this access corridor will not front any building sites no parking will be needed. B) The 24 foot traveled way is the same width as an interstate highway lane and therefore should provide adequate driving space. C) The additional 4 feet adds little to the functionality of the roadway. D) The additional width would require more disruption of the trees currently lining the road as well as adding to the hard surface areas. 3)Driveway Grades- My present driveway grade is 12% at its steepest point. A review of the contour map indicates that all of the lots can be served with driveway grades of 12% or less. 4) Lot 7 It is not proposed that We would build a sewer line to or across the luce line. This would be left to others. I have offered to make right of way available for this project if requested. It seems logical that this option would be considered to serve the Fox hill area since it would save in excess of $100,000 in cost and would result in a superior, lower maintenance system. Its unlikely that the DNA would favor a Brown Road force main versus a gravity line under the Luce line. This is an outstanding building site providing a wide range of options for building even given the constraints of the creeksetback and rear yard setbacks. The Creek crossing could be effected using a culvert similar to the one under Brown Road. Since the current proposal is generally consistent with the guidance provided by the planning commission and City council at the Sketch plat stage, a tabling of this application would effect a time delay only and would contribute nothing towards the resolution of the open issues. These issues are best dealt with on a specific basis after a preliminary layout is approved. It is therefore requested that this matter be dealt with as a preliminary plat and passed on to the City Council so that we may proceed with the resolution of the open issues. Chuck and Sue Van Eeckhout November 10, 1999 Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways , 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. NOV 1 2 1999 err<\.'• ,nONO Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds , and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well , and should be clearly disclosed to future landowners. Sewer plans are a third. This plat identifies a line running from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is no request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer would be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road South being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono Orchard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for the horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the developer and future landowners be made aware of property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR In formatio n : 6 I 2-296-6 I 57, 1-800 -766-6000 • TTY: 6 I 2-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Va lues Diversity ft Printed on Recyc led Paper Containing a t-4' Minimum of 10% Pos t-Cons umer Wa s te be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail. This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement. The DNR would be willing to work with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you, ~~~w~ Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger To: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date: Se~9, 1999 Re: #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 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 drybuildable) 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 2. Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development es Van Eeckhout 120 BrownJoa outh Subdivision JIii 5/99 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. 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 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 120 Brown Road South Subdivision JIii 5/99 page--2 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within 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 35' 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 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland 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 IJ/15199 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 crossing. 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 Storm water 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 stormwater 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 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 topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision ] JI] 5/99 page--4 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 of lot 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 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%. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11115/99 page--5 3. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' 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 by the 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. Storm water calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15/99 page--6 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 for review 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 I 1115199 page--7 ... "" CERTIFICATE OF MAJLING STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. ) CITY OF ORONO ) I , Mary Ann Johnson, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of#2550, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 4th day of November, 1999. CITY OF ORONO 27110 Kelley Parkway, P.O. lox II Cryetal lay, MN SUH Phone (812) 241•4800 Fax (812) 241•4818 ~ The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing In the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, November 15, 1999, beginn ing at 8:00 p.m . on applicat ion #2550 by Charles Van Eeckhout for a subdivision and condltlona l use perm it for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The proposed subdivision will create 7 Iota on 14 acres . All persons wishing to be heard will be heard at this time . To review the applicatlon , please ca ll 249-4600 ·1or an appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Pau l Weinberger, Adm inistrator/P lanner Zoning (Published In The Laker and Pioneer Oct . 30, 1999) Affidavit of Publication St ate of Minnesota, Coun ty of Hennepin . Bill Holm , being duly swomon oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER , Mound, Minnesota , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A .) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements consti t uting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A .07 , and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Application #2 550 Van Eec k hout which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspape r, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks : It was first published Saturday the 30th day of October 19--2.2.