Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketOrono Staff and City Council Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 S Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 Aug 2, 1999 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. ******************************************* * TRANSMIT MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT * ******************************************* NAME:CITY OF ORONO TEL :6122494616 DATE:08/02/99 14:44 TRANSMIT: TYPE: MEMORY TX I MODE I DURATION PAGE SESS E-144 00' 53 02 906 RESULT OK City of Orono 2 7 5 0 Kelley Parkwqy P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 249-4600 Fax: (612) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: 6'SI -~b ~._l_:3_/~l~-- Re: @x ~ cM1f,• ,_;;;s;;:;;;._·..::,:;.e;.___·1.,AJ_~-----"'=-· -----------~- sender: ~~ ~.A~·F".E4 .t'IJ z_.._,_ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE-~~---PAGE(S), INCLUDING 11-llS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 249-4600. Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: Ci~ of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 249-4600 Fax: (612) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET YOU SHOULD RECEIVE _____ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 249-4600. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 TO: Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 APPLICATION NO. #2490 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: August 5, 1999 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Sketch Plan ------------------------------------------ DATE OF MEETING: July 26, 1999 VOTE: (No action taken) --------------------------------------------- Council provided general direction to applicant as follows: Rezoning is unlikely to be approved Development as a Planned Residential Development with an overall 2-acre density will likely have Council support Development with municipal sewer will likely have Council support Per our discussion on August 2, I do not see any inherent problems with your preliminary proposal to have a group of small lots at the north end of the site and a group of larger lots in the south half, each grouping served by separate access roads. I have forwarded your letter regarding the Fox Ridge sewer planning to Public services director greg Gappa, City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and the Mayor and Council. 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.Please contact me or Plmmer/Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger at 249-4600 if you have questions as you move forward with your plans. Sincerely, '\ ~/(/U._ Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING l\tllNUTES FOR JULY 26, 1999 (#5) #2490 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 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 of20 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 con~idered for a Planned Residential Development. Gaffron 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 ds,es 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 MEETING 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 PERMIT Rick Luzaich, Applicant, was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attorney-at-Law. Weinberger 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 of90 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. Weinberger 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 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 21, 1999 Item No.: s Department Approval: Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2490 -Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Sketch Plan Property Area: Gross= 20 acres± Dry Buildable = 12-14 acres± Zoning: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum, not in MUSA List of Exhibits A -7 /7 /99 Staff Memo B -6/18/99 Applicant's Letter C -5/12/99 Sketch Plan Memo and Exhibits D -5/17 /99 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant requests Council direction in regard to potential rezoning of this site to allow higher density housing. A separate but related issue is whether or not Council would support developing this property with sewer, regardless whether it is rezoned. A third topic for discussion is whether Council believes the site has unique characteristics that support development via Planned Residential Development (PRD). Staff has suggested this might be a potential site for mitigating some of the Long Lake housing that will be eliminated by the Highway 12 bypass (See Exhibit A). Planning Commission reviewed this sketch plan at their May meeting. Applicant was provided with only minimal direction because Planning Commission felt that the primary issues of rezoning and development with sewer were better addressed at the Council level. Please review the Staff memo and exhibits of 5/12/99 for information about the site and applicants' proposed development. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the above noted topics and provide applicant with direction as to whether a PRD is feasible, whether the site might be developed with sewer, and whether a rezoning will have any support. Applicant has been advised that a formal rezoning application with public hearing and neighborhood notification may be the most appropriate method of determining whether rezoning is feasible. TO: Mayor and Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: July 7, 1999 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Impacts: Additional Housing Mitigation Site for Consideration Charles & Sue Van Eeckhoutreside at 120 Brown Road South. The property is zoned RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre. The 20-acre site contains about 14 acres dry buildable. Mr. Van Eeck:hout was before the Planning Commission in May with a sketch plan proposal for 9 sewered building sites ranging in size from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acre. Planning Commission generally indicated this may be a site suited for clustering at the 2-acre density, and that sewer might be appropriate. Planning Commission had no strong feelings regarding a rezoning of the site, preferring to leave this to the Council. While this sketch plan will be presented to Council for discussion at a future meeting, it has occurred to staff that this site may be suited for mitigating some of the Long Lake housing to be eliminated by the Highway 12 bypass, because: the site abuts the City of Long Lake the site abuts Long Lake sewer lines the site abuts a Long Lake public street which might be extended to serve this property the site is somewhat remote from existing adjacent 2-acre developments, and is sandwiched between Fox Ridge (I-acre lots) and a number of 1/3 acre to 1 acre residential developments in Long Lake the property owner wishes to develop the site Council is asked to provide staff direction as to whether this site should be considered for a residential development at a higher density than 1 unit per 2 acres. ~! f<DHICA FA>< 100 Mike Gaffron, Planner City of Orono cc Tom Louck:s Mike; Chuck Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake MN 55356 Via Fax 6/18/99 RE; 120 South Brown Road Site in Orono Thanks for taking the time to visit the site a few days ago. F'Al::iE CH In the process of trying to evolve an appropriate subdivision plan I have retained Mr. Tom Loucks to assist in the land use and subdivision studies. I was fnterested in your comment that the City may be interested in considering the possible use of the North 6 or so acres of tl1e site for " Smaller lot replacement" use because of the lots to be taken by the Hwy 12 expansion. My first reaction was somewhat negative since I had considered part of this srte for building a new home for my wife and I. Upon further consideration it is recognized that this option could provide certain advantages in resolving a number of issues that are outstanding in the proposal that has been presented. It would seem a first step to see if this idea would be supported by the Staff and council If that is the case I could proceed with preliminary layouts to evaluate the feasibility of this option. I will be out of town until Thursday June 24th and will call you at that tfme to further explore this and other issues so that we can proceed in an orderly manner. Thank you TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator ~rp May 12 , 1999 DATE: SUBJECT: #2490 Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South -Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-lB , Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, septic/well Proposal: Subdivide 20-acre parcel to create 9 sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres in area. The proposal as presented would require: 1. Rezoning from RR-lB (Single Family, 2 Acre) to R-lA (Single Family, 1 Acre) 2. Sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake 3. Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) 4. At least two variances to the "Back Lot" ordinance 5. Creation of a private road in a substandard ( 40') corridor 6. At least two lot width variances 7. Creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek 8. Construction of road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands. 9 . Creation of a wetland outlot for "Park" which would be in conflict with City requirements that wetlands in plats be platted as part of adjoining lots. 10 . Construction of an 800'+ private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. List of Exhibits A -Application B -Area Plat Map C -Shoreland Map D -Survey/Sketch Plan with Topography E -RR-1 B Zoning District Standards F -R-lA Zoning District Standards G -Land Use Policies: CMP pages 4-12 thru 4-22 H -Current MUSA Map Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not conform to the RR-1 B Zoning District Standards nor to many of the rural area goals and policies contained in the Land Use section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (See Exhibits E , F and G). Applicant has suggested to staff that the 197 5 rezoning which changed this area from 1-acre density to 2-acre, should be considered as a 'taking' of value, and that this property should be allowed to develop under 1-acre standards. Staff strongly disagrees, and would note that dozens of properties #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page2 similarly rezoned in 1975 have been developed under the current 2-acre zoning standards in the quarter century since that rezoning. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. It might be argued that the I-plus acre lot sizes proposed are a reasonable transition from Long Lake's higher density SFR developments to Orono's low-density rural area. However, Orono has a number of successful 2-acre developments adjacent to Long Lake's higher density areas, and the need for a transition is questionable at best. Lot Layout and Lot Standards The proposed lot layout is clearly intended to make use of any and all high, dry ground on the property for building purposes. For instance, the majority of proposed Lot 4, Block 2, is no more than 3-4' above creek level, and can only be accessed by constructing a driveway directly adjacent to the creek within the 75' required creek setback where no structrure or hardcover is allowed. Lot 4 clearly should not be considered for development. Lot 3 block 2 is a 3/4 acre high knob south of the creek adjacent to the Luce Line, proposed to be accessed by a 300' driveway outlot between lots 2 and 5, diagonally down a 40% slope along the north side of the creek. It would require a bridge over the creek. In order to make this driveway useful, it would have to be extended significantly along the slope adjacent to the creek. Under the 2-acre standards, this lot would not be buildable unless many variances were granted, and it certainly does not have viable septic sites. The knob nearly meets the requirements to be considered a bluff, which would complicate matters even further. Under I-acre standards with sewer, access to the site is still the primary concern. Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, Block 2, appear to be viable building sites under a I-acre standard, although Losts 2 and 5 would likely need width variances. Under a 2-acre standard without sewer, perhaps only 1 additional lot besides the existing house could be developed in the area south of the main driveway, Outlot A. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, each back up to the Long lake boundary and would be served by a private cul-de-sac, although both Lots 2 and 3 are back lots, and under the I-acre standard Lot 2 doesn't #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 3 meet the 150% area requirement. Wetland appears to be a factor here which has led to the shortened cul-de-sac and two back lots being proposed. In general, there is a significant of disconnected dry buildable on this property which begs the use of a PRD, regardless whether it is platted under the 2-acre or I-acre standards. Road Layout and Standards There are a number of problems with the proposed private road system: There is only a 40'corridor coming in off Brown Road where 50' would be required. Outlot A should be extended to serve at least Lot 2, Block 1 rather than stacking back lots on a narrow drivway outlot. Outlot B would probably work OK if Lots 3 and 4 weren't developed, but may need significant land alteration to result in the maximum 12% slope allowed. Outlot C in staffs opinion should be avoided as an access to Lots 3 and 4. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed? The Park Commission will review this proposal if it goes forward as a preliminary plat. Neither the City's park plans nor County plans indicate a need for any acquisitions at this location. The apparent proposal to deed Outlot E, the wetlands, as Park area is not likely to be accepted since the subdivision code would require that a Drainage Easement or Flowage and Conservation Easement be dedicated over the wetlands and creek as a condition of plat approval. The Park dedication ordinance requires that lands dedicated as park be suited for defined park purposes. This area does not appear to have such a purpose, and the City likely would require a park dedication fee rather than land dedication. However, there is a possibility that the proximity to the Luce Line Trail would suggest that some land adjacent to the trail may be suited for park use ... Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed A dedication of33' of right of way for Brown Road would be required. Comments from Hennepin County Public Works would be solicited if/when a preliminary plat application is made. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The sketch plan drawings do not propose any stormwater facilities which would likely be required. The property appears to accept drainage from the adjacent developments in Long Lake, and due the proximity to the creek, stormwater management, especially from a quality standpoint, will have to be developed if this subdivision goes forward. #2490 -V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page4 Utility Locations and Availability Orono does not have sewer or water available to serve this area. The City has considered options for serving the Fox Ridge neighborhood with sewer via a force main discharging to the Long Lake sewer system as an alternative to running it south to the Webber Hills area. Long Lake staff have indicated while their system likely has capacity to serve additional homes, they will not formally consider a request from Van Eeckhout for sewer until/unless Orono approves the development. If this property was to be served with sewer via Long Lake, the developer would bear all costs of making use of that system. Septic Testing and Site Availability No septic testing information has been provided, and staff would note that it is highly unlikely that suitable sites would be found on all of the lots in the current layout. The applicant acknowledges this, and that is one reason he is requesting the rezoning and sewered development. Conformity with Shoreland Regulations Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. The plat drawings show a number of areas where conflicts with the Shoreland regulations may occur, and some of these have been noted above. The key conflict would be establishment of a driveway within 75' of the creek for Lots 3 and 4 which requires a variance to Section 10.56 Subdivision 16(J)(3). Wetlands The sketch plan indicates that wetland have been formally delineated, but no Wetland delineation Report has been submitted. All wetlands on the sketch plan are shown within Orono's 1974-75 Protected Wetland Inventory, and the formally delineated boundaries would ultimately become the boundaries for easement purposes. The developer will receive no lot area credit for delineated wetlands regardless of wetland type, unless other separate basins of lesser wetland types not shown on Orono's Protected Wetland Maps are found by the delineator. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Portions of the site are heavily wooded. The same 0-75' tree protection standards that apply to lakeshore would also apply to areas within 75' of the creek bank. #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 5 Archaeological Site Proximity SHPO would be contacted for a review of this site if a preliminary plat is submitted. The high hills overlooking the creek are a natural feature that triggers an archaeological review to determine whether archaeological sites may be present. Bluff Impacts A cursory review of the topography map indicates that while slopes exceed 30% in many areas of the site, most such slopes do not rise the requisite 25' above the creek level in order to be defined as bluffs. There are many 'steep slopes' on the site (by definition averaging 12% or more) that will trigger the need for careful review of any grading plan proposed. Issues for Discussion 1. Does Planning Commission find any justification for supporting the rezoning of this property from RR-lB 2-acre unsewered, to R-lA I-acre sewered? Is the 1975 rezoning a justification for honoring such a request? Isn't such a rezoning in direct conflict with Orono's goals and policies for the rural area? 2. Whether or not the property is rezoned, is the probable lack of suitable drainfield sites to serve more than a few lots, justification for developing with sewer? 3. If the site does in fact contain 11-plus acres of dry buildable land exclusive of proposed road and driveway outlots, and given the non-contiguity of the dry buildable due to wetlands and the creek, does this suggest that development via a PRD might be appropriate? Remember that area credit for wetlands is no longer available even if the property is sewered, regardless of a rezoning. Staff Analysis and Recommendation The property can probably support only one or two additional homes under the City's rural development standards, and even at this level of development would likely need one or more variances. In staffs opinion, the 1975 rezoning does not justify a claim of 'taking' and should not be a factor in any determination for rezoning or variance approval. #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 6 The Rural Land Use Policies clearly indicate that the rural area will not be urbanized, i.e. it won't be provided with urban services and it won't be expanded by rezoning. The City has held fast to this policy, and has only veered from it in a few unique circumstances: Sugar Woods on Brown Road North: The 1987 Hwy 12 CMP amendment recognized that a service road should be developed between Brown Road and Willow Drive north of 12, allowing commercial uses abutting 12. The plan suggested that single family development north of that service road on the undeveloped 40 acre site would provide an appropriate transition between the commercial uses along 12 and the 2-acre density residential to the north. Due to soil and topography constraints, the site was provided with sewer, which allowed the planned density to occur and preserved trees that would otherwise have been lost to septic sites; Fleming Trail Addition: Orono agreed to annex the Long Lake sewage treatment plant site to Long Lake, subject to a platting of the site at densities providing a transition between the 1/3-1/2 acre lots nearby in Long Lake and the 2-plus acre Orono Oaks development in Orono. The Fleming Trail site, which had been owned by the City of Long Lake for many years, ultimately was platted into 1-acre single family lots with sewer. Orono has provided sewer to many existing rural neighborhoods where it was concluded that septic systems were not a viable long-term alternative for replacing non-conforming systems. The City amended CMP in 1998 to expand the MUSA for existing and new development along the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay, but did not change from the existing 2-acre minimum lot size zoning. There are two innovative options Planning Commission might consider for developing the V anEeckhout property that may be consistent with the City's rural area goals: A. Based on the proximity to the creek, this is a sensitive Shoreland area. As was done with Little Orchard on Maxwell Bay, it may be reasonable to allow the developer to prove how many lots he could develop under our rural standards (by actually doing septic testing and re-working lot layouts as necessary), then allow that number of lots to be developed with sewer. This preserves the rural density while eliminating potential pollution from septic systems near the creek. B. To go one step further, the City might allow the number oflots that could be developed using septic systems, to be developed via a sewered PRD by clustering the homesites near the existing residence and leaving the majority of the property as preserved open space. This #2490 -V anEeck:hout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 7 could potentially cut down on the costs of road and driveway construction while yielding homes that all have views of and access to the creek. Either A or B might be accomplished without rezoning, but both would require a MUSA amendment. While the Little Orchard MUSA amendment was found acceptable by Met Council due to proximity to Lake Minnetonka, a similar case would have to be made for this site. Planning Commission Action Required Planning Commission should provide applicant with direction as to the rezoning and sewering issues, and advise applicant of any other specific issues that will help applicant move forward. No vote is required. However, this application will be forwarded to Council since it proposes a rezoning which is a policy decision that only Council can ultimately make. Application # 2 Y 9 0 -~---=---- Date Received -..L..f_-...::;.Z..:..../ ,,....---"-'1..,.....9'---- Amount Paid ---==Ac..:..=5__;(]:;_._·!..--_0 ---+P--""~ CITY OF ORONO -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address I z..o 5 & 0£> v.J rv (<_o ,~ D Property Identification Number (PID) _ __,,co_·· _3_--._l~l~J..__--_z._·~2~---'l ...... L-'--__ o_o_o_ . ...;;,.'> __ Please check one -Property __ abstract or __ torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name C~t .. h/.1.:vLLIZS. d Su-:;. VtirJ ~C~uou_- Address I zo S BP-ow I'<.) 1<0 r-,,. o Phone (home) 4 7~ OfsZ-5' City L.O ,vt..., L-A i<"" ~ 1'4 ZipS"B~&:, 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 i4 t z.o V Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ---- Other (specify) ___ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) V Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ____ Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 6 New Units .::::::.; Total Units 9 Units per Acres t./:4, oo o Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ~ Residential ____ Other (specify) ___ _ 10 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 notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature___________________ Date _______________ _ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable ). 