__, and w as t hereaft er print ed and pub li shed ev e ry Saturday , to and including Saturday, Subscribed and sworn to me on this 30th By: 99 -+---------I 19 --• Public (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $12 .90 pe r inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12 .90. (3) Rate a ct ually charged fo r above matter: $7.19 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.14. .... Application # 2 5 5 0 -~~---- Date Received / .J -/,-Cf 7' Amount Paid ~ 7 O 5, o o CITY OF ORONO -SUBDIVISION APPLICA TIO~D'K1' A f p/. Dafe _n/, L99 PROPERTY LOCATION Site address I Z.O 5 f,12,.ow 'IJ rz..o /\; o Pro p erty Identifi cation Nuinber (P ID ) _________ ~-----~-- Please check one -Property __ abstract or ~torrens ? Attach legal description to application. TruJ.L T /-{ ~Ls APPLICANT Name C14A.12-L~S \/4NC2.c..1<.1-1ovr Address 12.o S f?'2.DW.,.J ,g.,p City i,.oH) l-, . Ul. ~~ Phone (home) ~ 7'"$-0 ~ Z-~ Zip 5'>3SL Phone (work) ---- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ----------------------------Address __________________ Phone (home) ___ _ City Zip __ Phone (work) ___ _ ( attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use ( check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL z.o Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ___ _ Other (specify) ___ _ 7 Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) V Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites I Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) G, ·NewUnits 1 Total Units 3 Units per _I _ Acres ---- ----Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land V Residential ---- ----Other (specify) ___ _ 9 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. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. · As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notifled of this application . Zoning Official's Signature___________________ . Date_~------------ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION I. 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. Zoning Official's Signature___________________ Date _____________ _ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: ___ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 ___ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 ___ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 )( Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) ___ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ___ Legal Review and Filing: ___ Subdivision only $75.00 ___ Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 ___ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) ___ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ___ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ___ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ___ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: X Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.SO/lineal ft.; 1100 lin. ft. x .50 = $ 550 ___ Proposed Public Roads $900 .00 + $.SO/lineal ft.; ___ lin. ft. x .50 = $ __ _ -~-Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 )( Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ___ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ___ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ___ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x __ new lots ..d;\~ C. :Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees . (, v-o.J.•"" c ~ \.1 Pv-o..\-, de J ~ X Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) R O \\~clc.ov-M'"' / L°"'~ L....b Cir-u.~ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 Roa. d l,J,.&fl..... ·. )( PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit o~\\ot w ;o~"'-.- ;so ·1150 't2.5 370 2/0 $. 2105 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Pla?ning Commission a~d Coun~· . ss . to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordmance. ~ Applicant's Signatur ~ Date ? -Z 2 -9 CJ 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 Commiss io n and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting . 10 -~ -Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates En gi n ee rs & Archite cts November 9, 1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. • J oseph C. A nde rlik, P.~. • Marv in L. Sorvala, P.E . • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. • Robert G. Sc h u nicht, P.E. • Jerry A. Bour don , P.E . • Robert W. Rosene, P.E., Ri ch ard E. Turner, P.E . and Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A .. Senior Consult ants A ssociat e Principals: H oward A. Sanford, P.E . • Keith A. Gordon, P.E . • Rob e rt R. Pfefferl e, P.E .• Richard W. Foster, P.E. • David 0. Loskota, P.E . • Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. • Mark A. H a n so n , P.E .• Michael T. Rautmann, P.E . • Ted K.Field. P.E. • Ke n neth P. Anderson. P.E . • Mark R. Rolfs, P.E .• Sidn ey P. Wi lliamson, P.E ., LS. • Robert I' Kotsmith • Agnes M . Ring • A ll an Ric k Schmidt, P.E . Offices: St. Pa ul, Ro chester, Willmar and St. Clo u d, MN • Mi l waukee, W I Website: www.bonest ro o.com We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is across a parcel marked easement area. The parcel is 40-feet wide. The ownership of this easement area is unclear . We recommend that the access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not across an easement. The access should be a minimum of 50-feet in width to meet City standards for a public or private street. The proposed typical street sections do meet the City standards for a private street serving seven or more units . The typical street section for station 0+00 to 4+00 shows an urban curb and gutter section while station 4+00 to the end shows a rural section with ditches . A method of conveying storm water from the urban to rural section should be shown on the plans. This may require flumes , swales, ditching or storm sewer construction . The driveway serving the existing house will need to be relocated so that it doesn 't encroach onto Lot 6 . Proposed driveway locations to all Lots should be shown on the plans . It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2,3 and 7 . Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as we recommend 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 crossing. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review . Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading , particularly along the wetland . Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses . 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City's' Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. A general location for a NURP pond has been identified on the plans. The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10 : 1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level (NWL). The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides. I-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to the pond . A drainage area map , storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City ordered and rece ived a feasibility report for sanitary sewer to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood located just south of the Van Eeckout property . 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 Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckout 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 in Long Lake . This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood if permission were obtained to cross the Luce Line and the parcel directly south of the Luce Line. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow the gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer 2335 W e st Highwa y 36 • St. Paul , MN 55113 • 65 1-63 6 -4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 system. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road and determine whether a westerly extension of the sewer to South Brown Road makes sense. We can provide a cost estimate to extend the proposed sewer southerly to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood with gravity sewer if the City so desires. 5. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 146. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of - ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at ( 651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. =ell2~ Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono CITY of ORONO Street Address: Tom Kellogg, City Engineer Bonestroo, Rosene , Anderlik & Associates 2335 West Hw-y 36 St . Paul , .MN 55113 October 27, 1999 RE: Zoning Applications Dear Tom: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 The City of Orono has received the following applications for subdi v ision. If you hav e any questions or require additional information for your initial engineering review· please let me know. I can be contacted at (612) 249-4623 . The Orono Planning Commission meeting is on November 15 , 1999. #2535 Render Development has submitted a subdivision application to create 3 lots where 4 lots exist. Render had a subdivision completed last year for Lots 1, 2 and 3 , Tonkawa Shores . They have an option to purcha~e a property located at 3430 Nprth Shore Drive and include the property increasing the lot size for Lots 1 and 2. A stormwater pond was not required for the previous proposal. The development will be served by sanitary sewer and private wells. #2550 Charles Van Eeckout has submitted a subdivision application for a 7 lot subdi vision and a conditional use permit for a planned residential development. He has indicated on the survey a proposed sewer line. This development would be connected to sewer service from Long Lake. The Code requires a 50 foot platted right-of-way for access to the property. The road would serve the seven proposed lots and the lot to the south owned by Jim Dunn. Nf.r. Dunn also owns the 40 foot access outlot. The minimum paved width for the road is 28 feet for eight lots to be constructed on a 40 foot outlot. Mr. Van Eeckout has indicated he would prefer to construct a 24 foot road . The property is located immediately north of the proposed Fo x Ridge sewer project. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (6U) 249-4616 CITY of ORONO Suzann Willhite Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways 9925 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 November 2, 1999 Dear Suzann: Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Enclosed is a copy of the 7-lot subdivision located at 120 Brown Road South, per our November 2, 1999 telephone conversation. The property is located north of the Luce Line Trail on 14 acres. Please review the enclosed site plan/survey and submit comments before the public hearing on Monday, November 15, 1999. Do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 249-4600 should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~J ~JL,;r__._, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 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 / O . 7 q a c . d. Y-y lo+!. / -7 I. l.p f.o o. c . d \' i O 0-t \o + s A + B 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-1B Zoning District Standards 2 . Section 10.32 -Planned Residential Development #25 5 0 Charles Va n Eeckh out 120 Brown Road Sou th Subdivis ion JIi i 5/99 page --/ 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 cluster 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 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 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 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11115/99 page--2 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 of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within 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 35' 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 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland 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 crossing. 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 stormwater 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 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 topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15199 page--4 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 l 960'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 of lot 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 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%. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision ll/15199 page--5 3. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' 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 by the 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 if he 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 for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will 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. If it is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. 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 for review as requested by the City Engineer. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision JJ/15/99 page--6 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 for review 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 11/15/99 page--7 Orono Staff and City Council Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 S Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 Aug 2,.,199i Re; Fox Ridge sewer Project I would like to make some comments in regards to the proposed Fox Ridge Sewer project. While it is my understanding that you are familiar with these items It is my desire to put my position in writing. 1) It seems clear to me that between $50,000 and $100,000 or more could be saved if a gravity system was routed through my property . Additional services could be routed from Brown Road down my present driveway to the possible new line. This system could eliminate the grinders and would not likely involve any pumping prior to the Long lake lift station. This lift station has additional capacity available. 2) I would provide the needed easements at no cost but would like to hook up in exchange for the easements. My present system has been classified by Orono as non- conforming. I would expect to pay the hookup costs and any Long lake capital unit costs. 3) Should I apply for and receive additional building permits for my property these sites would expect to pay a fair share of the cost and these funds could be used to further reduce the cost to the Fox Ridges sites through an assessment rebate or cash refund. 4)The wetlands could be avoided and I don't expect there are any serious soil problems. It is likely the cost per foot would be less since there are minimal driveways and utilities to deal with. The creek crossing could be under or over but the grade might not permit a crossing under the creek. A crossing over the creek could be incorporated into an earthen fill with culvert and could be quite simple and probably less costly than crossing the Luce line along Brown Road. 5) I will work with you and the Engineers on this matter should you decide to further explore this option. Sincerely Chuck Van Eeckhout ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12, 2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot 8. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. -8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G beconie a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowners Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated this proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 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. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he 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 percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRD. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13. 7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRO must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast comer. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to Page 15 serve his subdivision. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would·. allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed ' within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19, 1999 Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergemcy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a Page 17 J I f 1f /41/rc(, . ~ p;r ;r/fl /11/J~ -!-_ Chuck and Sue Van Eeckhout 1 2 0 South Brown Road Long lake MN 55356 612-473-082 -lffe'tl/tf ItV7 I fr/ II✓ (t<l l/;}'t7( J1;/ flj j ffe,;ij7 fJ,,,,, ff tlf' A ldl? 1--=571,,-fi~l?('f. June 1, 2000 City Staff, Mayor and City Council City of Orono Re; Application# 2550 for platting RLS 352 -120 South Brown Road ~ It is requested that this application be placed on the City council agenda for further consideration. This application was tabled with my concurrence to provide additional time to review the wetlands area calculations and to allow the City an opportunity to review the road access easement to determine what additional language the City would like in the easement. The wetlands areas have been reviewed by Frank Svoboda, and these findings will be available well in advance of the meeting. The City attorney conveyed to me additional language that he would find desirable to provide a broader definition for the acce~s easement. I have had several conversations and 2 meetings with Mr. and Mrs Dunn, the underlying owner of the Tract G (easement). I am hoping that we will have agreed on the expanded easement language by that time , however, if agreement has not been reached by that time little more will likely be accomplished by further waiting. I am therefore requesting the following course of action if an easement expansion is not achieved prior to the meeting; 1 ) That the City approve the easement as adequate for the proposed roadway for the following reasons a) Previous City councils approved the registered Land survey with the existing easement as being adequate to access the property for the then existing one acre Zoning . C1trvT .DD(%(Vvl_ef--.)r __ b )The county surveyor approved the Registered Land survey implying that the easement was adequate to serve the needs of the existing one acre Zoning. c)The county surveyor reported to me that in the past driveway easements similar to this one have been routinely used for public roads in hennepin county without any difficulty with underlying fee owners. d) Old Republic Title Company indicated that the terms "driveway" and "roadway" and "a " are@used interchangeably and have been LQUtinely: viewed as adequate for public or private roads. e) The worst case condition could be that the underlying fee owner would be entitled to some additional compensation which should be small since he has little remaining authority to use or control the underlying property. f) A search of court records has not turned up any cases where a court has found that a driveway easement was not allowable to access the property, to which the easement was granted, for the purpose of using the property for the Zoned use in place at the time the easement was granted. g) The City has the authority to acquire the additional easement rights if needed at any time now or later so that no irreparable harm can occur by approving the plat at this time. h) The likelihood of a challenge to the city is very small since the remaining easement value is little or nothing and it is not likely to justify the probable costs. c 2) Should the City not be willing to approve the proposed plat with the existing easement as adequate I request that the City seek a Declaratory Judgment to determine if this easement is or is not adequate. Since the City contributed to this problem by approving an easement that it now considers inadequate it is hoped that the City would now undertake to clarify and resolve this issue. Ct -r'1 b 1 In any event since the access question is beyond my ability to control and lies within the City's jurisdiction I request that the matter be referred back to the planning commission for final resolution of site planning issues. I believe the access to be adequate now but if not this can be handled concurrently with the platting process. Sincerely, /.? Chuck Van Eeckhout .. '? ~/fl/ / .. /1.--~ ~??A~----- __,,---/~~~ - Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 61 2-4 73-0825 11 /15/99 Orono Planning Commissioners City Staff Re: #2550 Staff report prepared for the Nov.15, 199 public hearing The Staff report deals with several issues that I would like to comment on. I had intended to meet with the staff to clarify and discuss these matters . I made several attempts to do so and of course we understand everyone is busy and time is short .. 1) Road access- The 40 foot road access to this site was established and approved by the City in the past . The City further approved the installation of gas and Telephone utilities to seNe the 12 or 14 lots that were discussed based on the one acre zoning in effect at that time. These approvals are assumed since the City would have to approve the RLS and the utilities would not install without a signed City permit.These utilities are currently in place and it would be quite expensive to relocate or disrupt these lines to realign the right of way. In reviewing this matter with my real estate attorney and with the real estate attorneys at Old Republic Title Company they have assured me that I have all the rights , legal and statutory authority I need to construct and maintain adequate roads to serve the property. This access corridor is owned by Mr John Dunn who wishes to retain ownership even though he can do nothing with the corridor to interfere with my rights to build and use the road . It is not proposed to include his property in the plat and I am advised that it is not legally required. 2) Road Design- The final road design has not been fully developed and in our view should not be further dealt with until the preliminary plat has been approved by the City council. The site topography has been purchased from the city and a sufficient amount of field suNey work has been preformed and a preliminary grade has been established to demonstrate without question the feasibility of the road construction . The wetlands crossing is not difficult or unusual and appropriate approvals would be applied for upon preliminary plat approval by the City council. This wetland is not particularly sensitive since it lies above the OHW and the 30 year flood levels. It is my understanding that the Orono road construction standards require a 24 foot roadway for a 6 lot subdivision and 28 foot road for 7 lots or mo,e. I would like to request a variance to this standard for the following reasons. A) since this access corridor will not front any building sites no parking will be needed. B) The 24 foot traveled way is the same width as an interstate highway lane and therefore should provide adequate driving space. C) The additional 4 feet adds little to the functionality of the roadway. D) The additional width would require more disruption of the trees currently lining the road as well as adding to the hard surface areas. 3)Driveway Grades- My present driveway grade is 12% at its steepest point. A review of the contour map indicates that all of the lots can be served with driveway grades of 12% or less. 4) Lot 7 It is not proposed that We would build a sewer line to or across the luce line. This would be left to others. I have offered to make right of way available for this project if requested. It seems logical that this option would be considered to serve the Fox hill area since it would save in excess of $100,000 in cost and would result in a superior, lower maintenance system. Its unlikely that the DNR would favor a Brown Road force main versus a gravity line under the Luce line. This is an outstanding building site providing a wide range of options for building even given the constraints of the creeksetback and rear yard setbacks. The Creek crossing could be effected using a culvert similar to the one under Brown Road. Since the current proposal is generally consistent with the guidance provided by the planning commission and City council at the Sketch plat stage, a tabling of this application would effect a time delay only and would contribute nothing towards the resolution of the open issues. These issues are best dealt with on a specific basis after a preliminary layout is approved. It is therefore requested that this matter be dealt with as a preliminary plat and passed on to the City Council so that we may proceed with the resolution of the open issues. Chuck and Sue Van Eeckhout ---. DEED OF EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this 0/A-day of .May, 1977, by and between JAMES H. KALLESTAD andELIZABETH ANN KALLESTAD, husband and wife, of the County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota, Grantors, and the CITY OF ORONO, i municipal corporation, under the laws of the State o: Min- nesota, Grantee: WITNESSETH, that Grantors, in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar and for other good and valuable con- sideration given by Grantee, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantors, do hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey to Grantee its successors and assigns, an ease- ment for ingress, egress, access, road and utilities purp- oses und uses, on, across and under the land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota described as follows: 'lliat part of the Northwest Quarter of the North- east Quarter of Section 3, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal ~idian described as follo,,s: Ccmrcncing at the Nortlr~est corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter thence South along the West line of said North- west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 460.8 feet to the point of J::eginning of said property said point reing also the p:::>int of be- ginning of a line hereinafter referred. to as "Line A" thence deflecting left 113° 10" a dis- tance of 181. 05 feet along said "Line A" thence deflecting right 23° 10" a distance of 192.25 feet along said "Line A" thence deflecting right 38° 59" a distance of 60.36 feet along said "Line A", and said "Line A" there endin<J, thence South parallel with said West line to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 10 feet Southerly, measured at right angles, frcrn said "Line A" thence Northwesterly, Wester- ly, and Southwesterly along said parallel line to its intersection with said Wes,t lire thence North along said livest line to the point of beginning. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD SAID EASEMENT unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, permanently. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantors have hereunto set their hands on the day and year first above written. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this 6th day of Nay, 1977, before me personally appear- ed JAMES H. KALLESTAD and ELIZABET!! ANN KALLESTAD, husband and wife, to me known to be the persons described in and who signed the fonigoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed same as their free act and deed. · This Instrument Was Drafted By: JOHNSON, THOMPSON, KLAVERKJ,.M::? & JAMES, P.A. 4444 I.D.S. Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -2- LAW OFFICE:S JOHNSON,THOMPSON, KLAVERKAMP & JAMES RICHARD W. JOHNSON' BRUCE. r. THOMPSON PAUL H. KLAVER KAMP BRUCE B.J-"MES RICHARD J. KEENAN R.0.ESTES ROGER A.JOHNSON JOHN 0. PARSIN CN OONALO P. NORWICH RICHARD MASSOPUST, JR. JAMES WM. RUSTAD JOSEPH AI..E.XANDER RICHARD S. GOO OMAN ROBERT A. LE:VY PATRICK J. McLAUGHLIN Mr. Hank Muhich A PROFESSIONAL. ASSOCIATION 4444-I D S CENT ER BO SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA !:1!5402 May 9, 1977 Zoning and Planning Director City of Orono 1335 Brown Road So. Orono, Minnesota 55323 TE:LE:PHONE: (612) 339-4546 VILLAGE Qi;j OEONQ RE: Proposed Division of Lot by Mr. and Mrs. James H. Kallestad Dear Mr. Muhich: Per our telephone conversation on Friday morning, I have prepared a Deed of Easement which Mr. and Mrs. Kallestad have signed and delivered to you for review and approval. I understand that Mrs. Kallestad has delivered an execute{ .ciginal to you today, however, I am attaching a photocopy for your reference as well. Our intention is to provide the Easement for the purposes you stated over the North 10 feet of the present Kallestad property. The legal description which I use& was obtained from Mr. Gordon Coffin, the surveyor. I trust the instrument will be sufficient to permit the Kallestads' matter to be placed on the next meeting agendas for approval. If the general form and intent is satisfactory, but you wish some changes to be made, will you please advise me so that we may prepare a replacement instrument accordingly. Thank you. JWR:rnr.l Enc. CC: Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney Mr. and Mrs. James H. Kallestad TO: Planning Commission and Council FR011: Hank Muhich, Zoning Administrator DATE: March 31, 1977 SURJECT: James Kallestad -140 S. Brown Road Subdivision (Preliminary) Request to divide parcel exceeding 6 acres into two lots both of which would exceed the 2 acre minimum area. The sq. ft. areas are not indicated on the plm. The proposal includes the proposed location of the main structure and two accessory structures. The location for the proposed tennis court is only 30' from the north lot line which nms adjacent to the private access road to the Van Eeckhout property. This access might at some time in the future become a public road to other parcels resulting from future subdivisions . Our ordinance requires a SO ' setback from the road so the proposed location of the tennis court would require a 20' setback variance. I have not as yet received the topog and proposed drainage plans. A public hearing has been scheduled for April 18, 1977, at 7:45 p.m. A Park Dedication Fee ':.If $S00 ($2S0/lot) \..ould be forthcoming if the subdivision is approved. Copies of the proposal have:: been forwarded to the llennepin County Public Works Department, l'-O'ffi, INR, Police Departrrent, City Public Norks Department, Finance Department, City Engineer and City Attorney for comments. PLANNING CCM,USSICN MEETING -April 4, 1977 A Public Hearing is scheduled for April 18, 1977, at 7:45 p.rn. PLANNING CCM.fISSICN MEETING -ftnrll 18, 1977 Recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following: (1) 10' easement across the north bcundary of the property to provide for utilities and adequate width for 3, 50' wide access in the event of more dense developnent of the property to the east. (2) Park Dedication Fee ($2S0 per lot). (3) Approval of a 20' variance from the 50' street setback requirement for the proposed location of the tennis court. Justifications: (1) Tennis court is more of a temporary nature than a dwelling. (2) Contoor of the land prohibits most other locations. STAFF -April 20, 1977 Enclosed is a copy of report from City Engineer. Also enclosed is a letter from County engineer with recorrrnendations for additional easel'llf~nts, right of way approval, and drainage plans CaJNCIL ME.,,.