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 -------------------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. A,pplication 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 Date _______________ _ 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 R e view Fees (as incurred) ___ Renewal of Class I an d 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: .. ___ Proposed Private Roads $600 .00 + $.SO/lineal ft .; ___ lin. ft . x .50 = $ __ _ ___ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/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 C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees Variance $220.00 ($50 .00 per each additional variance) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 ___ . PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council ecessary t process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. /~ _ ---- Applicant's Signature~~~~~~~::::::::~~~~:::::::'.:~~--------Drue. __ 4_-_U> __ -_c,_q ______ _ Owner's Signature -..,,,L::.~--"""==--J--==-_1/u::......:,(j_,-.=---=~=--:__-_:_ _____ _ Date:..___c.f_-_2.0 ____ c_T_1-'-------- 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 r eview meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting . 11 '" 1 10)@ ,o,.l' '" l'!LS:1!0631 (:~,) c=t 7:~ -~:;~~):;~ ~ •-.. ;~---~- -~:..J ~-----~·--~------_.!l•---t-"-~"'--------- (16} IT) .; ' -R ,.;.o-i (9) ,., . .,, i @ I (2) (I ) -! (I) 1 § ~ , . "' i. ~ °J. ...J ., :•> Ill < ~ f--' £If rt. @3 ll. fl fl Y ill., 23 19 (31) ~ m • oh ·····.:··· .. ··• ;::;i::.: .. , . .. . .. : ,•: ·· .. •::. : : b, F{. ;?_.\ . · ... · : ' : . : ~;-, ~:: ... ,.,.S.•,. ~.r"······• .... .. •t .-.~~ . .. ---·•'i'i•tj '· I ·" I;; ~f-tote &JeNb 1>1 s-r Mor> loc.t"" t>~ '1 9 ( 62) !(75) l, ',~~ L 'S/ ~ 5~ ~ '315 t4..7~-+-~~~----.:·.::.:.·.::.:.·.:_:..~ -i. ···········--'318 -------I · •• ;;) :::r··------,-=---~-'.L i 0 . (76) · .. M:'6 . ~ l S (41) 10 ( 63) ~ClJY OF LONG L ·p(i~ . ( I) ~ ~. ~E--. ~-. /]S) n (9) U1f (!. ~ ~ ·, (~) 17 '© ~ ~ --~-- g ~, ..... A E "~·-"' q>,.f-· ( '((,..,:.fv,,•,, '' .\ ,";-dt, .;s.: 11.~'f •• \ ~t..wi '{At.:" ..,,~ ~~ ~ 9 ,4!A) ,i ·-•~ ... ~,--,.i'l::-"¥:J/" /--::,; t,r/ !!,_<Y ' • ' . ~ \, f!~"''\r -~ I . . J,~, , ~ I . I ~ f \ •I •,e, "t,, I< ., )!f!/i \,e I "' ® ~~it~ k OLA ;~,~b ~ I ~14) li: . .., l~o m .04 c 1gi 44 589'• @Jt\;o/,f~ (7) .... ,, ~,,, . ~ ~1/>1 •:,[~~' .. ~~~-, ~-, ,, . - .AJt r;, ._rt «> ~ . . f0:i <:::::::!J ~ ~ (§) & '°. . - ' -i. '$0 0 ( 222) 7 I~ ~ 2 ( l I) J ~ir• .,, i t " .., I ~-,~ .. , .. --.. _ .. r .;Ii ;/cs> ""\\W -(\ .. ----~ti . ~-·,;:,f,?.·;:'1, . -'-'f.£' l . I . ·. ~ I . 1/:rif',;x!J / 1 . . vf ~:::: ~ :r::1 (/',~ J>-~"' I ,._J;1.'J,( ., r~ '--~ / . -.J-f_j } -~~ ~v , -/ S / ,1/ -<>' ~ .._ . __,. -.---? I/ / . . ---=-~y / '----~ / ~@ ~ - 30'E ~~~===~~~~-~;j~~~~========,==~---~o~o~c~11~0~•~1~19:!i:;!i>:,_______ . ,,,,:;{' (2) ~..-;;·:~<sf fi) )A c_ A ~ .,1:;1·, • --~:·MS:._,.,.,. \ I"' - ---:-'.~,. -··-• I -----'" --',j~•· .. . .,. I ..,...-\, ,. I ,~•,).;;t, • •:;_' ... ~ / -✓-~ -,·1 • .i.~;,,;.4,.,_.': -r-''-l~:.· ~·:''·t ~,/,~lt£_; ~;'.J:.. _.., ·, '1}~\'l~·---~~:-rli:<L , • ~~' fa ... ~=t-~ . ~ ) f. l \Q) ~9•s&__:J6· 3) .,I.' :f , .. ~ !/ lf"•',I 1lJJ ,, t,~~-- t ti./ ,_r/_iv g}G ,'{t~ /') '2, ;; .. ,., 0 ~,'';•:1 '":;;;.~ •N1. ,;,l.,,yt ~:;~~{' (';,. J § ~3~'.~; ~ e ~t•ttJ g'c\i:iftl r/:~, .t.rl~ \ ~<,)' :li; '! ' ,,, ;\ \i~i-&._·\ l\~\ -•!il~ u '\·~t-a ~~--:,, \ ~ \}}\ ~ \1.4i• \-;., '/~-~ ' ."!\si 0 .· ;•;l '( • ..1 ~ ~[4 ,_ .. l: ... ,_ ~ .... g 33ITI ......... 44'3 ....... .. - A ~ ~ ( 2) ......... 4~"3 ....... . f f" ( 7 - NI .. ~ 0i0 (3) ---~ .,1----r--., .. <i> ..: ... 75.4 I ( I) !;; .,.; ;il r ... ·,~- ,,, V () SKETCH PLAN FOR CHUCK VAN EECKOUT OF TRACTS G & H, A.LS. NO. 352 S ll0"00',00" W ..-.... ,. S IKl-00' oo•• W .t.... •. ..., .I ' ' -...... / /. z I . .. i / .. ~ I / . ·/ .._.;of' :' I 1• .., / / ;', / // /: / / I I I I ' I I / / / \ ·~ / / , 1B•! ~\\I.'-.\' '' \ ~~e·oo• E , , ~-m.,e , : / I '-,. --\.\\'\\ '·,." "--•---::,,.-, I 1/.; I 'I I -'. ,,,, ,'----,.,,.,"/' / I JI •. \ •.•.-..-. ,· -----,.,',,/' 1 I / I --"''' ........ --, .... __ -----~~-·'· --...... , , , ............. _ ~,':::...:::=,u.::.::-=:-:-. ~ , , , 1 , .--... I''-,~, .. .:---'-:~~~-==-_;:-=~~~--~-~:>,.. / I I \ \ ,,, -.__:...,,. -, .... -___ ,,,,___ \ I ·--::::.. --:::--------\ \ ~ ---------' I \ \ I -1 ---';;:--2-----' --\ ' { // 2.0'~:""-~ --· ....... ~\ \ \ 3 ,.ertif:.,1r ·' 1:-!!.0 ~-,~ , 1 \ \/ • .1: t,e. 7f• ·K·-\ ~· ' ) \ \OJ"\'·"'· - B _d·~o~·c ~,1 ~-' :_/ '. , ____ -. ) \ '·:~ _;, ) ', __ J s ---... ,,,- 0 . I ,, <, • :, ' \ \ I I I.. • ./ ~::.-,· ~ --· \ ~ -----I ' ·/ \ \ ~r1Gt -P IJE"1Al(At<- u/(r/,'1V~ (Olft1-.AWfr'-A""'1) ,,,,,.- : t?t(t·LOr £ (1',MJ<) 5. 08 J 4CA£J . ,,,.,-----) ,. / : ~ I r ;'-----.. ~ -- ,..-,,,----'7- .---' ff•-----....... / ·. _,,f•------- .. , ,.· § 10.28 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "RR-1 B" One Family Rural Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: · A. Any accessory use as regulated in tlie "R-lA" District and "Animals" as regulated in Section 10.20, Subdivision 3, Subparagraphs M and N . Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 -==~======ii' Subd. 5 . Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. ORONO CC B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Lot Area Width 2 acres 200 feet Front Yard 50 feet 290 Side Yard 30 feet Side Yard Adjacent to Street 50 feet Rear Yard 50 feet ( 4-1-84) § 10.20 c. Setbacks . Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of • the antenna and tower from the property line. · · · · · Source: Ordinance 161, 2nd Series --....--~~-------Adopted: S-2':/-97 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Rear Adjacent to Area Width Yard Yard Yard Street 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet ORONO CC 281-2 (4-1-84) F ! I I ---G I :· I LAND USE 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 JUNE, 1980 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIQN COMMITMENT. i. TO MAINTAIN 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 INCO,MPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF 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 environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of th~ Environmental Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage _the wis~ use and management of n~tural resources w~ile ~rohibiti~g their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 i Ir.---------=- I I I I ' I I l 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 - 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 flood 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. 12. 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 ·1 I I I I ,s ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I~ I ti I • • 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 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, character 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 severe 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 community. 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 loc~tions 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 • 0 • • • • ,I ~ • L ~ 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 wo~ld 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. Ali 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 not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and 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 ~rotection of these values for all u~ban residents. CMP 4-18 I ' r ' i. ( I t r l ! ,1 l , ( I j I I I f I - • • • 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 dbcks 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 water 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 w 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 extended 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 areas or at rural densities. 6. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER 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 WOODS 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 watershed 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 a..1 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 detailed 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 described and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14, 1980. 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 Council. Orono's MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and land use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono's MUSA line location directly 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 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999- #2488 GREGG KLOHN, CONTINUED Klohn stated he would like t~e application to be tabled. Hawn inquired whether 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 !cits 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 COMMISSION MEETING 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 number 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 cari 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 COM1\1ISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED Gaffron 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 pre~erve som·e of the natural features of the area. • , ·. . . . . Van Eeckhout commented that the City should take a !orig-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 t'-:"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 on 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 A I. . Sea.I~ lr1 Fe:e-t ~--. ! --- ! ---·---: 1500 750 0 750 1500 3000 8April 1997 / _I ' j ' .; ; ~-! ·. :s. i . ~ ; . ~ I .· ..._ .. . ~ I . ~ l -u. ·-,,.,, .. ·-...... ·-............. ,/·' !/ -...... ____________ ! --·--·~ ,/·' _/ / ·, ',1 / / Long Lake ._ . Part XXVIII ....................... ------·-..... ' I ~<0 wn'sBay Part VII \ . ,/· _,/· ,/· ,/ ,/· ,/· ,/· ,/ / ! . G I I ' . ! City of Orono Minnesota H SITE'° (AJflr'/AJJIIKS~ MUSA BOUNDARY 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 Hackbeny (Resol. #1135 4-14-80) PartIV 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) PartYII . Count1 Road 15 Marinas (Resol. #1337 11-23-81) PartVIII Crystal Bay (R,esol. #2131 2-23-87) Part IX Fulmer Property (Resol. #21 :n 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 Brown 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. #37gl 10-28-96) PartXXII Orono Orchards · (Resol. #3 791 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) PartXXX · Dillman Property (Resol. #3791 10-28-9.6) Proposed MUSA Addition PartXXXI Maxwell Bay Area ~enei.Bgj t4 t>Deo l'i~e *Annexed to City of Long Lake TO: Mayor and Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: July 7, 1999 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Impacts: Additional Housing Mitigation Site for Consideration Charles & Sue Van Eeck:hout reside at 120 Brown Road South. The property is zoned RR-JB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre. The 20-acre site contains about 14 acres dry buildable. Mr. Van Eeck:hout was before the Planning Commission in May with a sketch plan proposal for 9 sewered building sites ranging in size from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acre. Planning Commission generally indicated this may be a site suited for clustering at the 2-acre density, and that sewer might be appropriate. Planning Commission had no strong feelings regarding a rezoning of the site, preferring to leave this to the Council. While this sketch plan will be presented to Council for discussion at a future meeting, it has occurred to staff that this site may be suited for mitigating some of the Long Lake housing to be eliminated by the Highway 12 bypass, because: the site abuts the City of Long Lake the site abuts Long Lake sewer lines the site abuts a Long Lake public street which might be extended to serve this property the site is somewhat remote from existing adjacent 2-acre developments, and is sandwiched between Fox Ridge (I-acre lots) and a number of 1/3 acre to 1 acre residential developments in Long Lake the property owner wishes to develop the site Council is asked to provide staff direction as to whether this site should be considered for a residential development at a higher density than 1 unit per 2 acres. j ·~ , ~o":i:.• ln-=:.-•t ~· -... ------lllll 1511 I 1511 15\l) I~ L¥.rl11'n .R~'-<!iz" ,.;/ , .. I I \ I . , I I ! I .. ,·. . 0~4)" ! <.!."":""'ID ~ I . / --.:I .& ..p-· ! Iv~ I I /. i-:' :.: : 1~-f.s•· /.-~ I. ">-cl , ..... t:.. I .-,t tc_,_~ . -. •• ...., I .......... ____________ , I I I I ' I ) I /~/ ! ~,,,./~ r-_ _,....,...,..-r' / ,/ / (",·.-:'. / ,~ / \ ,. ~,.r..,.:_:;.;;;;,-,,'-' / \· ./ \ -: ,,/ ,_.,_ .. :... .. """'.··-··.:. .. .:. .. _"/'/ lil \) l City of Orono Minnesota H·l SITE'° (AJrJT /AJ 11uu,) MUSA BOUNDARY CumIBNTI\WSA Part! Part II Part Ill Part IV PartV PllrtVI Part VII Part VIII Part IX PartX Part XI Part XII Part XIII PartXIY Part XV Part XVI Part XVII PartXVIII PartXIX P11rtXX PartXXI PartXXII PartXXIIl · PartXXIV P11rtXXV P11rtXXVI PartXXVII PartXXVIII PartXXIX PartXXX Navarre/Forest Lake/Tonkawa Orono Schools/Industrial Parle Hackber,y . Herrick Cin:le Chevy Chase/Ferndale <men . Mtka. Bluffs/Orono Lane/W. Ferndale • County Road is Marinas ·c,ystai Bay · Fulmer P,operty Highway 12 Corridor West Highway 12 Corridor East North Shore/Scotch Pine 6SO B,own Road North Fairway Hills Addition Long Lake/Fleming Trail• Stubbs Bay O,ono Sewer Plant P,operty Nettles Piopcrty North Long Lake · Long Lake Country Club East Long Lake Q,ono On:bards · Fox Ridge Webber Hills Edgewood Hills Bracketts.Point Foxhill Ba)'rldge/Hartwood Oiono Schools/Hockey Arena · Dillman Property · Propos.ed MUSA ~ddltlon Part XXXI . Maxwell Bay Arca • Annexed to City of Long Lake (Rcsol. #IIJS 4•14•80) (RcsoL #113S 4-14•80) (Rcsol. #I IJS 4-14·80) (Rosol. #1135 4-14-80) (RcsoL #113S 4•14•80) (Rcsol.111337 11·23•8I) (ResoL 111337 11·23·81) (ResoL #2131 2·23•87) (Resol. #213'I 2·23•87) (RcsoL #2437 S·23·88) (Rosol. #2437 5•23·88) (Rosol #3283 5•24·93) (RcsoL #3283 5•24-93) (Rosol. #3283 5•24•93) (Rosol 113283 5•24•93) (RosoL#3153 8·10-92) (Rcsol #3348 10-25•93) (Rcsol 13348 10-25•93) (Rcsol.#3791. I 0-21•96) (RcsoL #3791 10-28·96) (Rcsol. #3791 10-28•96) (Rosol. #3791 10-28·96) (Rosol #3791 10-28•96) (Rcsol #3791 10·21•96) (Rcsol. #3791 10·28•96) (Rosol. #3791 10-28·96) (Rcsol #3791 10·28·96) (Rcsol. #3791 10-28•96) · (Rcsol #3791 10-28•96) (Rcsol. #3791 10·28·96) · ~/ll>Cet>W/i (10)@ T. ) ~,~ @ ~, ~ 151 ~ "'"c::, .e-o ;) ~ ;::: t (n t:@ g ,, J",t~ 2 !j {i1§:> 1 -"';-." 0 "-I 1-~ • 1111 V ,) ,t l Ill " ~ ~ j ~ ·• a l ...... ~ @. I ·m 11) 'Clii) .. (I) -~ Ill j -..... , -- = 1 i .. C) i . 111 { ~ .i -' .. :•> -, ,, ; l .. ~ ... ~ ... -······1~ ( I) (7) I~ -•·-• 4<1l -- i ... ( I) ... -· ('3) Sf-lo~e~b 't>IST'Mcr· ~O~Nt>M.'f .· V I J:>1 f c-4J-,:1 t,,-.) ~ /Jfll'-j ~""' 7 -B -7 9 -u-v't.N~<-IVV D1 ~-~ ;1t1_s s~~ 8 t:ff ~I S~SS't:-~ IN ~ Ul'-,;)~T C)'f= ,4-~USN/N6 ;4fJ/J'-1, c__ 1 I I -T/<rc"' ~(;;; lt>(U(,(f/2..R} /J ;1V~7t,.1J.&~/2. ~/,' ~~~ ~ ~NG.. S~ ~ Pt..SCI-I.S.fleNS &c..~ /N A-f!V-.J!.L.I C-. ~)AIJ..;,.._ ~ t- ie C.//€ WtU-1~ 7b %,..-. ta~s I~ CktA_ /IV'$-77; ~ w~ ~ IJ ~.