~ING -April 25, 1977 Approved preliminary plat and variance subject to 10' road easement along north property line and pa1K dedication fee and final mylars and hardshells. :,n\l.ffES OF A PL'\.\:S:ING CCH,HSSTo>: HE:i:1 e~G lff:LD APRIL 18, 197i -PA(~ 2 01air,,orr:an Mcfunald anriounced that this ,,.-as the tiJDc and place for a Public Hearing on t.he peti tj on of James Kallestad for a subdiv~sion of property located at 2732 Caroline Avenue. The Zoning Acbinistrator presented the Notice of Public Hearing arid the Affidavit of Publirntion. The Zoning Administrator stated that the applicant is requesting approval to subdivide his parcel exceeding .six acres into two lots both of which would exceed the minimum 2-acre dry build.able area. Proposed location for the tennis court is only 30' from the north lot lL7e which runs adjacent to the private access road to the Van Eeckhout property. This access could becorre a public road resulting from future sub- divisions. The present ordinance requires a SO' set- back from the road, so the proposed location of the tennis court requires a 20' variance. Mr. & Mrs. Kallestad were present. 1ney stated that their prop,;rty falls off and any other location for t.he teni7.:i.s court would require a considerable amount of grc:.ding. After all the public w-ere heard, the ptiblic hearing "-as closed at 8:00. After a brief discussion, Dt.mlap moved, Hassel seconded, to recolluend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the follo'-'ing: (1) 10' easement: across tJ-1e north boundary of the property to provide for utilities and adequate width for a SO' wide access in the event of more dense development of the property to the c3S t. (2) Park Dedication Fee ($250 per lot). (3) .,\pproval of a 20' variance from the SO' street setback requirement for the proposed location of the tennis court. Justifications: (1) Tennis court is rrore of a temporary nature than a dh·elling. (2) Contour of the land prohibits most other locations. Motion -Ayes (5), Nays (0). Origjnally all property in this part of the country was abstract property. This means that when you buy a piece of land and get an abstract for it, it is a complete record of the history of the land. All entries against that piece of property are included jn this. An abstract company will get this infonnat ion from the coo rt house and enter it in. hncn an abstract is brought up to date all entries are put into there and such things as mortgages, sheriff sales, warranty deeds and village regulations arc put in. FUBLIC HEARI~G -7:50 P.M. JA'IBS KALLESTAD 140 S. BRO\','N ROAD SUBDIVIS10N (#243) REPORT BY CDRIX:N COFFIN SlfBDIVISia-/ PLAT VS. REGISTERED LA..'ID SURVEY ,... -Casement 1 grant d for road \ No.-~ to the Cityo;df Outifity purr, --of H rono b • oses EAST 172.00 I ennepi,, Co Y O,x; \ ""'Y Reco,d,. -:.(\ N5/00 I .,.--:1 IW ::::__ r 60.36 :r ' 3ao < S,9' ~- -.,, ~- DENOTES BEARINGS 0 SHC -1 r. -1 I i r .. ~ l ~ 3.3· \Q ~ r: ,J .<; c::. ~ C( ' ... h. ·. ~- " Cl \_, ti 1 t,.,'4 ,,__-~rn~.J r- /,., f' '-'Jer·l/or; ~·1.,,;rr~z.-:s ,,.+t i/l <'l (',I ,,-;~-~:,.r/ //n(l l,f l'r:r: 1, 4 ·~~ '. of s(;;,,:-f/(J'/) 3~//7-~,-] ],?' l" lron P1.:1t of ~/1/~_ ·••-• ·-------·-·--·--·-··~'-~-··-·----~ i :ii.:::~.. • ~~:.>i,-/. · · /L.,n 1 "'" r· ~ , ••• -,. • •'-~~,._J,.¢-z:...~~l --~• .• •·••cl t ..,,~~~~~~::~•=-~~~~•~: ~~:9~~'::)',1;!•._:~~Libj~~ffliffffli]P'@\Qi~~• ------·-·•-. ------·--··--·~---~·--·--···-•. ~ I • ~--., ·. ·-)"{ -~~~:t,. ~ISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 3 5 2 HE!'lNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESCTl'A A• 2J5.'~I· '°'' 1e·so· \. .;: -'·•· . \ : , T; "' ,. ,,,,(. ' •,,,,'. . I ; .ti< T, ... , ., !,, . . o/ /,, .. ',,, . \ ,1·~~-1 .:. . . . . w .. ,.,,,, • ._., -1/ ?\•·· , .. . , I ,., . .-: ... ~..,q·· . o o• ....... ,.;;;;;;;: ._z.4'-~ .. • : • ..... 2,"I' ~ -..p••·-.....• ! -.:.····.>-..... I .~-~.:::-=···1·;.i~: . s~,1-z•-· : ~. -~:.:·· >-~ ---··:" . , . ...-:;;-"\,1'-' ,, .. ,. .... •c.~:. . . i ... ~ •• -1~ 1 \\ ! . : .6 •4'Ui \ : . .., : .' . \: , o•~.: .. . ':' . :1 :t' : .. T' 110 07. ~ . ,, ['i; . . , .\ \ 7 _,, .• ,\'"9°A' ..,. : .• ,.,o ,..o 3"1~ t? !.;.~..,;-,-. ~ u.t ti) ~- 0; • ... ~- A B. "' !:: 0 ~ ..., ,., N 2!z.'. .c 1r,· . \ ----~;,. o. "' I JT ,,, . . ' o• .D ol :( ·~:-:":--~ ' . ' .,. : I I ••·•~·•• JJt;• ···••· • . ~ \ ~ S 'a-i 0 J ,D ,\''.'J )/':, 'J()•llt' .r· . N ~ -~ ' 432712 " ~ " ~ -. t\ ~ () . ... "' ' Qi ~ ~ ~ ~ - \ ~211 2 /(;~ /[) o-e 7 / "f-0 ::V 7 I 3 ;z_ I hereby certify that in accordance ~1th the provisions of Chapter 508, Minnesota Statutes of 1949 as amended, I have sur- veyed the ,following described_ tract of lend in the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota, to 'Jit: That. _part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginninr at the South~est corner of said Southeast 1/l of said section; thence runnine North on the West line of said 1/4 section 11.36 chains (749,76 feet); thence North 74° JC' East 3.42 chains (555.72 feet); thence North 57° 45' Ea.st 7.67 chains (506.22 feet); thence South 17.40 chains (1148,40 feet) to the section-line or 88.id section•. thence West along said section-line 14.30 chains (943.80 feet) to the place of begir.ning 7 e:ccert the follo~ing described land: Beginning at a point on the ~est line of said Southeust 1/4, ll.36 chains (749. 76 feet) North of the South- vest corner thereof; thence North 74° JO' Ea.st 374.14 feet; thence South :i:nrallel with the West line of said Southeast 1/4 18/4.14 feet; thence South 74° 30' West 371...11. feet to the West line of said Southeast 1/4; ther,,~r North along eaid West line 184.14. feet to the point of berinning; and All t.hnt part of the Northwest 1/4 of the .Northeast 1/4 of Sectioi1 3, 'Iovnship 117 North, hange 23 West, lying North ot the Minnesota and Western Railiolay Comi:-any 's right-of -\Jay, except the following described property: Starting at a point on the West line of said Northwest 1/L, of the IIB 1/La, 460.8 feet South .of the Northwest corner thereof, which is the beginning point of the pro!,;!:;tJ:;}£...P!t,SXcepted; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 66° 50 1Aa distance of 181.05 feet; thence deflecting right 23° 10 1 e. distance of 192.25 feet; thence deflecting right .38° 59 1 a distance of 60.36 feet; thence South and pirallel to the West line of said Northuest 1/4 of the Northe&st 1/1.. a distance of 508 -5 ,feet, more or le Rs, to the center-line· of Long Lak~ Creek; thence Southwesterly along said center-line to its · : point of intersection with the Northerly -.: -~ .. ·: .,. ?~f\·••"· ······ -. ~-;.: ,--n· *,:f · · 315' E , ..... ; If C •• - 1_ ("\ .: i • .. ~di. . ~ -~:r.,.. ... J'l.04· .~ .. -:.-.--.. , ....... • .. •:/ _ _ line of the Minnesota and Westei:n Fa.Hwy 360 ·' 0 4_;..+\ Comrany's right-of-way; thence Westerly Q N I ' • ,,,,. ~ !:: I .......... '---'--315~7' •. ~ ;.,-:o -·' ~,;,. '.' ::z .:· ·' V I _.. u5 I I 0 I I • t_ t ci, I L O • I 1 e Jt :. ~ :1 ~.., , .,. ,I· ~ :z : :i. : 31' JJ~f .,, ' . ,· --..:a ·I~,./' I• ••" .. ! .\ s : o. : ·;. :--·•·· I {I 1 t! -: ~N··.:1 ,. I !::: t • 7 ..Jl I . ('l ,j-I ·I • -f. V ci ., I ,:; z I ·I '->--' Q IJ I ,j' ): I. :S. J: '• I (:J"\ ,.-, ~ 0 t ,0 ''-1.93' · ,.., F 19Z . .?.5" No4 ·;n plat ~ ~ :z "' N .... ' 0 ... • = C: ' :: M ~ .; "' 0 .. .; ~ c/) 0 -; t_ -0 0 pt Q.UJ ~z 1/1 J4':>.'H, bl< ':>.· H E o.f NW ,., f ,id · along said Northerly right-of-war a distance N cot-. YA-o NE v.. 0 f Set . .3-.11 7 .zj of 332. 6 feet 1 more or less, to its point E line of NW !4 of NE ¼·of Sec.J·ll7·23 \ #" / / / ..