-,, ro bo A S2lJ,Ni N~ Afpt..,t_ c__ ~ ~/~IJfof ~ ~~~ ~v62. ~ ~~ $r_,~ ;I ~ lj . ~"' /,JoUL'f> 1¢ I rz ~ ~)/JC;, IS C '-)r~vie -~g ~ c~ ~t~~ ~ ~ ~~~I\J es. O RONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999 #2488 GREGG KLOHN, CONTINUED Klehn stated he would like the application to be tabled. Hawn inq~ired whether he _would be Willing to waive the 60 day time limit. Klehn 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 outlet 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 re~arked 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 COMMISSION MEETING 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 number of trees also exist on the property which cannot be cut down. Van Eeckhoi.Jt. 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 PRD 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 PUO 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 PRD would require extension of the sewer. Hawn stated that a PRO probably would require extension of the sewer. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17, 1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED Gaffron 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 some 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 two 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 on 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 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: May 12, 1999 SUBJECT: #2490 Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South-Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-lB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, septic/well Proposal: Subdivide 20-acre parcel to create 9 sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres in area. The proposal as presented would require: 1. Rezoning from RR-lB (Single Family, 2 Acre) to R-lA (Single Family, 1 Acre) 2. Sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake 3. Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) 4. At least two variances to the "Back Lot" ordinance 5. Creation of a private road in a substandard ( 40') corridor 6. At least two lot width variances 7. Creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek 8. Construction of road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands. 9. Creation of a wetland outlet for "Park" which would be in conflict with City requirements that wetlands in plats be platted as part of adjoining lots. 10. Construction of an 800'+ private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. List of Exhibits A -Application B -Area Plat Map C -Shoreland Map D -Survey/Sketch Plan with Topography E -RR-lB Zoning District Standards F -R-1 A Zoning District Standards G -Rural Land Use Policies : CNP pages 4-19 thru 4-22 Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not conform to the RR-1 B Zoning District Standards nor to many of the rural area goals and policies contained in the Land Use section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (See Exhibits E, F and G). Applicant has suggested to staff that the 1975 rezoning which changed this area from 1-acre density to 2-acre, should be considered as a 'taking' of value, and that this property should be allowed to develop under I-acre standards. Staff strongly disagrees, and would note that dozens of properties #2490 -V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page2 similarly rezoned in 1975 have been developed under the current 2-acre zoning standards in the quarter century since that rezoning. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. It might be argued that the I-plus acre lot sizes proposed are a reasonable transition from Long Lake's higher density SFR developments to Orono's low-density rural area. However, Orono has a number of successful 2-acre developments adjacent to Long Lake's higher density areas, and the need for a transition is questionable at best. Lot Layout and Lot Standards The proposed lot layout is clearly intended to make use of any and all high, dry ground on the property for building purposes. For instance, the majority of proposed Lot 4, Block 2, is no more than 3-4' above creek level, and can only be accessed by constructing a driveway directly adjacent to the creek within the 75' required creek setback where no structrure or hardcover is allowed. Lot 4 clearly should not be considered for development. Lot 3 block 2 is a 3/4 acre high knob south of the creek adjacent to the Luce Line, proposed to be accessed by a 300' driveway outlot between lots 2 and 5, diagonally down a 40% slope along the north side of the creek. It would require a bridge over the creek. In order to make this driveway useful, it would have to be extended significantly along the slope adjacent to the creek. Under the 2-acre standards, this lot would not be buildable unless many variances were granted, and it certainly does not have viable septic sites. The knob nearly meets the requirements to be considered a bluff, which would complicate matters even further. Under I-acre standards with sewer, access to the site is still the primary concern. Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, Block 2, appear to be viable building sites under a I-acre standard, although Losts 2 and 5 would likely need width variances. Under a 2-acre standard without sewer, perhaps only 1 additional lot besides the existing house could be developed in the area south of the main driveway, OutlotA. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, each back up to the Long lake boundary and would be served by a private cul-de-sac, although both Lots 2 and 3 are back lots, and under the I-acre standard Lot 2 doesn't #2490 -V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 3 meet the 150% area requirement. Wetland appears to be a factor here which has led to the shortened cul-de-sac and two back lots being proposed. In general, there is a significant of disconnected dry buildable on this property which begs the use of a PRD, regardless whether it is platted under the 2-acre or I-acre standards. Road Layout and Standards There are a number of problems with the proposed private road system: There is only a 40'corridor coming in off Brown Road where 50' would be required. Outlot A should be extended to serve at least Lot 2, Block 1 rather than stacking back lots on a narrow drivway outlot. Outlot B would probably work OK if Lots 3 and 4 weren't developed, but may need significant land alteration to result in the maximum 12% slope allowed. Outlot C in staffs opinion should be avoided as an access to Lots 3 and 4. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed? The Park Commission will review this proposal if it goes forward as a preliminary plat. Neither the City's park plans nor County plans indicate a need for any acquisitions at this location. The apparent proposal to deed Outlot E, the wetlands, as Park area is not likely to be accepted since the subdivision code would require that a Drainage Easement or Flowage and Conservation Easement be dedicated over the wetlands and creek as a condition of plat approval. The Park dedication ordinance requires that lands dedicated as park be suited for defined park purposes. This area does not appear to have such a purpose, and the City likely would require a park dedication fee rather than land dedication. However, there is a possibility that the proximity to the Luce Line Trail would suggest that some land adjacent to the trail may be suited for park use ... Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed A dedication of 33' of right of way for Brown Road would be required. Comments from Hennepin County Public Works would be solicited if/when a preliminary plat application is made. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The sketch plan drawings do not propose any stormwater facilities which would likely be required. The property appears to accept drainage from the adjacent developments in Long Lake, and due the proximity to the creek, stormwater management, especially from a quality standpoint, will have to be developed if this subdivision goes forward. #2490 -V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 4 Utility Locations and Availability Orono does not have sewer or water available to serve this area. The City has considered options for serving the Fox Ridge neighborhood with sewer via a force main discharging to the Long Lake sewer system as an alternative to running it south to the Webber Hills area. Long Lake staff have indicated while their system likely has capacity to serve additional homes, they will not formally consider a request from Van Eeckhout for sewer until/unless Orono approves the development. If this property was to be served with sewer via Long Lake, the developer would bear all costs of making use of that system. Septic Testing and Site Availability No septic testing information has been provided, and staff would note that it is highly unlikely that suitable sites would be found on all of the lots in the current layout. The applicant acknowledges this, and that is one reason he is requesting the rezoning and sewered development. Conformity with Shoreland Regulations Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. The plat drawings show a number of areas where conflicts with the Shoreland regulations may occur, and some of these have been noted above. The key conflict would be establishment of a driveway within 75' of the creek for Lots 3 and 4 which requires a variance to Section 10.56 Subdivision 16(J)(3). Wetlands The sketch plan indicates that wetland have been formally delineated, but no Wetland delineation Report has been submitted. All wetlands on the sketch plan are shown within Orono's 1974-75 Protected Wetland Inventory, and the formally delineated boundaries would ultimately become the boundaries for easement purposes. The developer will receive no lot area credit for delineated wetlands regardless of wetland type, unless other separate basins of lesser wetland types not shown on Orono's Protected Wetland Maps are found by the delineator. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Portions of the site are heavily wooded. The same 0-75' tree protection standards that apply to lakeshore would also apply to areas within 75' of the creek bank. #2490 -V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 5 Archaeological Site Proximity SHPO would be contacted for a review of this site if a preliminary plat is submitted. The high hills overlooking the creek are a natural feature that triggers an archaeological review to determine whether archaeological sites may be present. Bluff Impacts A cursory review of the topography map indicates that while slopes exceed 30% in many areas of the site, most such slopes do not rise the requisite 25' above the creek level in order to be defined as bluffs. There are many 'steep slopes' on the site (by definition averaging 12% or more) that will trigger the need for careful review of any grading plan proposed. Issues for Discussion 1. Does Planning Commission find any justification for supporting the rezoning of this property fromRR-lB 2-acre unsewered, to R-lA I-acre sewered? Is the 1975 rezoning a justification for honoring such a request? Isn't such a rezoning in direct conflict with Orono's goals and policies for the rural area? 2. Whether or not the property is rezoned, is the probable lack of suitable drainfield sites to serve more than a few lots, justification for developing with sewer? 3. If the site does in fact contain 11-plus acres of dry buildable land exclusive of proposed road· and driveway outlets, and given the non-contiguity of the dry buildable due to wetlands and the creek, does this suggest that development via a PRD might be appropriate? Remember that area credit for wetlands is no longer available even if the property is sewered, regardless of a rezoning. Staff Recommendation The property can probably support only one or two additional homes under the City's rural development standards, and even at this level of development would likely need one or more variances. In staffs opinion, the 1975 rezoning does not justify a claim of 'taking' and should not be a factor in any determination for rezoning or variance approval. #2490 -V anEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page 6 The Rural Land Use Policies clearly indicate that the rural area will not be urbanized, i.e. it won't be provided with urban services and it won't be expanded by rezoning. The City has held fast to this policy except for a few unique cases, i.e. Sugar Woods on Brown Road North ( the short story on this was: provided with sewer to preserve trees, rezoned to prevent annexation); and the sewering of existing rural neighborhoods where septic systems were not a viable long-term alternative. There are two innovative options Planning Commission might consider for developing this property, that may be consistent with the City's rural area goals: A. Based on the proximity to the creek, this is a sensitive Shoreland area. As was done with Little Orchard on Maxwell Bay, it may be reasonable to allow the developer to prove how many lots he could develop under our rural standards (by actually doing septic testing and reworking lot layouts as necessary), then allow that number of lots to be developed with sewer. This preserves the rural density while eliminating potential pollution from septic systems near the creek. B. To go one step further, the city might allow the number oflots that could be developed using septic systems, to be developed via a sewered PRD by clusteri!!'.:: the home~i+""' 11ear the existing residence and leaving the majority of theproperty as preserved open space. This could potentially cut down on the costs of road and driveway construction while yielding homes that all have views of and access to the creek. Either A or B might be accomplished without rezoning, but both would require a MUSA amendment. While the Little Orchard MUSA amendment was found acceptable by Met Council due to proximity to Lake Minnetonka, a similar case would have to be made for this site. Planning Commission should provide applicant with direction as to the rezoning and sewering issues. No vote is required. However, this application will be forwarded to Council since it proposes a rezoning which is a policy decision that only Council can ultimately make. f~ Ok ~ Be Zkfoe JM. { /V {) (;IOS 1 r1j /lLJC{G/L-,-5 -~6~ :fttJT ~Z-aNe ~ , ~~? I ~~ -fl o uvk'/ ,, CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 In w:cordance wilh M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other locai, stale or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. ·· 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. Ct+f.\ First l 2-,D Address 1.-o NOJ City --Signature I '< VivVJ~Gt:..,,~1,.~o Middle Last 5 OJ 71.,~ t>rl-01.,ur-> ~o/\-,D Lt~~~ lV10 953¼ State Zip Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 16 6-, I 2 --L( 7 3 / O 8 2 )- Phone Sec.13.04 RIGH1S OF SliBJECTS OF DATA Subdivision 1. Type of data. The rights of individual on whom the data is stored or to be stored shall be as set forth in this section. Subd. 2. Information required to be given individual. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning himself shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether he may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; ( c) any known consequence arising from his supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and ( d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, s;.ibdivision 5, to a law enforcement officer. The commissioner of revenue may place the notice required under this subdivision in the individual income tax or property tax refund instrnctions instead of on those forms. Subd. 3. Access to data by individual. Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether he is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon his further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge to him and, if he desires, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to him for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional dala on foe individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If he cannot comply with the request within that time, he shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Subd. 4. Procedure when data is not accurate or complete. An individual may contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data concerning himself. To exercise this right, an individua1 shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the :lisagreemc:!~, The resp0nsibk :.mthority shall within 30 days either: (a) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (b) notify the individual that he believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual's statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data. The determination of the responsible authority may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the administrative procedure act relating to contested cases. 17 Deadline Date Noon on: December 22, 1997 January 21, 1998 February 18, 1998 March 25, 1998 April 22, 1998 May 20, 1998 June 24, 1998 July 22, 1998 August 19, 1998 September 23, 1998 October 21, 1998 November 18, 1998 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 . 275 0 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 -0066 1998 APPLICATION DEADLINES Planning Commission: City Council: ~-~:l, ( ] Tuesday, January 20, 1998 February 9, 1998 ......_~ .. ,.~..._ .... ,,JO..'!.IL..311/1"' ~ Tuesday, February 17, 1998 March 9, 1998 iR~~~ ff, ' Monday, March ,i-.'Z, 1998 April 13, 1998 ,_.,.j/ {[Cc Monday, April 20, 1998 May 11, 1998 "] f ~~~:r~-~ Monday, May 18, 1998 June 8, 1998 n (•-~ "-lr'. Monday,JunelS,1998 July 13, 1998 . ~ .. Monday, July 20, 1998 August 10, 1998 _,. Monday, August 17, 1998 September 14, 1998 ~-~ ~ Monday,Sept.21,1998 October 12, 1998 ~r,: ~ Monday, October 19, 1998 November 9, 1998 Monday,Nov.16,1998 December 14, 1998 Monday, December 14, TBA 1998 Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473--0510 HARDCOVER ORDINANCE-In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting the percentage oflot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover") such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones -Allowed Percentages: 0-75 0% 75-250' 25% 250-500' 30% 500-1000' 35% Hardcover includes: -Roofs -Sidewalks -Paved or gravel driveways -Patios & decks (includes slatted decks) -Tops of retaining walls & rock walls -Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric -Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75', 75-250', etc.) the calculation is for. 2. For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). 3. Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. 4. Divide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. 5. If changes in hardcover are proposed, you should do a "before" worksheet and "after worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than those allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planning! 12 II.:.' t ~ . .. },,-c:,:---;ro'-:,_~:----.:,,,..+ "'---- &WlCDVE1 CALCII.AT~Oll UT snu.a: ZOHC, cc,acu -D-75' 7S-2S0' 2SD-SOO' soo-1000• U ISTI 11G lluOGOVt:A I ■ L,ac A. lkwu 10,,, X 3.0-:-2 -/~O ----'"---- ----'"---- ----'"---- ----'"---- I. "G.,..u.Q ----X ---- C .. CalvtlllAT ____ X ___ _ --,,---:r ---- a. s,"'"""-"----'"---- s.,. s., .. s.,. s.,. s.,. s.,. s.,. s.,. s.,. ----'"----____ ,.,. © ----:r ----,. E:~"' S' " /l:; -:---s.,. ([§) f Zc22 ,.,. IBO,.,.@ ,.Was.cut A.IUJ ~0L1.U•• /✓ "0' ~ Al/ G, ,. _.,,;;i.._.._'--_ ::....sr1c ----:r ---- Sl«.frtN ----'"---- ----'"---- •• On,u ----'"---- Tar.._ lluOCIO'>'U •• Z-• ____ ,.,. ____ ,.,. ____ ,.,. ___ ,.,. tf5ff .. ,. m Biz.so,.,. m : :!]~'2SO • JOO -s. 5 % I 1.f>o ,..: •. SAMPLE HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (Note: Use a survey for a base map) Area of 0-75' zone: 75 1 X llQ 1 =·1s ,250 5 .f •I Area of· 75-250' zone: (112' + 152') X lOO' 2 .=jl3,200 s.f.j --- HAlOCO'IEl CALCIUTIO!I ~ snucx z.oac, Cc1acu: ,-) 0-75'~2S0-SOO• S00-1000' UISTI"' JIAaOC.,. ... ,. z,_ A. Jlo,nc 3.0 LUCTM /_Q, •. a..a-2..'-I C. ll.t1VOU.T 2.0 l S- a. s, .. ...._. 3." : ·;_ :--· :-B, ,. t~!°' 1,UJIHCIN ........ •OULUa IT r-u.srrc s,cu, .. ,. 3o . qoo .. ,.CD wu:ine x 3,0 !.;z. /50 s.,.@ " :r :r :r 2-L-/ :r 30 " l .S- :r 3 2-' J: LO. J: J: J: " " ____ ,.,. ____ ,.,. ____ ,.,. -57(p s.,. ® • (poQ •. ,. ® -:2-?---S:: •. ,. © -qro s.,.G) f>O ,.,.© ____ s.,. ____ ,.,. ----'·'· ----'·'· _____ ,.,. -0 ~\J €.UJ A'( L'-1 :r 1/0 . 5t::,o,.,.@ .. Onto• J: ____ s.,. Tar .... llAaOC0¥CII ,. z-. ~-,.,. @ Ta, .... , .... ",__. ,~.z--13, 200 ,.,. ill m 3.t'B, -:-ID 13 12001100 -:z.. L/ ~ I % 13 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X S.F. Length Width X = S.F. X S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. C. Driveway X S.F. X S.F. D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X S.F. E. Patio/Deck X S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X .S.F. Underlain X S.F. By Plastic X S.F. Or Fabric G. Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B A B X 100 = % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X S.F. Length Width X S.F. X = S.F. X S.F. B. Garage X S.F. C. Driveway X S.F. X S.F. D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X S.F. E. Patio/Deck X S.F. X S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlain X S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. Or Fabric G. Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B A -'-B X 100 % 14 SEPTIC SYSTEM INFORMATION SHEET ON-SITE INSTALLATION OR ADDITION REQUIRED: -For all new construction outside districts served by municipal sewer. -Any time the existing system is classified non-conforming or when the addition of bedrooms, installation of mechanical or plumbing equipment, or other factors are likely to affect the system. PROCEDURE FOR ON-SITE INSTALLATION OR REPAIR 1. A City licensed site evaluator must perform soil testing and system design (MPCA certification required). 2. Septic report must be submitted to the City Offices for review. 3. Once system design is approved, distribute report to contractors for bidding. 4. A City licensed septic contractor may then apply for permit. GENERAL INFORMATION -When planning new home constmction or additions to an existing home, both primary or existing and future drainfield sites must be preserved for the long term use of the property. All setbacks and property lines must be verified prior to the issuance of a septic system permit. -Once drainfield sites have been identified, snow fencing must be placed surrounding sites to prevent them from damage. Vehicular traffic such as cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc. could compact drainfield sites rendering them unusable, prohibiting the timely completion of the project and or limit the long term use of the property. Snow fencing must be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15 ~ /1fB ~ ~ &-S)CCFD r;f{2ei 1 ~ Pt--__ rvt-~ y;~ ---- ~ /?ri 9 ~ 1 ~:_~Vo'~ f=--IF --- --vJ.A=-~ -· -------~-- /t t? -~ ------ tAS>CA1f0~ -~ ~ ~---- ! ~f~ /}q,v..,.-S ~DP"~ ~ StTS. 1/00 fB~c__ Ror---6;20(.,JN ~ (ts A-~ ~1S'1~ t::~·--.s -----~ --- t/0 'X JS:V I t94bf!'LOt ~ J:>o£_ F:eo~ ~ ~~ (t10 ' l> $~~~ fLc_o W~ fi>/2-A- /U'r:3J.) (<'<-/~ ,e.l),4£:) j 50 1 ,4Ut.u,,:~--;) j cue (;o~~ /00 l cJ uJ {\.j {?{!-{) P~ ~ /J,, ~ ,S :,,, t) f= w=,C<..~ S: C) l.-<Jf'"Z..o T-, l~ µcn-~N ~~g~ ~ AJtXL_ f?tefjv t~- W t~ ~~--eve -17-H MLS ~ s~l>Z._ ~ ~~l or-L,L., I~ ~,~~L~t ----- ----- ,,-Ce:>0,fnAJ, / Sff< w/Jw17c-=; ~J f t-,t,t_r;. A ~B.~6 . -A/ft2-0Xe :!::>O ?: t?-p .:St~ rr //J ~~ Pu-t/\J~ ~ /J-t::D /-rlOl:J.A-1.--, ~ IS_LN ~ ;4-ez>ff Fw~ PtA:-J/0 '-?ol0~ ~ ~ P'Uv-JS JJ{)vUN er~rr--i'>D ~ ~~ k ~f.A-e¢-oS..S SL. ~ ~F .S 1-re- -~ks:$. 6P-5n~ ~~ ~1.;J~ TO ~J.A-?AJ ~---1/tf OF ~1 ef tS c.,()rOHN s~ -VtSf72c,er --~CJF b H {31i(1L~~ (/UPN -W~~)t-s --~ - ( I) C7) '~ : : .! • •'11' .... ~ .......... •·ili'ti --44) -- '1 ,. CI) (3) 45Hott e lJct,Jb 1>1 ST Mor · ioc-<N I>~ 'f .. V ()