-·. :. --.: i of intersection with the West line of afore- said Northwest 1/4 of the Northettst 1/4; thence North along said \.lest line a distance of 678.1 feet, more or less, to the point · of ber,inninf, of the pror,erty to. be ~xeepted, all according to th·e Government survey +.h ... ".'."'-"-f' . And that the survey shown herein ii:I a corr~ct delineation of said survey. Scale: Date • le~-. .S \ <.-t l .. :,, {:,.., · Wm. S. Kelley, Jr. -~ Reg. KELLEY & KE:LLEY, Engineers Long Lake, Minnesota No. 1342 N ~ ~ :~,· 0 u I • !. I. I \I .. 1•·. I I c;"'V'. I '-~ u,. · . ..J 0 --,,., ---Z 1:"L Lon9 Lake Cr•d< ·1:1,• t.•z\' I C, ,'30.0_1• ,. • '3 1,;.so· I'-•, ~~111..c,-s· ·-I . --V I. ~:~ C I I ? .0 : _•·· :· . ,.cV,/ ,o;<;.J ·\.-........__ -~. ~ ~::::--. 1 · Ill" JJ'I ... :··: .·· A I. • ·. . . ' '. t : ,i,; I : I : ---• <R'il1> : I ;: /1,•+ +., 'l-c,rttk __ ;·a·~· \t•;·:t~· _1]~--. :;-•. ----~--- .... ~: ~/---- ·, .... 1 ·.· ... ···432712 OFFICE OF REGISTRAR 01 TITlES l ·., ·_ -~O e\~ f\SOr \ . G 'o \) '\:i ~~\\~'::-. p,_\) .. i~Ui'\~, . ~X\1~~~1• ·~-.';-\~· "i\~?,~\ t~•h·;,,;\ ,QO/J ~-~-.•~~ . \-\ »-', A ~~T~'l'•Y'' 432712 ~) .. omcE OF REGISTRAR OF TITLES l . HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA I . HEN~EPIN COUNTY MINNEi.af A . I I. Hereby Certify That the within Registered land Survey No .... .J..-:f.?.._ Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepl1, WU Filed lit thii ottlco this_· t!-1 day of dv;r« 1 I f.,.. D/95~ at_Jj_o'clookd.:..L11. I Hereby Certify That I have carefully compared the within copy of Registered Land Survey No -3 ..5 2 Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, with the original which was Filed in this office this ~day of dv7wLA. D. 195'f-at-1L.o'clockd:,&, and find tne same to be a true and cprrect copy thereof. · DONALD C. BENNVHOFF . · . · . , R~istrar of TitlaG .~ g)X'.1(~~ .. . . t,ONALD C. BENNYHOFF · . . ~ . . Reglsi'ar of rrtl86 ~ A{'().~/O(..e/4-«--ey:::. Qepu~ 1 ~S2 1 '· '· I Connie F. McCuskey / . __,,. Vice Pres ident ~ Sponsorship and Event Marketing U.S . Bank Place MPFP2716 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302 612 973-0390 612 973-2137 fax connie.mccuskey@usbank.com /11,QN ?)~/,c,!a f<. ~~~ /'I'd .So 84.0Uhe/u,( L.~ ~A--'te ,IJ,CN' sszs, * ( l,12.) RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38. 03-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN STATE OF HINN CDNR) CLUCE LINE TRAILJ 38 03-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASS!GNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL . JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RDS W F FARLEY & KG FARLEY WILLIAM & KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON & M DAYTON TOBIN J & MAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINN CDNRJ CLUCE LINE TRAILJ 38 03-117-23 12 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RDS WALTER RICHARD MCCARTHY JR WALTER R!CHARD MCCARTHY JR C/0 FCI 332 MINNESOTA ST #2100 ST PAUL MN 55101 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R & B HACK RAYMOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 BROWN RDS S BITTMAN & L BITTMAN SCOTT & LISA BITTMAN 25 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE HN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC MILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 MPLS HN 55440 38 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 BROWN RDS CHARLES EVAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN '55356 38 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 BROWN RDS JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0011 00140 BROWN RDS D & L COLEMAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEMAN JR 140 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0006 01945 FOX RIDGE RD DE KIRKMAN & J M KIRKMAN DAVIDE & JOANNE tt KIRKMAN 1945 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 .03-117-23 21 0007 00145 BROWN RDS JOHN M WINTON JOHN M WINTON 1314 MARQUETTE AVE #903 MPLS MN 55403 RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP.ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 21 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN <DNRJ <LUCE LINE TRAIL> 38 03-117-23 21 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN PEARLING JOHN PEARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD KV BIGELOW & J T BIGELOW KENNETH & JUDY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0060 00046 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER & AL PASTER JAMES T PASTER "46 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0063 00064 CREEKSIDE DR HARV ANN HANSEN MARY ANN HANSEN 64 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0072 00041 APPLE GLEN RD DJ DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 41 APPLE GLEN R~ LONG LAKE 11N 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PRO~ERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 21 0014 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 44 0003 "00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0021 00026 APPLE GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR J LOHMAN & RA OHMAN JOHN LOHMAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 , 72 34-118-23 43 0064 00043 CREEKSIDE DR R G ROACH & KA ROACH ROBERT G & KIMBERLY A ROACH 43 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE 11N 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD NE & 11 J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE.GLEN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYDS KELLEY LESTER SKELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE 11N 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD ME & MB GUTHRIE HARV & MITCHELL GUTHRIE 38 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118~23 43 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN & MR WILLIN THOMAS & MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0062 00058 CREEKSIDE DR M & J BERNS MICHAEL E & JOLYNN M BER.NS 58 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD SC FEDIE & W L FEDIE STEVEN C & WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0074 01980 KENNEDY LA LR DANIELSON/N 11 DANIELSON LEER & NANCY M DANIELSON 1980 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 RUN DATE 09/08/99 (... BATCH 507 L L L l. c.. I;.... PROP ADDR OWNER -NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 72 34-118-23 43 0075 01985 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 12 34-118-23 43 008i 00010 BROWN RDS DP & LA ERICKSO~ DAVID P & LISA ANN ERICKSON 10 BROWN RDS ~ONG LAKE MN 55356 ' HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 72 34-118-23 43 0081 OOQ$5 _VALLEY VIEW RD , G W ANDERSON & SJ ANDERSON GREGORY W & SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD · LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 00040 REPORT NO . PI435401 PAGE 31 72 34-118-23 43 0082 000~8 BROWN RDS JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 BROWN RDS LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CER TIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND . TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE , ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NV KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF . ~ , DATE 0 9-C/9 BY t sd.41:t . _f/- _) ..J LOT TABULATION -VanEeckhout Property 99202 Description Upland. Wetland Total Area (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Lot 1, Block 1 31,259 155 31,414 Lot2 21,780 0 21780 Lot3 29,505 155 29,660 Lot4 37,054 3021 40,075 Lot 1, Block 2 78,788 1,160 79,948 Lot2 85,607 1,935 87,542 Lot3 88,620 12,518 101,138 Outlot A 43,257 21,196 64,453 Outlot B 50,180 220,533 270,713 Outlot C 41,192 10,767 51,959 Outlot D 34,176 30,212 64,388 Roadway 37,781 3,836 41,617 Entrance Road 16,000 0 16,000 TOTAL 595,199 305,488 900,687 ACRES 13.7 7 20.7 (2.9 ACRES PER LOT) Roa-d ~ C)s (!,,,~J::J ~ JVfl0 ~o-&4 ~ ~ Yl ~ -e c ~b1 J ~ r ~~ Do.~ e /'fl c { 11s f' "'Y jL ('II cCusb/s pure hand ,JL, I ' ? f ,. rywr .J__i 4./h.J-t.-. fl/! 011 Jiu t\J O , w /dfl I 3 /7 ct c Y--CS. 1/5 . J'/ ex. cv-e.s * 114 , hll>v ~ ½ 2L(1 roo.-J w/lo IJ-s /5:~~~;b ?, () \J , ~ ~ \J,t.~.c _,,_" of ~ Ct~~-~++ cJ-t.; -+a ~0-~4 I C/7 I 2, -ea.Jl.Q~.s /16!/-/C/70 -/9 7/ I ____ .,.-----___ ~-- ---1) td-, ! Jr / i'fl U /Y.f.5 ; .erMil --_2)? u»-j-o-u ~ - RLS ~k/ ~ 1Jr1"0 ~· ~ -(C?S-,e~ -_ 1) /fcc~s_s/ Rodwo-y /lw/t1.S-f,f' z) /Jo t/rcle_/ di u/, 1/, h~ s LOT TABULATION -VanEeckhout Property 99202 Description Upland . Wetland Total Area (sq . ft.) (sq . ft .) (sq. ft.) Lot 1, Block 1 31 ,259 155 31 ,414 Lot 2 21 ,780 0 21780 Lot3 29 ,505 155 29 ,660 Lot4 37,054 3021 40 ,075 Lot 1, Block 2 78 ,788 1,160 79,948 Lot2 85 ,607 1,935 87,542 Lot 3 88,620 12 ,518 101,138 Outlot A 43 ,2 57 21,196 64 ,453 Outlot B 50 ,180 220 ,533 270 ,713 Outlot C 41,192 10 ,767 51,959 Outlot D 34,176 30,212 64,388 Roadway 37,781 3 ,836 41 ,617 Entrance Road 16 ,000 0 16 ,000 TOTAL 595,199 305,488 900,687 ACRES 13.7 7 20.7 (2.9 ACRES PER LOT) LOT TABULATION -VanEeckhout Property 99202 Description Upland. Wetland Total Area (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Lot 1, Block 1 31,259 155 31,414 Lot2 21,780 0 21780 Lot 3 29,505 155 29,660 Lot 4 37,054 3021 40,075 Lot 1, Block 2 78,788 1,160 79,948 Lot2 85,607 1,935 87,542 Lot 3 88,620 12,518 101,138 Outlot A 43,257 21,196 64,453 Outlot B 50,180 220,533 270,713 Outlot C 41,192 10,767 51,959 Outlot D 34,176 30,212 64,388 Roadway 37,781 3,836 41,617 Entrance Road 16,000 0 16,000 TOTAL 595,199 305,488 900,687 ACRES 13.7 7 20.7 (2.9 ACRES PER LOT) LOT TABULATION -VanEeckhout Property 99202 Description Upland . Wetland Total Area (sq . ft.) (sq . ft .) (sq. ft .) Lot 1 , Block 1 31 ,259 155 31 ,414 Lot2 21,780 0 21780 Lot 3 29 ,505 155 29 ,660 Lot 4 37,054 3021 40,075 Lot 1, Block 2 78 ,788 1,160 79,948 Lot2 85 ,607 1,935 87,542 Lot 3 88 ,620 12 ,518 101,138 Outlot A 43 ,257 21 ,196 64,453 Outlot B 50,180 220 ,533 270 ,713 Outlot C 41,192 10,767 51 ,959 Outlot D 34 ,176 30,212 64,388 Roadway 37,781 3 ,836 41,617 Entrance Road 16 ,000 0 16 ,000 TOTAL 595,199 305,488 900,687 ACRES 13.7 7 20.7 (2.9 ACRES PER LOT) -V()~ bck~ A')~ A ce-es~ vav1~.s. _ _ ____ _ I) rut OS o\ 0 CU~ oJ I CTvv vU-j" C<.A/ ol-M/ -ea~s ¼r ~ (.r 10 ~ v~ 1o-v r oq_dw~ /1.::tv /Oye,s O V __ .fu-r d v--; IA.Q w cu..r f <-LA/' f o ,,.e 2--) _ 2.) su.bdi\JiclivtJ ct proj2-W-J-7 w1~ ,' v\/\ ~ dia:h__ O c..c:. -e 5 5 +o O;! p~ ~J- :s) Rc0-.d IA_,,'dfl, t/av-'i~ + u~,,,;~ -- i-o ~ ~ r~J Jq_ 2 i I l,,,<//'c;Jf-f,, ~kv-e-2 .:g'' 15 ,~z;v1',,,,eJ VAN EECKHOUT ENGINEERING SERVICES Site Design • Structural Design • Utilities Design 1935 West Wayzata Blvd., Long Lake, MN 55356, 612-473-1578 KALLESTAD AC.RES Norlhwe~I corn~r of I-he 1 N o rfhwe,f v◄i of fht. /\lorfl, -,' ,' ea,-f Y• of' 5#'c-1-/o n 3, . -' To wnsh,p /1 7 N o rlh, Ran9e ..2.3 lve.:il of fhe .5-fh RM. 1 ( flennep1a {o u nfy Monume ,71) We..s f /1°,,e of fhe Norl-hwe~t Y,1 o f 1-1,e M:>rfhe'Cl:sf !'.f of 5ec.tion .3, Town.sh ,p /17 ------ /llarfh , Ran9e 2 3 w'~.s I of Me .S-1-h P.M. I ~ c:i ~ I 33 , 33 ',Cl :-.t I I \ I \ I \/,~, I I ' I , ' I V 0-, Cl) 'l) r\ I fr\~ --~~ I <.o 'J-....... ~ (\J " Cl) \() ~ ~I<! Cl:: ~ 33 r-... J '!;"~ ~~ I c::) Ct "{ C) ();) Q:: "-=t " i-..: "-~ \() ~ SCALE IN FEET 0 /00 • r--E_osement for road and utility purposes \ granted lo thtt City of Orono by Doc . \ No. ___ of Hennepin County Records. 1-:#= ( '-I :,t./ 8(D30) I ~ _,/, -~ ' /-'io1o' EAST ~' N51°01 W It:° 2 192.25 ---. /_,..-/60.36 o~ -.--r 60 5 ,---------' -: / .. ,6 0 5 ...... · a .3. 1-. 101, 16....---(° . ._ I 80..5.9, ,., 0 ~ 1-- I ,:,,.Jo~ I /Q , / Cl) (\I I C) C) C) I\... -- I ~- ' .0 -i:'-1... \) ~ 0 t '-\--.. 2 00 !!!I :1\ ~ ....... "' 't 0 ~ tf> EAST 172.0 0 ·J () ~ '1 '-1- '-1- (.__) \J 2 l . te,l- 0\ c,( \1(!,.t, 'f-1, \J..,."' ::t;: -~~,;_: 1-... '1-. 'I.. tr Cl:: V\\/)~ C) \J\',~ < ~~~ C) 141 ~ " ~ ' ~~~ \.. :t::. " 0 :--;~~ ~" "-I'- ....... 0 --\J ..... . ~I~ ~ Ir) Ir) ~~ ~t ~ ·,ct ,-1-.~ ~ I'\ ... ~~~~ ' °'o ,~ ofo·/1.,°' -.... ~ °'~ I I I -,-:~ II\ \) ~ . ~ " '\J ~~"\~ ' -i.,, I I __ , -7 4: - ,... -....> l.-.! l'l ('J ).... ~---h.. ~' ~ ~~ ~ :J C) (_) (...) Q:) ~e,< ,.}) p'(:,.~ \ -:,,..~-'--c er7ferl.' .-·::,;;; 1 I'll!! of tc)-LOno L CJ\ "'1-,, . ak.e c.rt:ek ( .... ) -------~ (:) ~ I I I (..._ r:: ,_ V _, ,_ --------j 33 // I \ •. -:~--81' -t --./ 3 0 6 .98 . 13()°!: I ---340.30 N 82~01 30 '£ !.--North //ne of Luce (formerly Minne so fa I I f\ ' r:: I.-I /,JI.- • C) C)(I -----~\() ~-<::---- ~ .J.-r-oil.1 J une t?a1 wa>;i 1 1 '{v('j{Cf'/1 i R / -1 I ,_ C) ~ --------I 33 ~ -------- GORDON R. COJ LANO SURVEYOR 8 f LONG LAKE , MINNES N 0 DENOTES IRON MONI BEARINGS SHOWN ARE A I I 1 (0 • "<l-01 . ~:, II~ (3 <{ a:: Oz 10::3: I'd~ 0 CD1 : I I NORTH 0 50 100 r\.rW SCALE IN FEET GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER LOT UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: 20.17 ACRES 2.88 ACRES 14.1 ACRES 6.07 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION THIS DRA11'JNG lrAS PREPARED FOR REVJE1f BY THE CUENT, CITY AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. THE DRAlfING SHOULD APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV-938 3/- TR[ES --APPROXIMATE -· EDGE OF WETLAND ·I I ·-- CREEKSIDE I FOREST ~ CITY Of 0 RO N 0 M I N N E s 0 T A aDEBammam Mr. C . VanEeckhout Tel: 112./ ""1!12/ 1_,_,. .. ,., ........ -,11--.. ·--__ .,. ___ .,..,.. __ ,_, .. ___ , -.... , ........... --·-· ... ,_ -... ·-··-·•-,ol-... ~. ---_..,_ ~~.:: ~~:..-,.:: ~ *·-... -~'11W.-)od.-n-Co\lO!I.. __ .__ ... -~--•-fl"lfel •f•~ttf-.... 1,Kt---~-...-:r: ~~-... -::: ::c-;;~·.::-.... ~ .. ..,__.,._,.. ........... ~ .-...----111-0iDO.,.. ...... _ atU.1Wt1ollf<# ... po,rtJ~-.................. - ___ .,.,,,. ____ _.....,_ &w,1,wrs--,,._..,. .... ,___~ ........... I 0At£ l•E'o1510N I ..... CITY SUBMITTAL 7-21-IHI C SU8H1TlAL QUALrn' .WCJ.CIXEICT ll!YIEW: "" .. ,., 1!!!'5!L,~ n.-.. ........ ,-....,.. ......... ~ ,. ..... ~-::.:=~---.,_ PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN r:;Ji C2-1 I I NORTH 0 50 100 rv-L.... ICC . ,::t~i do! z <:I oOi <( a:: oz: a:: 3 .0 lo a:: U CD SCALE IN GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL AREA GROSS AREA PER UPLAND WETLAND NOTE: FEET LOT 20.17 ACRES 5.04 ACRES 14.15 ACRES 6.02 ACRES FINAL HOUSE LOCATIONS AND TYPES TO BE DETERMINED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS DEPENDING UPON FUTURE OWNERS. CAUTION TIDS DRAll'ING WAS PREPARED FOR REVIE'II' BY THE CIJENT, CITY .AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. THE DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE REUED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR THE PREPARATION \, ... .._ \ /, / \ \., \ l \ \ \ \ \ \ \\.,. '\ ',, APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEV=938 '/- D.~PRO <1 ;v! ;.-:-c:: ~=:GE C L I CREEKSIDE FOREST CITY Of ORONO M I N N E S O T A OIHER/DEYEJDP"R Mr. C. VanEeckhout re.1: 612/ F=612/ .......... -.............. _ ... ,-...... ,. -.... , • ..,..,.,_ ... _ -· &.i•-· .. -"" ,_ ____ .,. __ iDJ,TI:: IREVISic,. • ~IJ ::.: "' .,-,, ./!tt'5!!.., Ck FkirAen•~·~•lleqiun•~ '71110llllld: ............... -.--. --- ,...,....,~ Jq~ CONCEPT Sr:'E PLAN I• c2-sJ